Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

jayw996

Had my second hearing last week. Different Judge. The first Judge delayed the hearing based on Thomson not having sent in their defence. He said that no matter what, a decision would be made at the next hearing as it has all gone on long enough. He made the next hearing a full day and said he would have read all the evidence beforehand. Went back to court, Huzar and Dawson judgements had been handed down, I had a letter from the CAA stating it was not extraordinary circumstances and Thomson should pay. This time a different Judge had not read any of the paperwork, left it to me to find Judgements in her bundle and asked the Thomson Barrister for legal guidance on what to do! I was sat there in amazement! The hearing was set for a full day and yet she had not read any of it? Is this usual? Can I complain? Thomson requested a stay based on the appeal of the appeals for Dawson and Huzar and she agreed. I think this was based on her not having a clue of what to do without any preparation.
It also appears that when the CAA state there is a basis for extraordinary circumstances, Thomson use it as a get out. When the CAA state there are no extraordinary circumstances, Thomson state the CAA have no legal standing, therefore it cannot be used in court. So in short don't bother with the CAA, either way it's not worth the paper it's written on. So now I have to wait again until either an appeal is not granted or the appeals are heard. Still more interest and more loss of earnings. It would have been so much cheaper for them if they had just paid up front!

Vauban

jayw996 wrote: »

So now I have to wait again until either an appeal is not granted or the appeals are heard. Still more interest and more loss of earnings. It would have been so much cheaper for them if they had just paid up front!

As frustrating as it is predictable, I fear. But you're right - it's all interest for you, and at a rate you won't get elsewhere.

I agree with you about the CAA too. You'd have to be daft - or just not know what you're doing - to involve them in your claim.

Cazzaswfc

JOHN_1959 wrote: »

I have just come back from a holiday in Florida where we ended up being delayed by nearly 20 hours.
Firstly we were held up due to a thunder storm in the orlando area.
We then could not take off as the left hand engine would not start we were told at the time that the starting motor was broke after about 4 hours on the runway we were off loaded and put in a hotel for the night.
I have a letter from thomson reason for delay
"The aircraft due to operate your flight developed a technical fault shortly before departure and despite strenuous efforts to rectify the fault quickly on this occasion it was not possible. As a result the crew exceeded their permitted working hours and were required to take a rest in cancun. The flight was operated at the earliest oppertunity the following day."
Question I ask is was the delay a technical fault that is exceptional circumstances so will be difficult to claim.
The letter states the fault developed shortly before departure so should the captain under normal checks have checked that the engines should start before boarding passengers.
Do you think the fault was sorted but the delay was due to working hours and if the latter what are the leagally permitted working hours of the flight crew.
Cancun would have been nice but we were in orlando.:rotfl:

Snap, I was on that flight too :rotfl:

Well hopefully :rotfl: if we get compensation, will go towards another Florida trip next year which will be a bonus as we currently can only afford to go every 2 years.

Use the template letters, it based on the delay not the other circumstances (if it had just been the storm we wouldn't be entitled) due to it being a technical fault (that needed a new part and the engineers working on the plan over night for a few hours it shouldn't matter about the crew needing the rest. Also send a copy of the letter we got at East Midlands confirming a technical fault and copies of boarding cards if you kept them, hopefully this will speed up a reply as Thomsons tend to drag things on by asking for proof of you flying etc.

Check back in when you get a reply.

jayw996

Vauban wrote: »

As frustrating as it is predictable, I fear. But you're right - it's all interest for you, and at a rate you won't get elsewhere.

I agree with you about the CAA too. You'd have to be daft - or just not know what you're doing - to involve them in your claim.

Ah well I was the "not knowing what I was doing type". However once I got a good result I thought it would only strengthen my claim, but it was ignored. You would think that in a court the opinion of the CAA would carry some weight, but alas!
I will just wait a bit longer.

JPears

jayw996 wrote: »

Had my second hearing last week. Different Judge. The first Judge delayed the hearing based on Thomson not having sent in their defence. He said that no matter what, a decision would be made at the next hearing as it has all gone on long enough. He made the next hearing a full day and said he would have read all the evidence beforehand. Went back to court, Huzar and Dawson judgements had been handed down, I had a letter from the CAA stating it was not extraordinary circumstances and Thomson should pay. This time a different Judge had not read any of the paperwork, left it to me to find Judgements in her bundle and asked the Thomson Barrister for legal guidance on what to do! I was sat there in amazement! The hearing was set for a full day and yet she had not read any of it? Is this usual? Can I complain? Thomson requested a stay based on the appeal of the appeals for Dawson and Huzar and she agreed. I think this was based on her not having a clue of what to do without any preparation.
It also appears that when the CAA state there is a basis for extraordinary circumstances, Thomson use it as a get out. When the CAA state there are no extraordinary circumstances, Thomson state the CAA have no legal standing, therefore it cannot be used in court. So in short don't bother with the CAA, either way it's not worth the paper it's written on. So now I have to wait again until either an appeal is not granted or the appeals are heard. Still more interest and more loss of earnings. It would have been so much cheaper for them if they had just paid up front!

