Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Ich_2

Has anyone had a defence yet from Thomson trying to limit the claim to two years from a delayed flight?

Lots of info in this thread and one or two set up specifically about the two year limit. Have a read of them!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Orange_Smartie wrote: »

Has anyone had a defence yet from Thomson trying to limit the claim to two years from a delayed flight?

There are key pieces of case law for the overall claim and the two year limit that I can see.

1. The Sturgeon case that gave way to payment of compensation
2. The case that mentions the Montreal Convention but then states that it is not related to 261/2004 claims
3. The case where someone asked for clarification on the time limit to bring a case for compensation
4. Another rule I have seen that removes from a sales contract any limitation for claims.

I am afraid (at the moment) I don't know the formal titles, sections, ruling numbers. I have a headache at the moment. But I will be looking for all the fuller details for my own court case as I will no doubt need to quote these relevant sections at some point.

I know it is all mentioned in this section of the forum but I think it has all got a bit mixed up with all the threads and comments so you might need to hunt around a bit. That is possibly why there may now be more clarification questions put up here @ich as we all edge closer and closer to the steps of the court house.

I think that is all the relevant bits and bods but if not or if I am wrong I am sure someone cleverer than me can correct me?

Orange_Smartie

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

There are key pieces of case law for the overall claim and the two year limit that I can see.

1. The Sturgeon case that gave way to payment of compensation
2. The case that mentions the Montreal Convention but then states that it is not related to 261/2004 claims
3. The case where someone asked for clarification on the time limit to bring a case for compensation
4. Another rule I have seen that removes from a sales contract any limitation for claims.

I am afraid (at the moment) I don't know the formal titles, sections, ruling numbers. I have a headache at the moment. But I will be looking for all the fuller details for my own court case as I will no doubt need to quote these relevant sections at some point.

I know it is all mentioned in this section of the forum but I think it has all got a bit mixed up with all the threads and comments so you might need to hunt around a bit. That is possibly why there may now be more clarification questions put up here @ich as we all edge closer and closer to the steps of the court house.

I think that is all the relevant bits and bods but if not or if I am wrong I am sure someone cleverer than me can correct me?

I think I may not have come across numbers 2 and 4 from your list.

Following my initial letter of claim, I received their reply (marked "without prejudice") asking me to complete their own claim form and submit various pieces of documentation.

I did this and then received a further reply (again marked "without prejudice") which refused the claim on the basis of it being out of time.

This reply appeared to be a standard letter which I am sure they are sending to everyone who is claiming for a deley more than two years ago. It basically said that "The Supreme Court in the UK has said that claims to do with "international carriage by air" need to be brought within two years. If you know what piece of case law they are relying upon, that would be helpful because I have been unable to find anything.

I have since written back pointing out the Cuadrench More v KLM case and I have had a further reply of which the first paragraph reads "I'd like to advise you that when the ruling was passed, it was initially understood that customers could claim anything up to 6 years from the date of their delay as per UK law. However, the ECJ has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long customers have to bring their claims forward, we now need to look at our national law."

They then go on to repeat the "international carriage by air" information they put in an earlier letter.

Has anyone else had this?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Orange_Smartie wrote: »

I think I may not have come across numbers 2 and 4 from your list.

Following my initial letter of claim, I received their reply (marked "without prejudice") asking me to complete their own claim form and submit various pieces of documentation.

I did this and then received a further reply (again marked "without prejudice") which refused the claim on the basis of it being out of time.

This reply appeared to be a standard letter which I am sure they are sending to everyone who is claiming for a deley more than two years ago. It basically said that "The Supreme Court in the UK has said that claims to do with "international carriage by air" need to be brought within two years. If you know what piece of case law they are relying upon, that would be helpful because I have been unable to find anything.

I have since written back pointing out the Cuadrench More v KLM case and I have had a further reply of which the first paragraph reads "I'd like to advise you that when the ruling was passed, it was initially understood that customers could claim anything up to 6 years from the date of their delay as per UK law. However, the ECJ has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long customers have to bring their claims forward, we now need to look at our national law."

They then go on to repeat the "international carriage by air" information they put in an earlier letter.

Has anyone else had this?

Yes I had exactly the same duo of letters from Thomson. First Waxing Lyrical about their wonderful reliability and saying you are out of time and quoting the UK Supreme Court and they hope it wont deter you from traveling with them soon.

