Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

mackers88

Thanks for those last 2 comments.
Difficult one really - @ delay event FX rate, it would be £550. If interest applied @8% = £870 versus £436 offered.


Don,t want to be greedy but looks like T win if I take the money as it stands.


When you say be careful of going to court - what could be the downside for me ? - couldn,t be any worse than the £436 could it ?

NoviceAngel

mackers88 wrote: »

When you say be careful of going to court - what could be the downside for me ? - couldn,t be any worse than the £436 could it ?

Depends how confident you are at winning your case, the Judge could dismiss the whole case and award costs against you - extremely unlikely but could happen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't go for the full 8% if YOU feel you have a strong case, but 8% is not the norm from what I've read.

razorsedge

Scruffywuffy wrote: »

is the fact that they've already said that the plane was hit by bird strike on a previous rotation, and that the FOIA act says the engineers say it could have been 3-4 days previous, enough (without the 2nd and 3rd delay which they still have not replied to me about) enough to kick EC into touch as the birdstrike did not apply to my flight but a previous one ?

It all helps.

Scruffywuffy wrote: »

ETA - you say ask for proof of EC in my LBA - they've already said that the EC is a bird strike, so just wondering what more they might be expected by a Judge to add?


Thx

Do you believe what they say?

If I was a Judge then I would want to see documentary evidence that showed there was a bird strike on your flight. (Then I would dismiss the documents as irrelevant because bird strikes are not EC's!:D)

mackers88

T are not defending, so I,m just at the point of returning the Request for judgement slip as an unspecified amount claim.
T has informed the court they,ve settled - I,m including a cover letter saying the discretionary element of the claim has not been settled ie interest and possible FX rate, although T are quoting that County Court Act we,ve discussed.


Any downside you can see in continuing with this as T not defending ?

NoviceAngel

mackers88 wrote: »

T are not defending, so I,m just at the point of returning the Request for judgement slip as an unspecified amount claim.
T has informed the court they,ve settled - I,m including a cover letter saying the discretionary element of the claim has not been settled ie interest and possible FX rate, although T are quoting that County Court Act we,ve discussed.


Any downside you can see in continuing with this as T not defending ?

Not anything other than I have already mentioned, good luck let us know how you get on.

Do remember though, none of us regulars in here are experts in EC261/2004 and the law in the UK. I am certainly not a Solicitor, I can only tell you what I know from reading other posts, so please do not rely on my posts from any legally correct viewpoint.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Scruffywuffy

razorsedge wrote: »

It all helps.



Do you believe what they say?

If I was a Judge then I would want to see documentary evidence that showed there was a bird strike on your flight. (Then I would dismiss the documents as irrelevant because bird strikes are not EC's!:D)

In Thomson's letter to me they state that the bird strike was on a previous rotation, plus the CAA information says:

"Capt of outgoing flight discovered damage during pre-flight walk round. A shallow dent to the leading edge of starboard wing as it meets fuselage. Measures approx 25 inches by 31 inches. As it is a carbon fibre panel it will have to be replaced before the a/c re enters service. Engineers state that the damage could have occurred at any time in the last three or four days as it was difficult to see even in daylight. No blood or spatter visible. Also state likely from a bird bigger than a gull. The a/c has operated flights in the last few days. This matter has also been fully reported on the prime incident reporting system where photos of damage are stored.

Supplementary 10/12/14:

Area was found to be de-laminated in an area which was estimated to be 3ft by 2ft and it appeared that the wing had been stuck at some point. Aircraft was then AOG and pax and crew off-loaded. Flight was then re-scheduled on a replacement."

My bold for emphasis.

Just received a phone call from Thomsons, after I called as my promised return call to update me did not materialise and have been told to expect a letter or email "soon" (David hoped it would be no more than a few days if email, but couldn't be sure!) with a resolution.

Does the word resolution sound hopeful or could they just as well be resolving it by saying no?!?

richardp58

Astonishingly Thomson recently sent me a cheque for £ equivalent of 1,600€ for a delay in August 2008.


I had originally written in Feb 2013 claiming compensation for an over eight hour flight delay. TUI then fobbed me off with the "claims within two year window" line and I reluctantly accepted that the little man would be defeated once again. However, immediately following the Supreme Court judgement last October, I wrote again asking for compensation and requesting settlement in 14 days or possible legal action. No response and I was resigned (again) to missing out. Then, lo and behold, I got a letter from Thomson Airways last month enclosing a cheque (albeit at a rather poor exchange rate of 1.374 and without interest or further comp for the hassle!). They acknowledged the flight was delayed "as a result of operational issues" and suggesting that "this might go some way to restoring faith in us". My gob was well and truly smacked!


Perhaps there has been some change of heart at Thomson...

Vauban

richardp58 wrote: »

Astonishingly Thomson recently sent me a cheque for £ equivalent of 1,600€ for a delay in August 2008.


I had originally written in Feb 2013 claiming compensation for an over eight hour flight delay. TUI then fobbed me off with the "claims within two year window" line and I reluctantly accepted that the little man would be defeated once again. However, immediately following the Supreme Court judgement last October, I wrote again asking for compensation and requesting settlement in 14 days or possible legal action. No response and I was resigned (again) to missing out. Then, lo and behold, I got a letter from Thomson Airways last month enclosing a cheque (albeit at a rather poor exchange rate of 1.374 and without interest or further comp for the hassle!). They acknowledged the flight was delayed "as a result of operational issues" and suggesting that "this might go some way to restoring faith in us". My gob was well and truly smacked!


Perhaps there has been some change of heart at Thomson...

Wow. Just. Wow.

I think I only recall one other occasion when an airline paid a claim that was legally out of time. You are very lucky indeed!

Vauban

mackers88 wrote: »

T are not defending, so I,m just at the point of returning the Request for judgement slip as an unspecified amount claim.
T has informed the court they,ve settled - I,m including a cover letter saying the discretionary element of the claim has not been settled ie interest and possible FX rate, although T are quoting that County Court Act we,ve discussed.


Any downside you can see in continuing with this as T not defending ?

I'm not a lawyer either. But I think if your claim including interest at 8% it is entirely appropriate to continue with that claim, and I see no prospect of a judge throwing your claim out.

As NA says, the Judge may not award the full 8% - but I don't think it is quite as unusual as NA says. My impression is that plenty of people get interest at 8%, regardless of how the other side has behaved.

However, I have no stats to back up this point, so could be totally talking out of my hat!!

But definitely proceed to request judgement if the explicit value of your claim has only partially been met by the airline.

mackers88

Thanks for all the input.
Phoned the court today for further clarification - It seems that in my case at least T is still playing the game.
It,s email to the court is not a recognisable "answer" to the notice of service - not an admission - and since no direct offer has been addressed to me, is not due process. Further, they have lettered the court apparently saying the claim is settled without any direct contact with me (only told on phone - no sight ) - well no !
Congrats to the poster earlier from 2008 event - seems T are still prepared to be hornery on an ad hoc basis