Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Bonters

blondmark wrote: »

So we all know about the time limit of six years for bringing claims under 261/2004 handed down by the ECJ in Case C-139/11 Joan Cuadrench More v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV.

Essentially that's the reason Thompson's hilarious pre-eminent QC got it so wrong about 261/2004. His argument is limited solely to Montreal Convention claims, so if you die on a flight or lose a leg, you will need to get your claim in within two years.

But what about airlines with terms that contain a clause limiting all claims to two years, and you've clicked a box agreeing to them?

Well firstly any term that purports to limit or exclude a statutory right is immediately void. However secondly, the Regulation itself expressly prohibits any interference from airlines' terms under Article 15:

“Exclusion of waiver

1. Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage.”

No offence, blondmark, cos you are clearly a 'good guy'. BUT I do prefer to play Devil's Advocate on such issues. Am I right in thinking that the UK Civil Courts have never been invited to rule on any statutory limitations? The case you quote is not a UK ruling and as far as I can establish, no UK ruling exists? In which case, it has to be so far 'untried'? Hence the use of it by the likes of Thomson, in the absence of anything to the contrary, if you see what I mean?

happychap7

Hi
The CAA were in talks with Thomsons about the 2 year limit they keep quoting. Anyone heard the result of the talks yet please.

nigelpm

happychap7 wrote: »

Hi
The CAA were in talks with Thomsons about the 2 year limit they keep quoting. Anyone heard the result of the talks yet please.

Don't know but this document shows Thomson's intent :

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2107/Thomson%20Airways.pdf

maghater

Vauban wrote: »

I don't know - it's a tricky one, and a judge could rule either way. Only way to know for sure would be to take it to court.

I would be wanting to know what the technical issue was, and when it became apparent. Also the weather delay, was it just at your departure airport, or was it down to knock on effects from other flights.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

nigelpm wrote: »

Don't know but this document shows Thomson's intent :

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2107/Thomson%20Airways.pdf

Clearly Thomson don't want to be told what to do. The travel industry it seems for a long time has gone unchecked where consumer protection is concerned.

For example if I buy and iron from Argos and it is faulty and I return it I can (by law) be offered a refund or a replacement. If I go on holiday and receive a bad experience for example flight delay or bad accommodation it is inordinately difficult to gain any recompense. Travel firms do not seem to say: I am sorry Madam your holiday was no good would you like a refund or a new holiday? You are luck to get a derisory voucher as a "goodwill gesture".

It is high time holidays were brought into line with faulty irons, cookers, MP3 Players so on and so forth:T

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Thomson's letter to the CAA says:

..."the EU institutions and national legislators have gradually seen fit to interfere in the market and effectively re-regulate through bringing in ‘consumer protection regulations’ such as EU 261/2004 and EU 1007/2006 both of which are laudable regulations aimed at curbing the most dilatory behaviour by a few airlines."...

I think your behaviour over 261/2004 is pretty dilatory Thomson so I am pleased you see fit to write about yourelve's there. Your behaviour is also pretty deplorable through forcing customers down a litigation path instead of acting properly.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

So basically Thomson don't want to see any consumer protection regulations - their opinion is that if you buy a cheap flight be prepared to sit on a lounge floor for hours while they repair their cracked windscreen or pump up their flat tyres or any other lame excuse that is an Extraordinary Circumstances.

I hope 261/2004 screws Thomson to the floor.

Ich_2

I hope 261/2004 screws Thomson to the floor.

Which reduces competition, reduces customer choice, possibly increases cost and will possible see a rash of even more cheap & cheerful airlines brought in to get all the folk on holiday!
Good plan

Would you rather see them be brought into line with what the customer wants?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Ich wrote: »

Which reduces competition, reduces customer choice, possibly increases cost and will possible see a rash of even more cheap & cheerful airlines brought in to get all the folk on holiday!
Good plan

Would you rather see them be brought into line with what the customer wants?

I would want to see them pay compensation where due without lame excuses and the making up of stories of time limits and pre-eminent QCs. If they don't want to do that I won't miss them on the High Street or on the Web. Easyjet are one of the "no frills" companies and on the Easyjet thread they seem to be fully embracing the 261/2004 and paying out as they should.

Unless Thomson are prepared to do the same they have no place trading in my opinion.

rajivsingh100

Hello. I d really like to get people's advice/view on our dilemma.
We were delayed by 25 hrs by thomson on a trip to the maldives at manchester. They told us that they had diverted the flight to caribbean to pick up people stuck there because another plane had broken down. Clearly a hard nosed business decision for them but we lost 1 day of our holiday which was a late honeymoon. Two years later and some 5 letters later, they continue to deny our claim and I spoke to someone at Tui customer service and they confirmed that their legal dept has drafted a reply that they are sending to everyone to deny all claims! I think the only recourse now is to go to small claims court. Is this likely to be throwing good money after bad. i cant believe that I watch tv and see people who are getting 100s or even 1000s fro a delay of a few hrs and we re being denied a loss of 1/7th of our holiday!
Their last letter also claims that the flight was delayed as the plane was faulty. This is clearly at odds with what their own staff admitted at the time but we have no proof. Surely airlines could just claim that all their flights were just "extraordinarily delayed" as we customers have no proof that it was their mishandling.
Anyway, what do readers think? I d really welcome advice as o whether to pursue further or give it up?
We ve copied CAA/AUC into the letters but they have a huge backlog and tell us they cant speed anything up. Should we be waiting for them to actually respond first.
Much obliged to all.