Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

David_e

richy_young1987 wrote: »

Do we have a case for compensation? or in this EC?

Have a read of the FAQs. Lots of useful stuff in there. It will help you understad the issues and the options open to you.

Soulfish

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for their help in this thread. Had our case against thomsons heard on the 27th November, Judge found in our favour and we were awarded just under £4800 for 8 people with interest at 4%, court fees and witness costs (£90).

Judge also refused them leave to appeal, but we've been waiting to see if they still put in a request for permission to appeal. Payment was due 2 days ago and of course there's been no contact from Thomson. Just deciding what action to take next. Charging order on their bank account or high court writ of ferias facias and send the bailiffs in!

111KAB

Well done Soulfish!


http://thesheriffsoffice.com/?gclid=CJDhh_zPvrsCFdOWtAodIVoADg

Vauban

Great result Soulfish - very well done!

legal_magpie

Well done. They had 21 days to apply to the Circuit Judge for permission to appeal so it is worthwhile your ringing the Court to find out if they have. If they haven't, you could certainly enforce but I reckon that they will pay. They did in my case and it is possible that the payment is held up in the Christmas post.
I would hold off enforcement until after the holidays especially as not much will happen anyway and by the time you get the papers off to the Court and they have dealt with it, you will probably have your money.
If not, get the Sheriff to take one of their aircraft. Perhaps we could all go an early New Year jaunt!
JJ

David_e

Soulfish wrote: »

high court writ of ferias facias

I'd do that to them because it sound quite painful.

nquire76

I have just arrived back from the Court having attempted to oppose a stay application from Thomson's in respect of my long outstanding claim.
Thomson's Barrister did not appear at the due time. He telephoned to say that he was being held up in another Court in a case that was going considerably over it's scheduled time.
Even so the Judge said that he had no option but to allow the stay and intimated that any Small Claims Court case where the defence put forward by any aircraft operator which specifies ' technical faults caused by exceptional circumstances' will now be stayed until a ruling has been made on the Huzar/Jet2.Com appeal.
He also said that all such cases, should the appeal be allowed, would be transferred to a Court near to the operator's main office, i.e. Luton in the case of Thomsons, for the hearing to be held.The reasoning behind this decision was because the very large number of cases affected would then be dealt with by Judges who would have a lot of experience in such cases and presumably more consistent judgments would be handed down. Also, technical witnesses acting on behalf of the defendants would not have so far to travel.
I argued about the extra costs i.e. travelling, loss of earnings and possible hotel bills that would be involved by claimants in such cases, but he was not swayed by my arguments.
So what started off as a relatively cheap easy claim through the Small Claims Court looks as though it will escalate into something much more involved and expensive to pursue.

HRHughes

(This is my first post so I hope it is in the correct place, sorry if it is not.)
Is there anyone on the Forum who was a passenger on Thomson Airways flight number TOM742 on 25 June 2011 from Glasgow to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic that was delayed 11 hours and 29 minutes and if so, did you submit a claim for compensation to Thomson?
Thomson rejected my claim (made on behalf of our party of 9) citing “extraordinary circumstances” for the delay. I contacted The Civil Aviation Authority and they agreed the claim was justified but Thomson again refused. After more written exchanges including asking if any other claim from this flight had been received Thomson declined to answer and informed me that “any further correspondence received will not be responded to.”
I am seeking the advice of a no win/no fee solicitor.

MrsChewy

Have you seen this (cant post link as newbie) europarl.europa.eu

Gorbar

MrsChewy wrote: »

Have you seen this (cant post link as newbie) europarl.europa.eu

Loopholes that airlines use to deny compensation to passengers delayed for over three hours should be closed by Transport Committee amendments, voted on Tuesday, to the European Commission’s proposal on revised air passenger rights. These amendments further restrict grounds for denying information, compensation and assistance, and make it easier for national authorities to penalise airlines that do not fulfil their obligations.

“Today, we see massive abuse of passenger rights by certain airlines which simply ignore passengers’ complaints or requests, or systematically cite ‘extraordinary circumstances’ as grounds for denying them compensation”, said Georges Bach (EPP, LU), who is steering the legislative proposal through Parliament. “Due to lack of information and enforcement by authorities, only 2% of passengers entitled to compensation actually get it under current rules”, he added. MEPs tabled some 600 amendments to tighten up the Commission proposal and “put the passenger back at the centre of this legislation”, said Mr Bach.

Clear definition of unforeseeable "extraordinary circumstances”

The “extraordinary circumstances” in which compensation may be denied should be limited to events (listed in the annexes) beyond the actual control of the air carrier and which “could not be avoided even if reasonable measures had been correctly taken by the airline”. Any airline wishing to deny passengers compensation for flight disruption, should have to prove the existence of such circumstances, in writing, to the passenger, MEPs added.

Compensation due after three hours’ delay on short flights

In the absence of such extraordinary circumstances, airlines should offer passengers compensation, reimbursement and/or re-routing in the event of denial of boarding or delays upon arrival exceeding:

three hours for flights of up to 2,500 km (€300 compensation),
five hours for flights of up to 6,000 km (€400), or
seven hours for flights of over 6,000 km (€600).

The Commission’s proposal of 5-9-12 hour thresholds was rejected.

Passengers should be given the right to disembark after three’ hours maximum delay on the tarmac (down from five according to the Commission proposal).

Competent staff to inform and help stranded passengers in airports

Whereas the Commission proposal would require airlines only to inform delayed passengers on-the-spot, no later than 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time, MEPs say air carriers should have to set up contact points at airports where staff can inform passengers faced with flight disruptions or luggage delays, damage or loss, of their rights and choices, including complaint procedures and forms, and help them by taking immediate action. If an airline fails to respond in full to complaints within two months, it must be deemed to accept the passenger’s claim, according to the amended new rules.