Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

nquire76

Referring to my post No. 5059 of 09/05/2014
Herewith copy of reply from the CAA re. my information request,
as anticipated, a refusal.

Thank you for your request for the information provided to us by the airline to investigate your complaint. I’m afraid I cannot share the information provided by the airline as we received the information from the airline as part of our statutory functions under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The information was sought from the airline in order to investigate disruption to a flight and depending on the evidence received and the outcome of the case, it could have led to enforcement action against the business under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act. It is our view that this is information about the airline and it was obtained as part of our statutory functions under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. As such, our view is that it should be treated as “specified information” for the purposes of Part 9 of that Act and therefore cannot lawfully be disclosed without consent unless certain prescribed conditions are met.
!
As you have made a written request for this information, we are obliged to treat it as a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As explained above, Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002 prevents us from disclosing the information you are seeking.
!
Accordingly, we consider that under s.44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 CAA is exempt from the duty to disclose this information.

gloriatabby

Wonder what the big secret is

gloriatabby

I was wondering what people whose cases rest on the Dawson case intend to do if Thomson win the appeal. Will people who have been trying to get the compensation out of them for years and waited ages for the result of the previous appeal and then waited while the CAA do very little just give up?

Surely if compenation was due and was asked for but refused they still owe it. For them to set a limit of two years from the delay to taking court action seems unreasonable and you'd think many judges would see it that way if you'd got evidence of correspondence nearer to the event.

I've put something about this in my reply to the defence. I'd like to know what other people in this situation are thinking about this.

David_e

gloriatabby wrote: »

Surely if compenation was due and was asked for but refused they still owe it. For them to set a limit of two years from the delay to taking court action seems unreasonable and you'd think many judges would see it that way if you'd got evidence of correspondence nearer to the event.

For better or worse, the law is the law and I don't think a judge (certainly not of the lower courts) can apply a contrary view even if they think that might be fair and reasonable.

I very much hope that the 6 year time limit is upheld.

gloriatabby

Yes but surely the law will still be that they should have paid it in the first place and regardless of any new ruling about flight delay compensation, surely what is already owed can still be claimed through small claims court. Does this make sense??

Vauban

gloriatabby wrote: »

Yes but surely the law will still be that they should have paid it in the first place and regardless of any new ruling about flight delay compensation, surely what is already owed can still be claimed through small claims court. Does this make sense??

I do have sympathy for the point you are making (especially as airlines effectively refused to engage on this issue until the Nelson case was concluded in October 2012). But what is being argued is the time limit for bringing legal action. If you think you have a case, the correct thing to do is to start legal action - because even if the case is stayed pending another judgement, you've stopped the clock. Simply beginning a correspondence course with the airline is irrelevant and only kills trees.

This would still be my advice for anyone whose flight delay was 18 months ago. Dawson may be appealed to the Supreme Court whoever wins, so this hiatus could continue for ages yet. And in the meantime anyone whose case becomes two years old in the interim will lose the ability to go to court if Dawson is ultimately lost - unless you filed court papers before the 2 year period was up.

All of which is to say that your main point is wrong. If the limitations is confirmed at two years, it doesn't matter if other judgements (like Huzar) mean you have a slam dunk legal case. You will have no right to bring the matter before the courts, so the airlines can safely ignore you (as they currently do for those claims over 6 years).

111KAB

gloriatabby wrote: »

Wonder what the big secret is

The big secret is that the airlines and the CAA want to ensure that air travel is seen as being safe (and in the vast majority of cases it is) however if the general public realised how many times a plane they were on 'went tech' it would worry them. To many people the idea of flying at 36,000 feet in an enlarged sardine can at 500 mph is not natural and there is a high degree of flyers who confess to being 'frightened'. If the considerable number of technical problems (often referred to by the airlines as extraordinary circumstances) came to light a fair percentage of travellers would either never leave the UK or the channel tunnel would be used by the numbers it was designed for.

Vauban

Logic puzzle of the day:

1) 80% of airline delays are caused by technical failures;
2) According to European law (Wallentin), technical problems are generally not extraordinary circumstances;
3) In 70% of passenger delay cases referred to it, the CAA sides with the airlines and agrees the delay was extraordinary.

Therefore ...?

JPears

CAA are a bunch of gormless idiots, paid for by the airlines.....?

111KAB

JPears wrote: »

CAA are a bunch of gormless idiots, paid for by the airlines.....?

Who are indirectly paid by us via airfares and ATOL subscriptions etc. So we are paying for a body who does not support us!