Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

111KAB

MrsChewy wrote: »

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

This applies to all airlines not just Thomson.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

So what is happening for Thomson claims that have been stayed under the guise of the appeal due in May? We have a claim and Thomson withdrew their "extraordinary circumstances" defence and chose to rely on the two year Montreal Convention. The appeal from the Cambridge Court then turned up so the case was stayed. Am I right to assume that Thomson have thrown away the EC defence for good and should the Dawson appeal go against Thomson they should simply post out a cheque or would we need to go back to court for a judgement? Maybe they will appeal the Dawson appeal?

JPears

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

So what is happening for Thomson claims that have been stayed under the guise of the appeal due in May? We have a claim and Thomson withdrew their "extraordinary circumstances" defence and chose to rely on the two year Montreal Convention. The appeal from the Cambridge Court then turned up so the case was stayed. Am I right to assume that Thomson have thrown away the EC defence for good and should the Dawson appeal go against Thomson they should simply post out a cheque or would we need to go back to court for a judgement? Maybe they will appeal the Dawson appeal?

If T loose their appeal against 2 year, I suspoect you will have to go back to court and gain judgement, but that should be easy if they are not relying on EC (and Huzar may well be decided by then) however if T loose than I would give them an opportunity to pay up, including interest and your expenses, before going back to court. Point out the legal costs they will save (probably more than your claim)
All the airlines, irrespective of the various appeals results, are going to have a considerable number of CCJs against them. This does not look good to shareholders or potential investors/finance houses.

JPears

nquire76 wrote: »

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.

Remember Jet2 have got 2 hurdles to leap in thier appeal against Huzar, one is actually getting permission to appeal, the other is actually winning the appeal (which with the recent Transport Committee recomendations to the EC is less likely).
If they fail at first or second hurdle there should be no reason for court transfer IMHO

Voyager2002

My flight back from Cuba to Gatwick was delayed, although Thomas Cook had a flight on the same route that operated normally. The Thomas Cook flight suggests that weather was not a problem at Gatwick, so is it likely that Thomson would still be able to claim 'extraordinary circumstances'?

(They have not provided any explanation for the delay; nor given any information on passengers' rights; nor done anything to provide "care" during the delay.)

Westin

Gatwick's North terminal was severely impacted following the very bad weather that hit the south of England on 23rd. Thomson fly from this terminal (Thomas Cook from the South terminal) and power was lost to large parts of the terminal building after a local power sub station was flooded. Flights were delayed, some cancelled. Unfortunate that you were delayed but rather exceptional circumstances.

LoobyLou39

Just wondered if there was anyone who could help me? I have already filled in the paperwork and sent the details to Thomson complaints. They eventually (and I mean eventually) stated that the 4 hour delay was due to unforeseen circumstances, however, this was not the case - it turned out that the flight before ours (not our actual flight) had window problems? They turned our request for compensation.

I then sent a completed form with all the correspondence to the CAA. They replied after 8 weeks and stated that they were sending the complaint back to Thomson as they had not dealt with it due to the more recent changes and that they would reply within 8 weeks. Needless to say they haven't. I've since emailed and today I have phoned.

The woman at Thomson stated "2 people work in the complaints office" and that "the CAA are sending batches of 4000 complaints at a time". She said that she had got my complaint and would look into it within the next 3-4 weeks.

To be honest, I do have patience but not this much. I'm being sent backwards and forwards with no solution. I would be really grateful for any ideas of what to do next and/or solicitor details etc. :mad:

111KAB

LoobyLou39 > my answer to your double post > after reading FAQ's on page one of this thread for you to decide whether to walk away (please don't), front a legal claim yourself or appoint a no win no fee. If going NWNF Bott & Co seem to be getting results.

flower202

Got court pack from Thomson (all 273 pages also posted after court requirement date) made me panic a little at first but after reading a few previous threads am more comfortable now... but can not understand why they have included the following cases in their pack....

1)Sidhu and others v British Airways plc:Abnet(known as Sykes) v British Airways plc.

2)Christopher Stott v Thomas Cook
Tony Hook v British airways
Both in the court of appeal

3) Axel Walz v Clickir SA

4) Her Majestys Revenue and Custome v Aimia Coalition Loyalty uk Ltd

1 appears to be linked into flight where passengers were taken as prisoners in Kuwait
2 dispute about seats in relation to two disabled individuals
3 Baggage dispute
4 ???

My case is EC along with over 2 years even though Thomson have admitted that I contacted them shortly after the delay but neglected to quote the EC regulation.

Can anyone help me as to why they have included the above in my case.... should I be reading then in full or are they trying to just baffle me....

Any help greatly appreciated

Vauban

273 pages of disclosure is absurd, in my view, but also quite transparent: it's designed simply to put you off.

The airline's initial defence will give you a sense of what they will argue - but none of it should surprise: it will be the usual mixture of Montreal time barred nonsense, with the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances as the technical failure occurred despite the plane being maintained and wasn't predictable, etc etc etc. You will have seen some template responses to both these points posted elsewhere on this forum.

Of course the most likely outcome of your hearing will be that your case is stayed, pending Huzar & Dawson.