Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

richardw

honda90man wrote: »

….. I intend sending them an NBA,giving them 14 days to comply after which I will go to court.

er hold on a moment.

Firstly welcome to MSE and it's good to hear that you've had a good read.

It may be worth waiting for the outcome of the Dawson appeal in May and also Huzar later on in May before you actually risk any court fees.

111KAB

honda90man wrote: »

..... I intend sending them an NBA,giving them 14 days to comply after which I will go to court.

Might be worth waiting until after Dawson appeal (and possibly Huzar) as this should clarify the 2 year nonsense. As he said ^^^^

deb.p123

I have been to Liverpool Court today as my case was transferred there from my local court. I was advised by Thomson they would be asking for a stay and the judge agreed. I didn`t but he was not for changing his mind. It has been stayed waiting for the outcome of the Huzar appeal.


I pointed out to the judge that Thomson had not even provided me with a skeleton argument and he advised it was not necessary as Thomson were asking for a stay.


I also provided a letter of authority as I claimed for myself and partner but did not add his name and the judge would not allow it.:(

The usher told me they have had 450 cases sent to them from various courts and so far they have all been stayed pending the appeal.


The good news I have now been to court and it is not as scary as I thought.


Roll on May

Mark2spark

deb.p123 wrote: »

The usher told me they have had 450 cases sent to them from various courts and so far they have all been stayed pending the appeal.

I find that disturbing really. It's like reckoning that ALL cases are to do with tech issues that are EC's or not. Many cases can be dealt with just using Wallentin.
Sounds like a fudge to me.

honda90man

Thanks for the advice richardw & 111KAB.I will hold fire until the May Appeals.

SimBuc

Hello

I've received a response from Thomson saying the cause of my 12hr 35min delay (flight TOM039 scheduled to depart Cancun to London Gatwick 5 November 2012) was:

"a delay due to another aircraft caused by an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising from the discovery of a technical defect that doesn't fall into the category of something that was or ought to have been discovered during routine maintenance"

I was wondering if anyone else had received the same response?

My head melts a little when I try to digest all the legal references

This is my first ever post in a MSE Forum, not even sure I'm doing it right?

David_e

SimBuc wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone else had received the same response?

Try having a read of the thread.

SimBuc wrote: »

My head melts a little when I try to digest all the legal references

In which case, search the forum for no win no fee /NWNF. You give up 25% or so of your compnsation but are freed from the complexities and time involved intaking a case yourself.

SEW56

Well I am surprised. Thomson asked for a stay pending the appeals but we argued to the judge against that. Our main point (though the judge has not explained why he has not allowed a stay) was that Thomson have not even provided proper argument in the court directions defense document and that only by going to court will they be forced to open up. Just heard that the judge has not allowed their request and we have a date to go to court at the end of April. I will keep the thread posted on events.

To summarise: Thomson have argued the 2 year rule and extraordinary circumstances. On the latter point ALL they have said is the cause of the delay (trailing edge flap defect) and simply claimed extraordinary circumstances without anything to support that claim. Also as this flight originated from France I did not (could not) go through the CAA complaints process first and got nowhere with the French CAA.

It seems to me that in preparing a pack for court I will keep it simple - copy of the relevant judgements plus various emails. Unless I have more information on the technical problem (I have asked the CAA under freedom of information but got nowhere) then my strategy will be to argue it is not extraordinary as per the tests. Reading all the helpful posts in this thread it appears to me that in my case given little real argument from Thomson so far I can only wait for their defense pack (if they file or even turn up of course). Then I can only rely on the process and what will be will be.

On another point looking at recent posts we chose to make one claim as the lead booker and payer for all 4 persons travelling. At no time has Thomson or the Court queried this (so far!). Also my wife is making the claim but she has given me written permission to respond to the court on her behalf (which the court accepted and Thomson have not objected) and she will ask the judge to allow me to support her on the day (I can not be her formal litigation friend). The court manager said we can simply ask the judge on the day and led us to believe that given the small claims track process the judge is unlikely to refuse.

JPears

Mark2spark wrote: »

I find that disturbing really. It's like reckoning that ALL cases are to do with tech issues that are EC's or not. Many cases can be dealt with just using Wallentin.
Sounds like a fudge to me.

I bet the Judge(s) concerned are hoping Huzar holds - it wil make their lfe a lot easier!

JPears

SEW56 wrote: »

Well I am surprised. Thomson asked for a stay pending the appeals but we argued to the judge against that. Our main point (though the judge has not explained why he has not allowed a stay) was that Thomson have not even provided proper argument in the court directions defense document and that only by going to court will they be forced to open up. Just heard that the judge has not allowed their request and we have a date to go to court at the end of April. I will keep the thread posted on events.

To summarise: Thomson have argued the 2 year rule and extraordinary circumstances. On the latter point ALL they have said is the cause of the delay (trailing edge flap defect) and simply claimed extraordinary circumstances without anything to support that claim. Also as this flight originated from France I did not (could not) go through the CAA complaints process first and got nowhere with the French CAA.

It seems to me that in preparing a pack for court I will keep it simple - copy of the relevant judgements plus various emails. Unless I have more information on the technical problem (I have asked the CAA under freedom of information but got nowhere) then my strategy will be to argue it is not extraordinary as per the tests. Reading all the helpful posts in this thread it appears to me that in my case given little real argument from Thomson so far I can only wait for their defense pack (if they file or even turn up of course). Then I can only rely on the process and what will be will be.

On another point looking at recent posts we chose to make one claim as the lead booker and payer for all 4 persons travelling. At no time has Thomson or the Court queried this (so far!). Also my wife is making the claim but she has given me written permission to respond to the court on her behalf (which the court accepted and Thomson have not objected) and she will ask the judge to allow me to support her on the day (I can not be her formal litigation friend). The court manager said we can simply ask the judge on the day and led us to believe that given the small claims track process the judge is unlikely to refuse.

Don't forget the second hurdle too - that all reasonable measures up to intolerable sacrafice, were taken to reduce or minimise delay...