Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

BFlowers wrote: »

Hi all,

Have been following this thread with interest, our flight last year from Glasgow to Vegas was delayed 24 hours. We have just received an offer in vouchers, I have read conflicting reports as to whether we have to accept this? Has anyone been through the process of rejecting vouchers and demanding cash/cheque?

Many thanks

Can you point me on the direction of any reports that say you have to accept vouchers?

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

Can you point me on the direction of any reports that say you have to accept vouchers?

I suspect they're reports written by Thomson!

BFlowers, read Reg 261/2004. It's in there (that you don't have to accept vouchers).

Kew73

scorpiouk wrote: »

The judge was damming regarding them not showing... :j

They also failed to supply the correct paper work to the court :j

If they try to appeal, is it the same judge or a new one?
would the new one review commnets from this hearing?

Congratulations! Out of interest, was your case previously stayed and if so how did you get the stay lifted?!

Mark2spark

BFlowers wrote: »

Hi all,

Have been following this thread with interest...

We have just received an offer in vouchers, I have read conflicting reports as to whether we have to accept this?

Perhaps I've never posted in this very long thread with my signature on then :cool:

bigmama1

Well, I've just received Thomson's Disclosure and written representations filed with the court! It came by special delivery! It's so thick I nearly needed a trolley to carry it!

The first part is just a copy of their original Defence but this time it's signed!

Their next part is Defendant's Submission. They deny compensation under the Regulation on two grounds; first the delays were attributable to 'extraordinary circumstances', namely severe weather conditions affecting both flights, with the outbound flight being compounded by unplanned Spanish Air Traffic controllers industrial action.

The second part that the claim was not submitted within the applicable limitation period of two years!

They then quote Wallentin and say that Wallentin only relates to technical faults (which my plane had) and this cannot be applied to the industrial action and weather issues!

Then it goes on about the chartered flight obtained from Thomas Cook
developed a technical fault and a technical fault belonging to and maintained by a third party is beyond the Defendants control.

There is a lot, lot more, but only basically repeating from their original Defence document.

Then it says, "Should the Defendant fail on the extraordinary circumstances argument, we would request a stay for the limitation defence under the Montreal Convention. The issue resolves around the application of European, International and domestic law in respect of delay in the international carriage of passengers"

It goes on then about the Dawson v Thomson Airways case held on the 13th/14th May 2014, where the Judge found against Thomson.

Now the next ploy! "Thomson, the Defendant advise the court that it intends to make an application for permission to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. As such, the Defendant would request that the matter is stayed for two months or until such a time that the status of the application can be determined"

This is only Section 1 and I have another 19 to read and try to understand!

I've had a glance at Section Two which appears to be reports of Operations and crewing for various aircraft in their fleet. I'm only interested in my own! I suppose they are trying to prove the adverse weather conditions! Even though I provided proof (Flightstats) that many other airlines had little trouble with the weather and we had witnessed these flights taking off.

Well, I'm going to have my lunch now and maybe have a nap!

I have my court hearing on the 10th July, so not long to read this load of crap!

It's all just a game with them which, health willing (as I'm an OAP) I will not give in.

jenn1ewest1

bigmama1 wrote: »

Well, I've just received Thomson's Disclosure and written representations filed with the court! It came by special delivery! It's so thick I nearly needed a trolley to carry it!

The first part is just a copy of their original Defence but this time it's signed!

Their next part is Defendant's Submission. They deny compensation under the Regulation on two grounds; first the delays were attributable to 'extraordinary circumstances', namely severe weather conditions affecting both flights, with the outbound flight being compounded by unplanned Spanish Air Traffic controllers industrial action.

The second part that the claim was not submitted within the applicable limitation period of two years!

They then quote Wallentin and say that Wallentin only relates to technical faults (which my plane had) and this cannot be applied to the industrial action and weather issues!

Then it goes on about the chartered flight obtained from Thomas Cook
developed a technical fault and a technical fault belonging to and maintained by a third party is beyond the Defendants control.

There is a lot, lot more, but only basically repeating from their original Defence document.

Then it says, "Should the Defendant fail on the extraordinary circumstances argument, we would request a stay for the limitation defence under the Montreal Convention. The issue resolves around the application of European, International and domestic law in respect of delay in the international carriage of passengers"

It goes on then about the Dawson v Thomson Airways case held on the 13th/14th May 2014, where the Judge found against Thomson.

Now the next ploy! "Thomson, the Defendant advise the court that it intends to make an application for permission to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. As such, the Defendant would request that the matter is stayed for two months or until such a time that the status of the application can be determined"

This is only Section 1 and I have another 19 to read and try to understand!

I've had a glance at Section Two which appears to be reports of Operations and crewing for various aircraft in their fleet. I'm only interested in my own! I suppose they are trying to prove the adverse weather conditions! Even though I provided proof (Flightstats) that many other airlines had little trouble with the weather and we had witnessed these flights taking off.

Well, I'm going to have my lunch now and maybe have a nap!

I have my court hearing on the 10th July, so not long to read this load of crap!

It's all just a game with them which, health willing (as I'm an OAP) I will not give in.

Good Luck Hopefully you will have a judge who will deal with the Law as it stands at the moment

marky.fitz

Hi All just found your thread and was hoping for some help / advice please.

Myself and my partner travelled with Thomson from Luton to Bulgaria in June 2009 and we had flight delays on both the outgoing and incoming flights (over 3 hours on both). Are we entitled to compensation for both flights or just one? If one would I be right in assuming we could be entitled to £640?

Has anyone used a reclaim company to try and gain compensation and had any good or bad experiences with them?

Thanks in advance of any help.

razorsedge

bigmama1 wrote: »

I've had a glance at Section Two which appears to be reports of Operations and crewing for various aircraft in their fleet. I'm only interested in my own!

It may seem a bit technical and full of abbreviations but have a really good look at this section thay have provided. Some posters have reported that the info supplied by airlines regarding aircraft allocations to flights has directly contradicted statements made in their defense and court submissions.

Go on! See if you can find your own blob of fluorescent importance.;)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64109506#Comment_64109506

scorpiouk

Kew73 wrote: »

Congratulations! Out of interest, was your case previously stayed and if so how did you get the stay lifted?!

Hi,

No they did try pending the Huzar case, but it was heard before the court date so was rejected. Plus the filled incorrectly...

bigmama1

I haven't been able to read much of Thomson's Disclosure so far. I have just had a thought though! Am I expected to reply to this disclosure now? Or is it for my information only? It is only 2 weeks before my court hearing and it will take me some time to digest this pile of rubbish.

I intend to go over it with with a fine tooth comb which will be a slow job. Hopefully I will discover a few/lot of incorrect information supplied by Thomson. They are just doing lots of CAP's now.

I intend to prepare a list of questions in readiness for the court hearing.