I then, like you, replied. Mine was with a letter before action putting them on 14 days notice. The reply I got re-emphasised the same rubbish in their first letter but then advised me to seek advice from "a third party" and to take it further if I felt so inclined.

I have now submitted a a Small Claims court N1 so Thomson now have 14 days to acknowledge and 30 days to submit a defence which I know will simply re-iterate the whole Montreal Convention rubbish.

Oh and the Supreme Court in the UK has actually said nothing about 261/2004. I called the registry and the person their couldn't find anything.

The case Thomson refer or are relying on in the UK Supreme Court statement is called Sidhu v British Airways. Something they have dredged up from 1996 that is to do with people being kidnapped I think while their plane was being re-fueled.

How that coincides with cracked windscreens, technical faults and needing to pump up the tyres before take off and the foot pump was lost - or whatever other excuses airlines are trundling out I don't know.

jenn1ewest1

please can anyone help me with what I need to write on my court claim as i am really struggling with this
thanks in advance
J

111KAB

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

please can anyone help me with what I need to write on my court claim as i am really struggling with this
thanks in advance
J

I think if you are struggling with this you may well struggle to represent yourself in Court so possibly now is the time to either walk away or use a no win no fee firm.

User4815

User4815 wrote: »

First letter sent to Thomson Airlines this morning by registered post. If no suitable reply within 14 days I will contact aviationreg dot ie (I'm in Ireland) to take the next step.

#TheLongRoadBegins

According to tracking log - my letter was received on Friday, April 13th at 2pm.

SimonD316

Orange_Smartie wrote: »

Following my initial letter of claim, I received their reply (marked "without prejudice") asking me to complete their own claim form and submit various pieces of documentation.

I did this and then received a further reply (again marked "without prejudice") which refused the claim on the basis of it being out of time.

This reply appeared to be a standard letter which I am sure they are sending to everyone who is claiming for a deley more than two years ago. It basically said that "The Supreme Court in the UK has said that claims to do with "international carriage by air" need to be brought within two years. If you know what piece of case law they are relying upon, that would be helpful because I have been unable to find anything.

I have since written back pointing out the Cuadrench More v KLM case and I have had a further reply of which the first paragraph reads "I'd like to advise you that when the ruling was passed, it was initially understood that customers could claim anything up to 6 years from the date of their delay as per UK law. However, the ECJ has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long customers have to bring their claims forward, we now need to look at our national law."

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Yes I had exactly the same duo of letters from Thomson.

I've had the same letters too, and I quoted the More v KLM case. As with A Flock Of Sheep my latest letter was a 14 day NBA but I'm planning to see how things pan out with the first few cases before I take them to court so I have a better idea what to expect.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Oh and the Supreme Court in the UK has actually said nothing about 261/2004. I called the registry and the person their couldn't find anything.

The case Thomson refer or are relying on in the UK Supreme Court statement is called Sidhu v British Airways. Something they have dredged up from 1996 that is to do with people being kidnapped I think while their plane was being re-fueled.

That's very useful to know, We all suspected the Supreme Court stuff was rubbish, but this confirms it. Hopefully Thompson will get what they deserve with this.

spaceaarvark

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

please can anyone help me with what I need to write on my court claim as i am really struggling with this
thanks in advance
J

Something like this:

I am claiming compensation under Article 7 of
EC 261/2004 pursuant to the Sturgeon judgment
in the ECJ (Case C-402/07 dated 19 November
2009) which provides for EURxxx per passenger
per delayed flight to be paid in the
following circumstances:
Flight TOMxxxx, Here to There, xx/xx/20xx
Passenger Names: Mr xxxxx xxxxxx
Mrs xxxxx xxxxxx
Our flight was delayed leaving Here. We
arrived at There xx hours after the
scheduled arrival time.
At the time we were informed that the delay was due to whatever

hopeitflys

Thanks for the reply Centipede , the solicitors through an insurance policy are getting the same runaround as I did , 28 days to respond to letters etc. I've phoned Thomson again this morning and was told my case was now with the directors as they had recieved the letter from my MP and my case had been escalated above the normal customer services. I have again asked this morning for the full details of the delay to be sent in writing and as soon as I have that I will be taking Court action.I told Thomson that if as I think they only sub-contracted when their plane was unavailable then Thomson would still be liable hopefully a Court would also come to this conclusion. I will keep you informed. Thanks again for all your advice.