Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

bigstevex

I contacted Bott&Co today as I don't have the time to persue my claim any more and basically need someone else to do it for me, and I've just received this reply which I'm pretty sure is a load of total rubbish.... First Choice did not go bankrupt


Good Afternoon,

Further to our telephone conversation this morning, in regards to your flight claim. I have contacted our colleagues at EUclaim who we are in partnership with and have all of the flight data, and validate all claims for us.

They have advised that unfortunately as First Choice are now bankrupt we would be unable to pursue your claim for you, although Thomson took over the planes and business, they did not take over the company.

I apologise that we have been unable to assist you on this occasion.

Kind regards,

MadeInHeaven

Hi Everyone,

Any help or advice would be appreciated.

Have had an ongoing issue with Thomson since April last year, over a flight delay in 2008. Wrote to them twice, the first response was that I was outside the "time frame' for making a claim, which I knew was rubbish, the second that basically that they were not going to pay out. So involved the CAA, who were totally useless to say the least. They investigated and sided with the airline and came up with "exraordinary circumstances". Decided to request a freedom of information act and requested all correspondence between airline & CAA, which I received today. Basically unless you have a degree in gobbledey gooke, none of it makes any sense. However in the letter from the CAA it states (and I quote);
The information provided by Thomson Airways relating to this flight consists of information provided to th CAA by the airline under part 8 of the Enterprise act 2002, in order to investigate disruption to this flight. Depending on the evidence recieved and the outcome of the case, it could have led to enforcement action against the business under parts 8 of the Enterprise Act. As this information was obtained as part of the CAA's statutory functions under part 8 of the Enterprise Act, it is treated as 'specified information' for the purpose of part 9 of that act. Under section 237(2) of the act, such information cannot lawfully be disclosed without consent unless certain prescribed conditions are met".

So! can anyone make any sense of this. Should I just bin it and take them to court?

Many thanks in advance kind peeps.

111KAB

bigstevex wrote: »

I contacted Bott&Co today as I don't have the time to persue my claim any more and basically need someone else to do it for me, and I've just received this reply which I'm pretty sure is a load of total rubbish.... First Choice did not go bankrupt

Depends if you ate talking FC Holidays or FC Airlines. As you are on the compensation thread we assume you are talking about an Airline delay and FC Airlines ceased trading in 2008 so you may well be time barred. If you are referring to First Choice Holidays and after 2008 your claim is against the airline that caused your delay.

111KAB

MadeinHeaven - date in 2008 when you were delayed will have a distinct bearing.

bigstevex

111KAB wrote: »

Depends if you ate talking FC Holidays or FC Airlines. As you are on the compensation thread we assume you are talking about an Airline delay and FC Airlines ceased trading in 2008 so you may well be time barred. If you are referring to First Choice Holidays and after 2008 your claim is against the airline that caused your delay.

Thanks for the reply...

I booked the Holiday through First Choice Holidays and Flew with First Choice Airlines, it's not yeat at 6 years... the 6 years is up on the 18th July (Date of flight)

bigstevex

Thus are Bott&Co in the wrong, before I ring up with my angry head on I'd just like to be correct
I sense they have tried to brush me off as they know the court stuff needs to go in now and should the Dawson case lose then they would lose my case straight away...

bigstevex

Are they allowed to do that? Surely that's not right?

Vauban

bigstevex wrote: »

Are they allowed to do that? Surely that's not right?

Are who allowed to do what? If you mean are NWNF companies under an obligation to take your case, the answer must be no - especially one so close to the legal deadline.

I think you got some duff reasoning from the Bott employee re First Choice. But as Centipede says, your claim is so late in the day now that no decent NWNF firm is likely to touch it, I'm afraid.

You could always start the claim yourself in the hope that Huzar is upheld - which should mean most claims get settled much more easily. Otherwise, you'll just have to let it go ...

JPears

Vauban wrote: »

Are who allowed to do what? If you mean are NWNF companies under an obligation to take your case, the answer must be no - especially one so close to the legal deadline.

I think you got some duff reasoning from the Bott employee re First Choice. But as Centipede says, your claim is so late in the day now that no decent NWNF firm is likely to touch it, I'm afraid.

You could always start the claim yourself in the hope that Huzar is upheld - which should mean most claims get settled much more easily. Otherwise, you'll just have to let it go ...

And Dawson appeal fails....

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

And Dawson appeal fails....

Yes - good point!