Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

julken

Hi,
Hoping someone can advise me as I'm not sure what to do next.
I was delayed for 5 1/2 hours on a flight from Feuteventura to Gatwick.
I used the form on the site to make a claim and Thomson said they wouldn't deal with it as it's over 2 years ago. I wrote to the Spanish aviation authority who have written back and said the carrier should pay us €400 each ( 2 of us) They sent a copy of the letter to Thomson. Do I now wait to hear from them or do I contact them again?

Vauban

Julken. Look at the first link of the FAQs on page one (entitled "What to do next", or something). The fact that the Spanish CAA have ruled in your favour is unlikely to influence the airline, unfortunately. You're most likely going to have to take them to court.

David_e

flower202 wrote: »

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

http://alisongrahamwells.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/her-majestys-revenue-and-customs-v-aimia-coalition-loyalty-uk-limited-formerly-known-as-loyalty-management-uk-limited-respondent/

"The issue in this appeal is whether LMUK, under the relevant EU legislation, is entitled to deduct as input tax the VAT element of the service charges. "

HM!

I haven't read the full case but I can't imagine how anything in this case could override the clear decision given in Wallentin.


I think you should counter with Kramer vs. Kramer! Looks about as relevant!

Vauban

Surely Thomson should be citing the Magna Carta? There's no mention of airlines needing to pay flight delay compensation in that document!

dxc_chappie

flower202 wrote: »

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

Thomson sent me slightly more than you (279 pages) and also included 1), 2) and 4). Walz v Clickair was missing (despite being used in their skeleton argument) and I also had IATA v Dept of Transport and Kay v London Borough Council !!!

Sidhu is their main argument to support their claim 2 yr limitation in Montreal Convention applies. Essentially they are arguing that since the Sidhu appeal was decided in the Supreme Court (House of Lords) it effectively became English law, and as the ECJ ruling in the More case states the rules of member states must be used for determining time limitations the Sidhu "law" must be used. I think Mark2Spark provided a good write up on this in the Thomson 2 year thread.

Stott v TC is used to try to support their argument that community members are bound by the Montreal Convention (i.e. that More ruling can be ignored).

Walz v Clickair is used to support their argument that loss of time from flight delay is damage and is therefore subject to the Montreal Convention.

I've no idea why HM Revenue and Customs v Amia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd was included - to me this looks like 53 pages of irrelevant material. I can only guess this was included to support any argument that English law does not have to follow EU leglislation.

As previously stated this is all copy and paste bumpf intended to put you off. The 2 year limitation will in any case be decided by the Dawson appeal in May so expect Thomson to request for a stay if they haven't already.

Good luck with your claim.

legal_magpie

All this nonsense is a good reason why many of these cases are:
(1) Being stayed pending the appeal(s)
(2) Being allocated to a judge who has been designated to hear them
It is nonsense to have the same arguments trotted out in County Courts up and down the Country.
JJ

Vauban

legal_magpie wrote: »

All this nonsense is a good reason why many of these cases are:
(1) Being stayed pending the appeal(s)
(2) Being allocated to a judge who has been designated to hear them
It is nonsense to have the same arguments trotted out in County Courts up and down the Country.
JJ

I agree that it is a nonsense: but no doubt it keeps the lawyers in fine threads (sorry).

To my mind, the villain of the piece remains the CAA. The airlines have fought a very effective guerilla campaign, deterring passengers from pursuing their claim, and causing a degree of legal confusion in their wake (despite reasonable clarity from the European Court). None of this would be allowed to happen, or at least not as effectively, if the UK's National Enforcement Body did what the middle part of its name suggests.

The system is not set up for individual litigants to petition the courts to have their rights under the Regulation honoured: that is the principal responsibility of the CAA. It is to their eternal discredit that they behave as they do.

zzx

So what can be done about the CAA? IMHO CAA should publish those flights where compensation has been paid to at least one claimant and force airlines to compensate passengers on those flights without recourse to Court.
Is this too much to ask?
Scandalously CAA are now publishing on their website passengers rights. This is a requirement under Article 14 of 261/2204 for airlines. Who, going on holiday, will first check CAA website to discover their rights if delayed?
CAA shoud enforce Article 14 but seems to want to take the responsibility themselves. Enforcement is not optional.
I believe we should petition Govt. to set up an enforcement body as we do not currently have one.

Great hat.

alfie640

Is Thomson responsible for the huge delay in my flight on 24 December or is it Gatwick Airport? To save anyone the trouble with citing extreme weather conditions, we know that BA flights were taking off albeit later than scheduled.

alfie640

You have up to 6 years to make a claim-don't let the fob you of