Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

Mark2spark

Recently, Thomson have commenced writing to claimants stating that;
"The European court of justice has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long passengers have to bring their claims, we need to look at our national law. The supreme court in the UK has said that all claims to do with 'international carriage by air' need to be brought within two years. We therefore can't consider claims for flights that were delayed more than two years ago".

This is a complete and utter falsehood.

Firstly, there is a case known as Cuadrench More v KLM Case C-139/11 - full judgement, where the Provincial Court of Barcelona, Spain, hearing the case, asks the Court of Justice whether the time-limits for bringing actions for compensation under EU law are determined by the Montreal Convention or in accordance with some other provision, in particular the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions.

The Court ruled that the time limits are NOT governed by the Montreal Convention, and instead are determined in accordance with the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions.

In England this is SIX years.

The ECJ also provided a Press Release clarifying this ruling.

Secondly, Blondmark states:
"The Supreme Court in Parliament Square London SW1 has never issued any guidance on time limitations for bringing 261/2004 claims. Even if it had, which it has not, European law takes precedence over national law.

Be under no illusion, this is not an innocent mistake on Thomson's part. Thomson is deliberately lying to its passengers by inventing non-existent law that is cynically calculated to evade their legal responsibilities to them.

This is about as low as it gets, and exposes Thomson to potential criminal liability if they repeat those lies to a court".

At this point, should you really wish to further engage with Thomson (the advice to commence court action forthwith still remains the correct course of action), as it is upon the airline to provide proof of their stance, I would advise requesting a print off of this 'advice' from the UK Supreme Court.
Don't expect a reply though.

To place further pressure on Thomson, please report them to the CAA. Copying in your MP might also be useful.

Mark2spark

The UK ruling that is being referred to by Thomson is quite heavy reading, but fathomable to Joe Bloggs.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...4/abnett02.htm

Firstly, it is a House of Lords ruling, not a UK Supreme Court ruling. It was made in 1996, long before EU261 was even dreamt up.

The operative part of the musings by the Lords is this:

The idea that an action of damages may be brought by a passenger against the carrier outside the Convention in the cases covered by article 17 - which is the issue in the present case - seems to be entirely contrary to the system which these two articles were designed to create.
The reference in the opening words of article 24(2) to "the cases covered by articles 17" does, of course, invite the question whether article 17 was intended to cover only those cases for which the carrier is liable in damages under that article. The answer to that question may indeed be said to lie at the heart of this case. In my opinion the answer to it is to be found not by an exact analysis of the particular words used but by a consideration of the whole purpose of the article. In its context the purpose seems to me to be to prescribe the circumstances - that is to say, the only circumstances - in which a carrier will be liable in damages to the passenger for claims arising out of his international carriage by air.
The phrase "the cases covered by article 17" extends therefore to all claims made by the passenger against the carrier arising out of international carriage by air, other than claims for damage to his registered baggage which must be dealt with under article 18 and claims for delay which must be dealt with under article 19. The words "however founded" which appear in article 24(1) and are applied to passenger's claims by article 24(2) support this approach. The intention seems to be to provide a secure regime, within which the restriction on the carrier's freedom of contract is to operate. Benefits are given to the passenger in return, but only in clearly defined circumstances to which the limits of liability set out by the Convention are to apply. To permit exceptions, whereby a passenger could sue outwith the Convention for losses sustained in the course of international carriage by air, would distort the whole system, even in cases for which the Convention did not create any liability on the part of the carrier. Thus the purpose is to ensure that, in all questions relating to the carrier's liability, it is the provisions of the Convention which apply and that the passenger does not have access to any other remedies, whether under the common law or otherwise, which may be available within the particular country where he chooses to raise his action. The carrier does not need to make provision for the risk of being subjected to such remedies, because the whole matter is regulated by the Convention.
Only two other articles may be mentioned in this analysis: articles 28 and 29. These restrict the places in which "an action for damages" must be brought, and provide that "the right to damages" shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years. Here again it seems that a balance has been struck in the interests of uniformity of treatment and of certainty. I see no sign in the generality with which these provisions have been expressed of a recognition that there may be some actions of damages arising from the international carriage of passengers by air which are not subject to these rules. It would be largely destructive of the system which this chapter seems to have been designed to lay down if a passenger were to be able, for example, to maintain a claim of damages for non-bodily injury, for loss of or damage to the personal possessions which he had with him inside the aircraft or for economic loss, outside the conditions and limits set by the Convention while maintaining a claim under the Convention for the bodily injury. No doubt it was for this reason that it was conceded that, if he had a claim under article 17, the passenger would not be able to maintain any other claim against the carrier arising out of the same incident. But it seems to me that, by parity of reasoning, the same approach must be taken to cases arising out of international carriage by air where he has no claim under article 17 at all.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeals as being out of time, ruling that the Conventions set a different time frame - 2 years - for bringing claims arising from international carriage by air, than the national limit of 6 years.

---

However, this was for a claim for damages, using the Convention. Some might observe that the circumstances of the appeal heard - basically compensation sought by passengers against British Airways for landing in Kuwait for refuelling on the day that Iraq invaded and the Gulf war started, and the passengers were taken prisoner and moved to Baghdad for a month - is vastly different to the simple EU261 ruling in the first place.

EU261 is not a claim for damages. It is a fixed monetary payment for inconvenience caused by delay, cancellation, or denied boarding, and operates before any claim under the Convention can be made, and it does not stop any other action also being made under the Convention.

Further to that, the ECJ was specifically asked in Cuadrench More v KLM whether the Convention time limits apply, or the normal member states time limits, with the ECJ ruling for the latter.

