Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

delvey wrote: »

Which judgement specific points to faults on an aircraft on a previous flight? As Thomson are claiming a technical fault on an earlier flight.

I'm not aware that there is such a judgement. But it follows that if Wallentin and now Huzar both says technical faults are rarely to be regarded as extraordinary, it is irrelevant whether it happened on your flight or on a preceding one. It#s not "extraordinary" regardless.

delvey

Thanks, thought there was something about a problem on a previous flight, thus annuling any claim of EC on the actual flight. Ah well, have read Huzar and pointed specifically to point 27

dp2603

Had my time in court today - all 10 minutes of it.

Thomsons standard defence was in 2 parts, (i) 2 year time limit and (ii) EC's. They wrote to the court a few days ago asking that part (i) of the case be stayed pending their appeal in the Dawson case and that only the EC part of their defence be heard. I said to the judge that I was claiming under Reg. 261/2004, which is separate to the Montreal Convention and, therefore, the 6 year limit should hold and asked for the case to be heard in full today.

The judge acknowledged that it was an interesting statement but ruled that it was sensible for the whole case to be stayed for 3 months pending the Dawson appeal. He ordered the Defendant to notify the court by letter in respect of the appeal by 11 weeks from today and to send a copy to me.

No doubt this will be the stand adopted by Thomson in future cases where the 2 year limit is cited.

Vauban

I fear this will be a common experience for many. But there we are - nothing you can do about it. Are we sure however that the appeal will be heard within the next 11 weeks? I thought I'd heard end of May?

JarvJarv

Many thanks for the info David_e.

My Flight was TOM 62 on 28 Jan 2011 and the flight effecting it was TOM 92 departing on 27 Jan 2011. If anyone has any information concerning these flights or is progressing a claim in connection with either I would be pleased to hear from them.

JJ

legal_magpie

delvey wrote: »

Which judgement specific points to faults on an aircraft on a previous flight? As Thomson are claiming a technical fault on an earlier flight.

The case in question is
Finnair Oyj –v- Timy Lassooy ( ECJ Case C-22/11)

It is in the FAQs.

DTDfanBoy

delvey wrote: »

Which judgement specific points to faults on an aircraft on a previous flight? As Thomson are claiming a technical fault on an earlier flight.

This is the judgment you need to focus on if the airline can somehow prove that the technical difficulties were actually EC's as defined by Wallentin

Finnair v Lassooy

2. Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

socrates1882

I can confirm that the Dawson appeal is listed at the Court of Appeal on the 12th of May 2014.

woodcr

dp2603 wrote: »

Had my time in court today - all 10 minutes of it.

Thomsons standard defence was in 2 parts, (i) 2 year time limit and (ii) EC's. They wrote to the court a few days ago asking that part (i) of the case be stayed pending their appeal in the Dawson case and that only the EC part of their defence be heard. I said to the judge that I was claiming under Reg. 261/2004, which is separate to the Montreal Convention and, therefore, the 6 year limit should hold and asked for the case to be heard in full today.

The judge acknowledged that it was an interesting statement but ruled that it was sensible for the whole case to be stayed for 3 months pending the Dawson appeal. He ordered the Defendant to notify the court by letter in respect of the appeal by 11 weeks from today and to send a copy to me.

No doubt this will be the stand adopted by Thomson in future cases where the 2 year limit is cited.

Could you tell me what the dawson case is about as i am about to issue a nba to thomson after being refused compensation because of the 2 year rule. thanks

PERKIE

Hi
I am in the process of my claim with Thomson for a flight delay to Menorca this year of just over 4 hours. They have claimed extraordinary circumstances' based on the previous flight having a technical fault not discovered in routine maintenance. They have also stated that in the draftguidelines published by the European Commission extraordinary circumstances couldbe considered as ‘any technical issues which cause the pilot to carry out anaircraft turnaround or diversion’ yet despite my asking them specifically on 2 occasions whether these werethe actions taken by the pilot on the flight deemed to be the root cause of mydelay they have yet to answer.
On Friday I received through the post from them (only identified by their postal address on the envelope) an EU Flight delay adjustment scheme application form. There was no covering letter with this and it is asking me to complete all the details of my claim again along with £48 to CEDR which I understand to be dispute mediators. I just wondered whether anyone else had received this and what you did? Should I just ignore it as there was no covering letter with it and proceed with my NBA (which is my next course of action) or whether I should complete the form and return it? Thanks