Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

mazman777

Hi,


Got a delay coming back from Mexico in 2013 over 7hrs and wrote to Thompsons using the template letters and about 3-4 weeks later received a letter of apology and a cheque for 1200euro's for both of us.


I used the link to show the arrival time of the aircraft and sent them a printout along with my reference number, they didn't argue or ask for any additional documents.


Thanks Moneysavingexpert.com

bigmama1

I can only say how bitterly disappointed my husband and are on receipt of the District Judge's decision which is dated 10th July 2014, received today 17th July 2014.

You might remember my previous post on the ---- up regarding our visit to the court last Thursday 10th July 2014 where we were informed that our hearing was not listed for 10.00 am but listed for 2.00 pm that day! Upon our arrival home a message was on the answer machine informing us that the Judge was going to make his decision on paperwork alone. This was despite our previous request, in writing, that we wished to have an oral hearing!

The next morning, 11th July 2014, we took to the court, our letter explaining these facts together with our skeleton argument and additional papers which we had not been able to present to the court on the 10th July 2014. As these were handed in by 9.30 a.m. we had hoped that the skeleton argument together with additional papers would have been read prior to a decision being made. How wrong were we!

In the Form of Judgment or Order received this morning our claim has been dismissed! I strongly believe this decision is incorrect, particularly with the proof provided by us.

I quote below for the "experts" on this forum, to read this decision.

I would also mention that this decision was made by a different judge to the one originally allocated to our claim. Is this legal? How could this other judge possibly have made his decision on the date we were declined to attend court?

District Judge Humphreys (not Dudley)

"Upon reading the evidence and submissions filed by the parties

BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION

(1) I am satisfied that Reg EC261/2004 "The Regulations" does not mention limitation periods and therefore the time bringing an action is 6 years pursuant to Limitation Act 1980. Montreal Convention does not apply. Though Defendants have an appeal pending, satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with claim.

(2) Claimants have a prima facie claim against the Defendants for delays on 2 flights between London and Florida of nearly 24 hours each. Claimants can properly rely on Article 3 and Article 6 of the Regulations and have a prima facie right to compensation pursuant to Article 7.

(3) Defendant's defence is that there are "extraordinary circumstances". The Regulations refer, in paragraph 14 of the recitals to such things as "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned" and "strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier". Such matters are outside the airline's control.

(4) On the date in question records (Daily Operating Reports annexed to the Witness Statement of Stephen Smith dated 17 June 2014) indicate that the following 3 days of severe winter weather which led to London Gatwick Airport being closed until 6 am on 3 December 2010 and 2 days of strikes by Spanish Air Traffic Controllers on 3 December 2010 and 4 December 2010 had left the Claimant's schedule disarray with aircraft and crew out of position.

(5) Those 2 matters - the severe weather and the strike in Spain - were outside the control of the Defendant, as well as the aircraft failure of a third party airline the Defendant had tried to hire to assist in clearing the backlog.

(6) Accordingly, these matters amount to "exceptional circumstances" which afford the Defendant a complete defence.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

THE CLAIM IS DISMISSED.
Dated 10 July 2014"

My comments:

(a) Was this different Judge, aware of our correspondence requesting an oral hearing? IMO this Defence should have been thrown out as it was not SIGNED?

(b) I had supplied proof (from their daily log) that Thomson had secured a permit to fly in Algerian airspace on 4 December 2010 to avoid the Spanish Air Traffic strike!

(c) The fact that the Thomas Cook replacement aircraft was standing at the gate waiting for us then was cancelled for "technical reasons" does not come under extraordinary circumstances under the recent ruling?

(d) I did find (from their daily log) that this aircraft had damaged its "flaps" on arrival at Gatwick airport. How then did this aircraft manage to get to the departure gate to await for us passengers?

These are just a few questions we were not allowed to ask. I personally feel that this decision has been mishandled.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated. Sorry this post is so
long!

phritchie

It sounds like you may have grounds for an appeal.

Or, there may be a rule about if a judgement is given without a hearing you can apply to have it set aside. This happened in my case, the judge believed Thomson s 2 year limit defence and ordered it struck out, so I had to make an application to counter that. The case is still going now, post Dawson

Good luck, you'll have some reading to do though.

JPears

Bigmama - try Coby Benson at Bott & Co. He likes a challenge!

bigmama1

phritchie wrote: »

It sounds like you may have grounds for an appeal.

Or, there may be a rule about if a judgement is given without a hearing you can apply to have it set aside. This happened in my case, the judge believed Thomson s 2 year limit defence and ordered it struck out, so I had to make an application to counter that. The case is still going now, post Dawson

Good luck, you'll have some reading to do though.

