Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Harrys_gran

Court action sent to Liverpool from Bolton. Thomson given until Dec 11th to respond with a copy to me. Original case has been stayed for over a year pending.
Spoke to Court yesterday and nothing has been received, advised that I can now ask for judgement - can anyone advise next steps ?

NoviceAngel

Harrys_gran wrote: »

Court action sent to Liverpool from Bolton. Thomson given until Dec 11th to respond with a copy to me. Original case has been stayed for over a year pending.
Spoke to Court yesterday and nothing has been received, advised that I can now ask for judgement - can anyone advise next steps ?

I would write to the Court and ask the Judge to enter Judgement as Thomson have not offered any defence.

I assume your stay was lifted as a result of Huzar or Dawson? Either way Thomson seem to be paying out, so make sure you copy your letter to the Court to Thomson - that gives them a chance to settle while the Court process takes place.

Debs45

February 2013 I submitted a claim for a Thomson flight that was 4hrs 50mins delayed due to a fuel leak. In June this year Thomson rejected my claim and so did the CAA saying this claim falls under the 'extraordinary circumstances' section.

However, I've read that under the law you CAN claim for technical problems that haven't been caused by "extraordinary circumstances".

Can anyone please advise if this is worth pursuing as Thomson have informed me that any further correspondence will not be responded to!

NoviceAngel

Debs45 wrote: »

February 2013 I submitted a claim for a Thomson flight that was 4hrs 50mins delayed due to a fuel leak. In June this year Thomson rejected my claim and so did the CAA saying this claim falls under the 'extraordinary circumstances' section.

However, I've read that under the law you CAN claim for technical problems that haven't been caused by "extraordinary circumstances".

Can anyone please advise if this is worth pursuing as Thomson have informed me that any further correspondence will not be responded to!

It sounds like you have a claim, so please read PtL Vaubans guide everything you need is in there, a link is in the sticky thread at the top of the forum

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Harrys_gran

Many thanks to Novice Angel a little more info:

- Thomson Amended Defence quoted Montreal Convention and subsequently claim was stayed awaiting Dawson decision. Gave no other reason for flight delay but did confirm the flight actually took place with no mention of delay.Also denied that 8% interest was appropriate.
- Stayed in October 2013 at Bolton.
- Transferred to Liverpool when Thomson were told to provide additional information to the Court by Dec 11th 2014 which has not materialised.

NoviceAngel

Harrys_gran wrote: »

Many thanks to Novice Angel a little more info:

- Thomson Amended Defence quoted Montreal Convention and subsequently claim was stayed awaiting Dawson decision. Gave no other reason for flight delay but did confirm the flight actually took place with no mention of delay.Also denied that 8% interest was appropriate.
- Stayed in October 2013 at Bolton.
- Transferred to Liverpool when Thomson were told to provide additional information to the Court by Dec 11th 2014 which has not materialised.

It is at the DJs discretion to decide if any interest is payable not Thomson. The Judge will also decide the rate.

Your case is quite simple, they have not entered a defence and as a result of the Supreme Court ruling you would like the case to continue to a hearing .....

You might also want to include this .....

Professor_the_Lord_Vauban wrote: »

Apologies for duplicate posting (this is also on the Huzar thread) but for those applying to have stays overturned, you might find it useful to include this document from the Supreme Court. It doesn't add to what is in the public domain, but I think the seal adds quite a bit of gravitas!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f8b69w397rsab5u/Supreme%20Court%20Huzar%20Dawson.pdf?dl=0

(Many thanks to Bott and Co for making this available to share with you all.)

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel

Harrys_gran wrote: »

- Transferred to Liverpool when Thomson were told to provide additional information to the Court by Dec 11th 2014 which has not materialised.

Just to add that it's not unusual to have your case transferred to Liverpool, the Judges their are regarded as the most experienced at dealing with flight delay claims, if your case does (unlikely) proceed to a full hearing then your case might well be transferred out back to Bolton.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Harrys_gran

Court Order to Thomson also states that default in receipt of required information would result in Defence standing as 'struck out without further order pursuant'.

Would this alter Novice Angel's advice ?

NoviceAngel

Harrys_gran wrote: »

Court Order to Thomson also states that default in receipt of required information would result in Defence standing as 'struck out without further order pursuant'.

Would this alter Novice Angel's advice ?

Yes it would, simply ask the Judge to strike out Thomsons defence and enter Judgement - no need for a hearing!

leicsmarkyr

Has anyone had any successful claim on the London Gatwick to Sanford flight of 25th April and return 9th May?