Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Marksfish wrote: »

The airline couldn't agree to go to CEDR as they didn't respond to any communication. I went to CEDR after Resolver failed to get any response after the 8 week period. CEDR gave Thomson every opportunity to put forward a defence and they ignored the process, they still have not added anything to the case. As a result, the adjudicator ruled in our favour due to lack of input from Thomson.

Yes Tyzap, I am hoping that the deadline of 4th December will pass and CEDR will be able to enforce their ruling.

Well I had thought that arbitration is only binding if both sides agreed to it, but I see from CEDR's website that airlines who subscribe to it agree that CEDR can take on any case which the airline haven't responded to (after 8 weeks).

This is what they say about "compliance":

Compliance with the Decision

4.6.1 If the adjudicator’s decision directs the airline to take an action in relation to the passenger, and the passenger accepts the decision, the airline must complete the necessary action(s) within 20 working days from the date on which CEDR notifies the airline of the passenger’s acceptance of the decision. The airline must provide evidence to CEDR that the necessary action(s) have been completed.

4.6.2 If the airline is for any reason unable to complete the necessary action(s) within the timescale at Rule 4.6.1 above, the airline must advise the passenger and CEDR why that is before the above timescale expires. At the same time, the airline must specify a substitute date by which the necessary action(s) will be completed.

4.6.3 If the passenger informs CEDR that the airline has not completed the required actions within the timescale set out at Rule 4.6.1 or any substitute timescale advised by the airline under Rule 4.6.2, CEDR will contact the airline to request compliance with the decision. In the event that the airline does not respond or fails to comply with the decision within 10 working days, the matter will be escalated to a senior member of staff at the airline.

4.6.4 In the event that the airline’s failure to respond and/or failure to comply persists, appropriate action can be taken by CEDR which may include suspension or termination of CEDR membership and automatic notification of such action communicated to the Civil Aviation Authority.

4.6.5 The contract between CEDR and a participating airline requires the airline to agree that, once CEDR has accepted a complaint, the airline may not withdraw before CEDR has made its decision. Furthermore, if the airline terminates their participation in the Scheme, this will not affect the processing of and resolution of any disputes submitted by passengers, and already accepted by CEDR, before the effective date of that termination, nor the airline’s obligation to comply with any binding outcome of the process.

So if they don't play ball, the airline gets kicked off the scheme! You've been in touch with CEDR do just need to let the process play out I think.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

redmark82 - you are on a 'winner'. Google and then read Vauban's Guide and go from there. Doubt you will get your money in time for Christmas but on its way in the New Year!

Agreed. Since it looks reasonably straightforward, if you haven't had a response after 8 weeks it might be worth going to CEDR rather than court. Should be cheaper and quicker.

JPears

It would appear from this thread that Thomson are either:
1. Collapsing under the volume of complaints and claims
or
2. Choosing to ignore claims, especially those not taking the legal route early on in the process.
Either is unacceptable and Thomson really should be putting more resources into this problem. Do they have a Facebook page? If so claimers really should be bombarding the page with complaints.

Marksfish

I contacted CEDR about the rejection letter and got the following reply:

As you have accepted the decision it is binding upon the airline and they will need to comply within 20 working days (we sometimes find that the customer service department send out responses to your original complaint without realising it is being dealt with through CEDR/before the CEDR decision is issued). If you do not receive payment within this time, please do contact us and we will chase it for you.

So they will chase it but not necessarily enforce it.

ann7313

I had the same response from CEDR. I emailed them 3 days after the date for Thomson to respond and they chased daily. I received my payment within a week.

redmark82

Hi,

I've just opened a case with the CEDR, thanks for the help guys, its really appreciated

Kmc25xx

I have been using the Resolver app since 9th August writing to Thomsons about an 18 hour delay between lanzarote & Glasgow and I'm yet to hear anything! On the 17th CEDR advised I would have to raise the case with them through their own site .. which I've done. Any ideas how long I'll wait now for a response!?

K xx

JPears

Thomson will stall, deny, procrastinate as long as they can. Keep on with the CEDR. Or go legal diy.

PeterPan1952

I offer our history (to encourage others) and have a couple of questions (sorry for the lengthy post)

HISTORY

23 Sep 2015. My wife and I travelled from Paphos (PFO) to East Midlands (EMA) on TOM7319, which arrived over 5 hours late.