Just received a letter today telling me that my claim cannot be reopened and that if I disagree with the Judgment I must appeal to the Circuit Judge. This was after my letter complaining that we hadn't been given an oral hearing as requested! Of course this is going to cost us OAP's another £120.00! I might even write and tell them to take it out of the £170.00 I paid for a hearing fee which didn't happen! I know I would be wasting my breathe though.

I have contacted Bott and Co and waiting for their reply. The thing is, although we have legal expenses on our home insurance we are not covered for an event which occurred prior to taking the policy out. i.e 2010. (Only had this policy since April this year). I have now requested previous bank statements for 2010 to enable me to see who we were insured with at that time! That is the down side when you change insurer if their price is cheaper!

The family are urging my husband and I to let this all go as it is getting very stressful. I am in remission from cancer at the moment and I've been advised by my consultant that stress will be detrimental to my health. It's just my stubbornness and the fact that Thomson will get away with their lies that makes me want to go on.

I will wait until I hear back from Bott and Co first. We are afraid to contact a local solicitor as they might not have experience in these compensation matters.

111KAB

Seems to me if you paid £170 for a hearing which did not occur you should be asking for the money back for starters. Difficulty with appealing is that in the case of Huzar v Jet2 the 'result' affects nearly every case whereas I believe there is an inference that adverse weather may have caused your delay this being a possible get out of jail card for both the airline and a District/Circuit judge. I think you have to wait to see what the Wilmslow solicitor says as I would accept their comment as being my guidance.


Sorry to hear of the decision by the way - don't stress over it though - life is not worth it ~ neither are the airlines.

nathsam46

Hi all I'm after some info on Thomson delay compensation, me and my girlfriend were on flight tom33 puerto Vallarta on sat 14th June 2014, after a few hours of sitting there with a right engine no start failure they took us back off the plane and into a hotel again till the next day, we eventually arrived back in gatwick with a 19 hour delay, I have emailed Thomson customer services and they replied I had to wait 28 days for a reply but I've heard nothing and it's now over 28 days, any advice would be appreciated on delay compensation,

Thanks

111KAB

nathsam46 wrote: »

Hi all I'm after some info on Thomson delay compensation, me and my girlfriend were on flight tom33 puerto Vallarta on sat 14th June 2014, after a few hours of sitting there with a right engine no start failure they took us back off the plane and into a hotel again till the next day, we eventually arrived back in gatwick with a 19 hour delay, I have emailed Thomson customer services and they replied I had to wait 28 days for a reply but I've heard nothing and it's now over 28 days, any advice would be appreciated on delay compensation,

Thanks

You have a valid claim due to your plane have a technical problem. In the first instance I suggest you just pester them reminding them of the fact you were promised a 28 day response. Ultimately you may have to consider court action however you are probably better to wait until appeal cases (Huzar) have progressed a little further as time is on your side.

nathsam46

111KAB wrote: »

You have a valid claim due to your plane have a technical problem. In the first instance I suggest you just pester them reminding them of the fact you were promised a 28 day response. Ultimately you may have to consider court action however you are probably better to wait until appeal cases (Huzar) have progressed a little further as time is on your side.

Thanks for that

bigmama1

111KAB wrote: »

Seems to me if you paid £170 for a hearing which did not occur you should be asking for the money back for starters. Difficulty with appealing is that in the case of Huzar v Jet2 the 'result' affects nearly every case whereas I believe there is an inference that adverse weather may have caused your delay this being a possible get out of jail card for both the airline and a District/Circuit judge. I think you have to wait to see what the Wilmslow solicitor says as I would accept their comment as being my guidance.


Sorry to hear of the decision by the way - don't stress over it though - life is not worth it ~ neither are the airlines.

I'm beginning to give up now.

I want to make a complaint to the court and ask for my £170 hearing fee back. Also complain about the court office not fully responding to a letter with a specific simple question I had asked. i.e. What time was my hearing listed as it was never given on any correspondence from the court.

Do you or anybody else know who to address my letter to?

I want to ask for this refund as I asked for an oral hearing which didn't take place! That will make my monetary lose less. It's a shame I can't charge Thomson for the hours and days of my time they have cheated me out of as well! It's still hard to accept though when the Judge gives a decision based on weather and Spanish Air Traffic strike. I proved in my skeleton statement that the weather did not have an adverse effect as other airlines were arriving and departing from Gatwick on our date of travel. On the question about the Spanish Air Traffic strike I also found proof that Thomson had acquired a permit to fly over the Algerian air space. So no need for them to cancel flights. This information was in my skeleton argument which I was unable to present on the day of the supposed hearing!

I did take the skeleton argument, by hand, early the following morning to the court. Obviously though nobody had read it otherwise I think the decision would have been different!

So, if I can get my £170 back I will try to forget the stressful year this has given me.

I will follow the progress of other claimants though and will rejoice every time Thomson have to pay out! So good luck to everyone.