I think I would be seeking out what complaint process there is within the court system.. You have paid good money, put a lot of time and effort into presenting your case, to be confronted with a judge who doesn't appear to have done the job she is paid to do and has a professional, ethical and moral obligation to fulfil.

legal_magpie

JPears wrote: »

I think I would be seeking out what complaint process there is within the court system.. You have paid good money, put a lot of time and effort into presenting your case, to be confronted with a judge who doesn't appear to have done the job she is paid to do and has a professional, ethical and moral obligation to fulfil.

Such a complaint won't even get off the ground. Your complaint is about a judicial decision and the complaints procedure does not investigate such decisions.

The only remedies are to appeal against the decision to adjourn the case again or to apply for judicial review of that decision to the High Court. Both will be expensive and I would not regard either of them as practical..

While I consider the decision wrong in the late of the observations of the previous judge and that neither Jet2 nor Thomson have actually been granted permission to appeal, I fear that there is nothing you can do about it other than to be patient and to keep a record of your expenses

razorsedge

bigmama1 wrote: »

Well, I'm just posting this to make you feel sorry for me! Hopefully!

I have been reading Thomson's Disclosure on and off all day. I want a rest, so I thought I would share with you the amount of paper in their Disclosure as follows:

The Sturgeon Judgment .............................. 14 pages
Nelson Judgment ......................................... 9 "
More Judgment ........................................... 4 "
Axel Walz Judgment (Montreal Convention)....... 7 "
Sidu Judgment ............................................. 19 "
Regulation EC241/2004 ................................. 6 "
Stot & Hook Judgment (Disabled persons) ....... 20 "
European Low Fares Assoc. v Dept Transport? ... 20 "
H.M Revenue & Customs (Nector points & VAT)! 49 "
European Communities Act 1972 ..................... 37 "
Warsaw Convention ....................................... 13 "
Wallentin - Harmann ...................................... 6 "
CAA ............................................................. 9 "
Limitation Act 1980 ........................................ 20 "
Thomson Holidays - Flights & Conditions of
Carriage..................................................... 7 "
1st Witness Statement by Programme Delivery
Manager plus Operations & Crewing reports
(unread at present) ........................................ 36
2nd Witness Statement by Programme Delivery
Manager plus Operations & Crewing reports
(unread at present) ........................................ 16 "
____
292 "

I don't understand why some of these Disclosures are there. Some seem totally irrelevant to my claim? Maybe Thomson don't know
either!

I hope you are not crying in your beer after reading this! It's a shame I do not drink, (teetotal) as I would have been drunk by now!

Bye for now,
from Red eye.

Apart from the final two items, the rest is put together by the CAP department and identical to the disclosure I received. I suspect that many others would have received the same bundle too. Quite a bit of it is to do with the MC 2 year rule (recently dealt with in the Dawson appeal).

There are a few thoughts and summaries here (and in the few other posts referenced) on some of those cases sent to you by Thomson:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64326713#Comment_64326713

JPears

legal_magpie wrote: »

Such a complaint won't even get off the ground. Your complaint is about a judicial decision and the complaints procedure does not investigate such decisions.

The only remedies are to appeal against the decision to adjourn the case again or to apply for judicial review of that decision to the High Court. Both will be expensive and I would not regard either of them as practical..

While I consider the decision wrong in the late of the observations of the previous judge and that neither Jet2 nor Thomson have actually been granted permission to appeal, I fear that there is nothing you can do about it other than to be patient and to keep a record of your expenses

My inference in jaw966's case was more to do with incorrect procedure ie seemingly not being aware of relevant case law or having read the paperwork in advance! Very lazy and unprofessional in my opinion. I'd be struck off professional list for lesser transgressions.

jayw996

I do wonder why I paid for the hearing. I did argue that an appeal has not been made yet by Jet2 or Thomson but the Judge only wanted to listen to their Barrister. Much as I would love to appeal it I fear Legal magpie's comment might make more sense. Would I just be wasting time in appealing. It leaves me feeling like the court system has beaten me not Thomson. Let's be fair their legal fees are probably more than my claim already......all a sudden I made myself feel better!

legal_magpie

jayw996 wrote: »

Would I just be wasting time in appealing.

I'm afraid that you would. You would have to get permission either from the judge who made the order or from the circuit judge. You have to pay a fee to appeal. An appeal would only succeed if the decision to grant the further stay was "plainly wrong" i.e. that no other judge applying the proper principles would have granted the stay.
I doubt if you'd pass that test and in any event by the time your appeal came on we would know whether Thomson have put in their application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and whether they have been granted permission.

So my advice is, wait and see what happens and in the meantime sit in the garden and enjoy the sunshine