30 Sep 2015. I emailed Thomson to claim compensation (€400 per person) for the delay under EU Regulation 261/2004.

21 Dec 2015. Thomson rejected my claim, citing Exceptional Circumstances (EC). They cited the European Commission draft guidelines, which state that EC will exist in the case of:

“15. Closure of either the airport of arrival or the airport of departure for non-security and non-meteorological reasons.”
Thomson stated that, in this case, the EC was the closure, on the previous day, of the airport at Rhodes (which presumably led to various aircraft being out of position).

29 Dec 2015. I applied to the Department of Civil Aviation in Cyprus for a judgement. They are the “National Enforcement Body” for flights departing from Cyprus.

4 Mar 2016. Cyprus DCA found in our favour; EC had not existed.

5 Mar 2016. I emailed Thomson, referring to the ruling by Cyprus DCA and re-stating our claim.

6 Jun 2016. Thomson rejected our claim, citing the same "EC" and signposted us to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR).

19 Jul 2016. CEDR found in our favour.

26 Jul 2016. CEDR announced their decision that Thomson should pay the compensation, giving both parties 20 working days to comply. (i.e. by 22 Aug 2016)

24 Aug 2016. I informed CEDR that Thomson had not paid up be the due date. They offered to encourage Thomson and reported that Thomson were “having problems” making payments.

08 Oct 2016. I submitted a Claim to the County Court Money Claim Centre (CCMCC) by post and copied it by email to Thomson for information. This claim included the original compensation (€800 = £721), plus Punitive damages of an equal amount, interest (£123) and the Court Fee (£115)

10 Oct 2016. CCMCC received my Claim. They would serve papers on Thomson.

19 Oct 2016. Thomson claim to have initiated payment of £670.64, in settlement.

24 Oct 2016. CCMCC deemed papers to have been served on Thomson, giving them 14 days to respond. (i.e. by 7 Nov 2016)

27 Oct 2016. The sum of £670.64 arrived in our joint bank account.

07 Nov 2016. I emailed Thomson to acknowledge receipt of the £670.64, but made it clear that we considered it a part-payment and did NOT accept it as full settlement. As they had not (as far as we knew) responded to the Court by the due date, I informed them that we would be submitting a Request for Judgement.

08 Nov 2016. CCMCC advised me that Thomson had filed an Acknowledgement of Service and intended to defend the claim. This gave them an additional 14 days in which to file their defence. (i.e. by 21 Nov 2016)

22 Nov 2016. CCMCC advised that they had not yet received a Defence from Thomson. I submitted the Request for Judgement.

24 Nov 2016. Thomson filed their Defence by email, stating that the £670.64 was in full settlement of the compensation claim. They also:

a. said that our claim for Punitive damages was “vexatious”, as ‘the Regulations, does not (sic) make any provision for further payments for additional expenses such as “Punitive Damages” ‘.

b. denied that we were ‘entitled to interest on the sum claimed, or at all, as “compensation” under article 7 of the Regulation does not constitute “the recovery of a debt or damages” as defined in s.69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984.’

QUESTIONS

1. Do we stand any chance of getting Punitive damages awarded? We are claiming them, as Thomson have behaved dishonourably by:

a. Claiming EC, where none existed. (Rhodes was not the airport of arrival or departure and the closure was the day before our flight)
b. Failing to pay us after the finding in our favour by the Cyprus National Enforcement Body.
c. Failing to pay us within the 20 working days allowed after the CEDR finding in our favour.
d. Failing to submit their Defence by the due date, set by the Court. (they were 3 days late).

2. Do we stand any chance of claiming costs and interest on the debt? Our (legally unqualified) view is that we only incurred the Court Fee after Thomson failed to pay, as directed by CEDR and that the finding by CEDR creates an obligation to pay compensation, which is therefore a debt, on which interest should be payable.

Good luck everyone!

JPears

Whilst you have a good case, based on your last statement in that CEDR had found in your favour (what is the point in having the CEDR process if the airlines don't adhere to its decision?) you may struggle legally.
You should certainly be getting your court fees back from Thomson, as it took court action to get them to payup.
If they won't pay up the court fees, to which you are entitled, then if you have to make a court appearance, you can bring in your other arguements re damages and interest. This will depend entirely on the judge on the day and the legal arguements/case law you will have to bring to the case. This is where it will get hard work for you, with little return, in effect. Interest awarded is a sporadic occurance in the court system on this particular matter.
Although small claims court is intended for the man in the street to make a legal case, in effect it still alows Thomson to take a fully trained legal representative into the meeting, to your disadvantage.
Time for negotiation with Thomson.