Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

panholio

Great, I need a copy of this ASAP!

111KAB

panholio wrote: »

Great, I need a copy of this ASAP!

One on this site > https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints

panholio

Great thank you. I haven't produced a skeleton argument. My argument was included with my court bundle. I will include this however.

Mark2spark

Finding #27 is the one that needs to be highlighted:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/179933236/Jet2-appeal

Just in case the judge only skims through it, that'll open his/her eyes.

Mark2spark

Tunisian_girl wrote: »

Please can someone advise as to what to do now.

They have stated that their position is final, therefore it's off to court you go.

If you like letter writing you can have one more try and send them THIS with section 27 highlighted.
Up to you.

Mark2spark

nicki_d987 wrote: »

In case of the issue that delayed your flight, the delay was caused by an unforeseen technical issue, arising from the emergence of a technical defect that doesn't fall into the category of something that was or ought to have been discovered during routine maintenance.

In the case of the issue that affected your scheduled aircraft, the technical issue was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of the failure of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement that scheme appropriately. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances. For this reason compensation is not payable under the Regulation.


Is this worth me pursuing do you think?

You have a case but you'll probably end up having to go to court to get anywhere.
Read THIS and then send them a copy with the pertaining points highlighted.

Vauban

richardw wrote: »

....er perhaps best not get too personal in the public domain....he is a solicitor after all!

Indeed - it is a brave man who libels a lawyer. (Though I think JP is confusing his birds). I mentioned the defence's counsel in my case because of the comments made at the end of His Honour's statement about the bullying of litigants-in-person.

It was explained to me by my opponent's barrister that, where only one side has counsel, the barrister has an obligation to the court as well as to his or her client, which means that they will generally - out of this sense of professional obligation - treat the LIP more gently and even assist on particular points of law or process. During the ten minutes or so of my own hearing (before it was adjourned) I found him absolutely true to his word.

Others may have had a different experience, but I didn't feel bullied or unduly coerced. Of course our adversarial form of justice doesn't make for an entirely comfortable experience, but I have great respect for the barristers - especially those who have to argue that black is white (or technical problems are extraordinary).

Mark2spark

I sort of get the feeling vauban, that following Huzar, you're not going to get your day in court now

Damn! I really wanted to know how they were going to get out of some of the points

Vauban

Well let's see: Monarch haven't demonstrated much common sense so far, so it's entirely possible that they may persist in this folly ... I sent the court a copy of the Huzar judgement this afternoon, and emailed a version to Monarch's legal team.

Mark2spark

Oooh.... wish there was a smiley of a waste paper bin, I could have demonstrated Monarchs filing system for Huzar then :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: