Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Mark2spark

Tunisian_girl wrote: »

Mark2spark wrote: »

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

I sent an e mail today and attached the documents and quoted paragraph 27. This is my reply.



Thank you for your correspondence, I am advised to inform you that our decision remains the same and that this unfortunately is our final stance with regards to our previous communications.

Off to court you go then! Don't forget to add interest on :rotfl:

Mark2spark

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Would this forum be quite as busy had they won

They was never going to 'win' though DTD, was they, especially after the attorney generals opinion several months before.
Ridiculous that they're still arguing the toss really.
If the CAA had any spine - remember they are appointed as the ENFORCEMENT body (for consumers) - then there ought to have been a few more airlines taken to task by now.

nicki_d987

Hi everyone, just wondered if anyone has written an NBA specifically since the publication of the Huzar v Jet2.com judgement. I'd love to have a look if someone has!?
Thanks!

Vauban

nicki_d987 wrote: »

Hi everyone, just wondered if anyone has written an NBA specifically since the publication of the Huzar v Jet2.com judgement. I'd love to have a look if someone has!?
Thanks!

No - but it can't be hard to amend the current template by adding an extra line. "Following the Huzar judgement this month by His Honour Judge Platts, it is clear that UK courts will not accept that most technical problems such as those experienced on my flight can constitute "extraordinary circumstances"."

David_e

Mark2spark wrote: »

They was never going to 'win' though DTD, was they, especially after the attorney generals opinion several months before.
Ridiculous that they're still arguing the toss really.

That's what I find so frustrating. The law is pretty clear, even to a lay person like me. EC, if applied correctly, is a very high hurdle indeed. Airlines' arguments do not address the legal position correctly - because the facts in 99.99% of cases don't give them the opportunity. Instead, they create their own criteria - or just parrot "EC" without even thinking what it is supposed to mean! Although correspondence usually comes from "Customer Services", the airlines will all have sufficient legal resources to know what the law is. The conclusion I reach is that they are not acting in good faith much of the time.

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

The conclusion I reach is that they are not acting in good faith much of the time.

As Dr. Watson might say, "No sh--, Sherlock!"

DTDfanBoy

Mark2spark wrote: »

They was never going to 'win' though DTD, was they, especially after the attorney generals opinion several months before.
Ridiculous that they're still arguing the toss really.
If the CAA had any spine - remember they are appointed as the ENFORCEMENT body (for consumers) - then there ought to have been a few more airlines taken to task by now.

Permission to appeal is not something that is granted lightly by any of the Courts, the vast majority of cases heard at appeal will be based on compelling legal arguments from either side. Very few appeals with no chance of success will actually make it to hearing in the lower courts, even fewer will appear before the higher ones.

I would suggest that almost nothing has ever been brought before the ECJ where no clarification of Law has been required, and I'd bet my house that nothing has ever been heard before the Grand Chamber that was based on a legal argument that had no real prospect of success


Anyhow in light of the recent Huzar v Jet2 I've started my claim against Thomson :j

I was planning on initiating action early next year, but as I can't see Huzar lasting too long, I'll make hay while the sun shines

I'd advise anyone who may have been holding off to follow suit, IMHO it's only a matter of time before the airlines lodge some appeals specifically designed to cast doubt over the Husar ruling, as things stand at present they'd be mad not to.

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

As Dr. Watson might say, "No sh--, Sherlock!"

I'm practising my legalese for when my case gets to court!

Gromit22

Hello all, I had sent Directions Questionnaire to Court and Thomson. Received a call yesterday offering settlement for proportion of claim. Considered overnight and called back refusing as we were so badly treated. Then offered settlement in full. Thanks to everyone for the invaluable advice. It was worth all the effort in the end.:beer:

Vauban

Well done! Now that's the way to do it!