Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Bonters wrote: »

It becomes ever more abundantly apparent that Thomson are not going to pay out anyone and are testing to see who will risk their own money by filing a claim in the Court. I look forward to their response to mine because our aircraft was on stand for the whole of the 9 hour delay, clearly visible from the Departure Lounge, and with no work being carried out whatsoever. The only reason we were given for the delay was 'Technical - crewing' and so I assume no crew was available to operate the flight. It does seem more and more suspicious that Thomson rely on almost the identical same letter for every given claim, relating to differing flights. It is so transparent that it almost beggars belief. I do wonder if there is scope somewhere here for a grouping of claims relating to different flights, to show that their response is more or less the same to all? Just a thought.

I have decided for my self to claim using the section 75 on the credit card. I am hoping this will work OK. It says that this rule makes the card issuer and retailer liable (words to that affect). So if Thomson are not liable or ignore me then HSBC will be liable.

I am not sure how a section 75 claim works. Does HSBC snatch back the money from Thomson or do they have to absorb the cost themselves?

If anyone has paid on a Credit Card I would urge them to try a section 75 claim perhaps even in tandem with Small Claim. Rest assured if my section 75 does not work I will certainly press ahead to sue Thomson through the courts.

blondmark

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I have decided for my self to claim using the section 75 on the credit card. I am hoping this will work OK. It says that this rule makes the card issuer and retailer liable (words to that affect). So if Thomson are not liable or ignore me then HSBC will be liable.

I am not sure how a section 75 claim works. Does HSBC snatch back the money from Thomson or do they have to absorb the cost themselves?

If anyone has paid on a Credit Card I would urge them to try a section 75 claim perhaps even in tandem with Small Claim. Rest assured if my section 75 does not work I will certainly press ahead to sue Thomson through the courts.

If you're planning to sue HSBC for an easier ride, my advice is that it's likely to be more challenging. Are you aware for a s.75 claim to succeed you need firstly to prove a breach of contract? Not impossible; just more challenging.

I can't think why you're put off by Thomson's antics. Just issue a claim against them and follow the advice here.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

blondmark wrote: »

If you're planning to sue HSBC for an easier ride, my advice is that it's likely to be more challenging. Are you aware for a s.75 claim to succeed you need firstly to prove a breach of contract? Not impossible; just more challenging.

I can't think why you're put off by Thomson's antics. Just issue a claim against them and follow the advice here.

They are on 14 days notice with me already. I see the section 75 as Thomson are liable for compensation under 261/2004 but won't pay therefore by virtue of section 75 HSBC are liable for the payment from the 261/2004 ruling. Thomson will just continue to put up stupid barriers and jam the anchors on. Until I see news of a successfully won case in the small claims against them imam reserving judgement on this. No one has even got a hearing date that I have read yet have had claims trundling on for months.

blondmark

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

They are on 14 days notice with me already. I see the section 75 as Thomson are liable for compensation under 261/2004 but won't pay therefore by virtue of section 75 HSBC are liable for the payment from the 261/2004 ruling. Thomson will just continue to put up stupid barriers and jam the anchors on. Until I see news of a successfully won case in the small claims against them imam reserving judgement on this. No one has even got a hearing date that I have read yet have had claims trundling on for months.

You're right, defended claims take a long time, but I'm not sure you're addressing the issue here. What wording are you planning to use in your particulars of claim to prove that the airline breached the contract it had with you, which is required for a s.75 claim to succeed against HSBC? Are you also aware that you must pay the same court fees to sue HSBC and you will lose these if your claim is struck out?

I repeat my advice to take the easy route and sue the airline.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

blondmark wrote: »

You're right, defended claims take a long time, but I'm not sure you're addressing the issue here. What wording are you planning to use in your particulars of claim to prove that the airline breached the contract it had with you, which is required for a s.75 claim to succeed against HSBC? Are you also aware that you must pay the same court fees to sue HSBC and you will lose these if your claim is struck out?

I repeat my advice to take the easy route and sue the airline.

I am not taking HSBC to court. I had to fill in a form of theirs giving reasons for the claim and they now have it. I didn't pay anything to do that.

blondmark

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I am not taking HSBC to court. I had to fill in a form of theirs giving reasons for the claim and they now have it. I didn't pay anything to do that.

Well you can take comfort in the fact that if they refuse your claim that will also be free.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

blondmark wrote: »

Well you can take comfort in the fact that if they refuse your claim that will also be free.

And I can still progress with the small claim. It could be the credit card comes up trumps. I will report progress. If the card says no I will tackle the airline direct by paying the court fee.

blondmark

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

And I can still progress with the small claim. It could be the credit card comes up trumps. I will report progress. If the card says no I will tackle the airline direct by paying the court fee.

Fair enough - I agree it would be great if HSBC's lawyers aren't on the ball and fail to spot that s.75 claims must come with proof of either a breach of contract or a misrepresentation. Looking forward to your news.

Culraven

Following the recent ruling we attempted to apply for compensation in November last year after waiting 59 days we received the compensation form. We were told the reason for the delay was that they were investigating our claim, and we would either get a letter saying we were not entitled or a compensation form, this was confirmed by several members of staff, although Thomson refuse to check if any of these calls are recorded. We initially complained to the store upon returning from our Holiday, and were told that we did not fit the criteria to claim compensation, we also checked the brochure which confirmed what we had been told in store.

After almost 4 months we have now been informed that we are not entitled because we should have claimed within 2 years, but as they advised we were not entitled to compensation, and certainly did not inform us of the ongoing legal battle at the time this does not seem ethical?

I've spoken again with them and they actually advised me to take them to court, do I still need to put them on notice as they have advised me to take this course of action?

Bonters

Culraven wrote: »

Following the recent ruling we attempted to apply for compensation in November last year after waiting 59 days we received the compensation form. We were told the reason for the delay was that they were investigating our claim, and we would either get a letter saying we were not entitled or a compensation form, this was confirmed by several members of staff, although Thomson refuse to check if any of these calls are recorded. We initially complained to the store upon returning from our Holiday, and were told that we did not fit the criteria to claim compensation, we also checked the brochure which confirmed what we had been told in store.

After almost 4 months we have now been informed that we are not entitled because we should have claimed within 2 years, but as they advised we were not entitled to compensation, and certainly did not inform us of the ongoing legal battle at the time this does not seem ethical?

I've spoken again with them and they actually advised me to take them to court, do I still need to put them on notice as they have advised me to take this course of action?

If you read just the last few pages here, they have sent this '2 year rule' letter to absolutely everyone, even those who are within the supposed and spurious 2 year limit. It's 6 years time limit, not 2. :beer: