Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

stephanie.morris25 wrote: »

Constantly being fobbed off by Thomson. Had a flight diverted and delayed in August 2007 for a party of 10 people, 3 of whom were children. Left Faro 4 hours late then had to go to Lisbon to pick up more passengers because of a cancelled flight and then were flown to Manchester instead of Coventry leaving us over five and a half hours late and then had to wait for a coach to Coventry. Have contacted Thomson twice now but they just keep quoting the Montreal Convention! Have now complained to the Regulator in Portugal so we'll see what their response is. Anyone else having this problem? Stephanie:cool:

Yes. Thomson believes the time limit is 2 years. The good news is that they are wrong. The bad news, for you, is that the time limit to bring a court action is 6 years from the delay. So you are out of time.

(If you had read the FAQs or just the other posts of the Thomson thread, you'd have saved yourself the trouble of writing yours!)

Caz3121

Too late to raise court action in the UK, you could investigate how long the Portuguese courts allow court action (someone mentioned Spain was 10 years so Portugal may also be over 6) but then you are going to have to work round their legal system, lawyers, translators etc

bigmama1

Vauban wrote: »

I think this is an excellent resource Sam, and I am very happy to post up the link, which is here: http://goo.gl/X8pGRt.

I must say hats off to District Judge Taylor - his order of the 20th January asks exactly the right questions, and the fact that the airline were not actually prepared to answer them tells you everything you need to know!

Well done for having the tenacity to see this through. Textbook stuff! :beer:

Thanks to the claimant who kindly posted his correspondence and court papers for other people to adapt and use.
Thank you also Vauban for putting the link on to enable everyone to print off all the correspondence. It has given me an insight what to expect as I have also submitted a claim via a county court. I now know what to expect and hopefully won't be so terrified of going to court! Thank you everyone again.

NickyPower

I have just arrived home from a nice relaxing weekend to a Thomson envelope!!!! It is a copy of a letter sent to the courts asking to stay my claim on two accounts stating Huzar and also Dawson. This has left me a little confused as the flight in question was only June 2013!. The covering letter from Thomson's (to myself) also states 'we hope you are agreeable to the same and will notify the court of your agreement'.

My hearing fee is due by 24th February 2014 and bundle due by 7 March 2014. Hearing date 30th April 2014.

I am actually at the court in question tomorrow (as part of my profession) should I compile a letter refuting this, stating they have clearly made some mistake in relation to Dawson and I thought for good measure requesting some of the questions, that 'samshltn' has kindly posted, be answered in relation to my case (as Thomson have previously refused to give me some information stating '[FONT=&quot]As this is a litigated matter then we will disclose such documents as we intend to rely upon in line with the Court rules and Directions’) [/FONT]. Also another point I feel I have in my favour is that my case is due to be heard in Cheltenham and this is where Flower202 won her case and they refused to stay in relation to Huzar. Any advice greatly appreciated??????

phritchie

I had my hearing last Friday.

Summary:
Birmingham to Cancun wit Thomson, delayed 4+ hours on 22/02/2010.

Thomson's Defence:
1. Prove we were on the flight
2. 2 year limit
3. ECs, technical problem elsewhere in the fleet (yawn)

The court initially belived the 2 year limit and ordered the calim struck-out, but I was allowed to make an Application with my counter arguement and a hearing was set for Feb 14th.

In January, Thomson dropped the EC arguement after I wrote to them with some probing questions about the nature of the issue.


So on Friday my wife and I went along to court to argue the 2 year limit. I expected it to be stayed for Dawson, but I had prepared a skeleton arguement agruing that:
- MC is for damages whilst 261/2004 is an inconvenience payment (Nelson)
- More sets the time limit as limitations on actions
- Dawson agrees with 6 years, and shows an interpritation within an english legal context.

The first thing the judge asked us was if we had heard of the Dawson case, and if we knew it was under appeal. And so the case was stayed waiting Dawson appeal in May. We are to arrange a telephone hearing for the end of May.

My wife did a good job of securing us costs for the day (my time off work). She argued that Thomson could have just applied in writing for a stay, and saved us a lot of time. However in Thomson's defence, they say they hadn't got a copy of the application I made. The order I got said to serve an application to the court (only, not defendant) so I sent one for the court and a copy for them to send to Thomson. The court obviosuly never bothered, and the Judge in our case could see the copy marked "for defendant" in the file. So not really Thomson's fault, but my wife (a veteran complainer) managed to ram home the point anyway and we should get £90 costs added to the case.

As the 2 year dicussion was over in just a couple of minutes, I asked the judge if we could discuss the other two aspects of Thomson's defence. I showed her the letter from Thomson that they were withdrawing the EC arguement. She said she though this was just a copy and paste defence and "stupid"! Obviously not impressed with Thomson. I also asked if I might show evidence we were on the flight (booking confirmation print-out, and dated entry stamps for Mexico in our passport) and she rubbished that point of the defence again,a sking Thomson why we would bother going through the whole court process if we weren't even on the flight and delayed for hours. She didn't want to waste time seeing the evidence, and said we could show Thomson's lawyer outside. He still wanted to see the evidence.

I must say Thomson's lawyer, a local chap who'd been appointed, was very friendly and polite. We showed him the evidence we were on the flight, and so now the case rests only on Dawson.

In summary, frustrating that we have to wait on Dawson, and kind of wasted a day in court, but a few small victories nonetheless. Roll on May.
:beer:



Help us Coby-wan-Bensonbi - you're our only hope!

Tink3_2

I have recently written to Thomson regarding a flight in May 2008. Reading this post I am expecting it be rejected. As my 6 years are approaching fast, is this limit for the small claims court when you apply to the court or when the hearing is held? Do I have to wait for the reply by Thomsons before proceeding so that all avenues have been exhausted? Any advice would be appreciated.

socrates1882

Tink3 wrote: »

I have recently written to Thomson regarding a flight in May 2008. Reading this post I am expecting it be rejected. As my 6 years are approaching fast, is this limit for the small claims court when you apply to the court or when the hearing is held? Do I have to wait for the reply by Thomsons before proceeding so that all avenues have been exhausted? Any advice would be appreciated.

You must issue court proceedings. Once issued, irrespective of when the final hearing is, the clock stops ticking so to speak.

legal_magpie

The 6 year time limit is for commencing proceedings. You should assume that the 6 years starts from the date of your flight and you can't be wrong. So you should issue proceedings as soon as possible. Waiting till the outcome of the Dawson appeal would only be an option if Thomson agreed to extend the time limit until (say) 28 days after the determination of the Dawson appeal. But you must get that in writing. This is because limitation is a "shield not a sword" and has to be pleaded.
JJ

Tink3_2

Thanks for the swift reply. I have just received my "No" e mail from Thomson. Apologies for my ignorance, but if I issue proceedings, can it be for the whole party (4 adults and 2 children) or just for me? Also my youngest child was 18 months old at the time, can you claim for her too?

legal_magpie

If you issue proceedings in the name of a child, that child requires a litigation friend. You need some specialist advice or else to research it