So we have;
A Barcelona Court asking the ECJ if it is the time limit of the Montreal/Warsaw Convention that applies (2 years), or the member states other normal timelines. (in the UK that's 6 years, 5 in Scotland)
...which leads to...
The ECJ ruling that it is the member states normal time frames, and not the Conventions time frames.
...which leads to...
Thomson saying that in the UK the normal time frame for air travel claims is the Conventions rules, ie 2 years.
...which leads to...
The start, ie A Barcelona Court asking the ECJ if it is the time limit of the Montreal...

I believe that a District Judge will adopt the Cuadrench More v KLM rule, ie 6 years for the UK. (5 years in Scotland)

nigelpm

Mark2spark wrote: »

Recently, Thomson have commenced writing to claimants stating that;
"The European court of justice has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long passengers have to bring their claims, we need to look at our national law. The supreme court in the UK has said that all claims to do with 'international carriage by air' need to be brought within two years. We therefore can't consider claims for flights that were delayed more than two years ago".

This is a complete and utter falsehood.

Firstly, there is a case known as Cuadrench More v KLM Case C-139/11 - full judgement, where the Provincial Court of Barcelona, Spain, hearing the case, asks the Court of Justice whether the time-limits for bringing actions for compensation under EU law are determined by the Montreal Convention or in accordance with some other provision, in particular the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions.

The Court ruled that the time limits are NOT governed by the Montreal Convention, and instead are determined in accordance with the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions.

In England this is SIX years.

The ECJ also provided a Press Release clarifying this ruling.

Secondly, Blondmark states:
"The Supreme Court in Parliament Square London SW1 has never issued any guidance on time limitations for bringing 261/2004 claims. Even if it had, which it has not, European law takes precedence over national law.

Be under no illusion, this is not an innocent mistake on Thomson's part. Thomson is deliberately lying to its passengers by inventing non-existent law that is cynically calculated to evade their legal responsibilities to them.

This is about as low as it gets, and exposes Thomson to potential criminal liability if they repeat those lies to a court".

At this point, should you really wish to further engage with Thomson (the advice to commence court action forthwith still remains the correct course of action), as it is upon the airline to provide proof of their stance, I would advise requesting a print off of this 'advice' from the UK Supreme Court.
Don't expect a reply though.

To place further pressure on Thomson, please report them to the CAA. Copying in your MP might also be useful.

This is a bizarre tactic and whilst likely to reduce claims for a lot of the posters on here who don't do their own research as you say it could ensure they end up fighting a criminal liability case.

nigelpm

I might send a letter to the Supreme Court calling Thomson's bluff.

If they were aware that Thomson were misrepresenting them they might not be too impressed!

RealCK

I have now received the exact same two year letter today, despite contacting Thomson within the two year deadline even if it had any weight.

Totally confused as to how to play this from now.

To show the complete lack of competence at TUI, I have moved house since the delay, and despite mentioning this more than four times to the after travel team, and on a supporting letter with the official Thomson repay form, they still send the letter to my old address. Attention to simple details appears to be out of their grasp, let alone repaying any compensation.

RealCK

Just spoken to CAA and TUI have more or less sent this as a blanket letter to everyone despite the date of the claim. CAA are having a meeting with TUI to discuss as to why they have sent this letter out using the 2 year element.

Will be sending all my info to the CAA and join their queue.

Below taken from their website:

If you have already made a written complaint to an airline or airport, and you are not satisfied with the outcome, the CAA may be able to help. We won’t take up a complaint on the basis of a telephone call (but you are welcome to call us first to see if there is anything we can do to help). So you will need to write or email, setting out all the details and including copies of all correspondence.

How to contact the CAA

Phone: 020 7453 6888 (Consumer advice line Monday to Friday, 9.00am to 2.30pm)
Fax: 020 7453 6754
Email: passengercomplaints@caa.co.uk
When you contact us we will need the following documentation:

Copies of the airline's letters to you
Copies of your letters to the airline
Flight number/dates
Flight departure and arrival airports
Receipts for expenses claims
A daytime contact telephone number for you if possible

It would be helpful if you could summarise the details of your complaint before sending it to us.

Mark2spark

RealCK wrote: »

Just spoken to CAA and TUI have more or less sent this as a blanket letter to everyone despite the date of the claim. CAA are having a meeting with TUI to discuss as to why they have sent this letter out using the 2 year element.

Any idea when?

Mark2spark

RealCK wrote: »

I have now received the exact same two year letter today, despite contacting Thomson within the two year deadline even if it had any weight.

Totally confused as to how to play this from now.

To show the complete lack of competence at TUI, I have moved house since the delay, and despite mentioning this more than four times to the after travel team, and on a supporting letter with the official Thomson repay form, they still send the letter to my old address. Attention to simple details appears to be out of their grasp, let alone repaying any compensation.

If you haven't sent an NBA, send one now, and then commence a court claim forthwith. There's little point in corresponding with them when they are so blatantly ignoring the law.

111KAB

From Thomson FB page today >>>

Laura Lloyd so what's the deal with the letter stating The supreme Court in the UK rules it 2 years? I've just received this letter today saying this? I'm confused!
58 minutes ago · Like


<li class="UFIRow UFIComment" id=".reactRoot[17].[1][2][1]{comment10152634240365537_39814649}" data-ft='{"tn":"R0"}'>

Thomson Holidays Hi Laura, Thomson Airways use a fair and thorough process to deal with claims for flight delay, Our position is that claims can only be made for flight delays within two years according to domestic law. European case law confirms that it is domestic law that should dictate the time limit and we are, therefore, confident that this policy is correct. ^Adam

RealCK

The CAA representative didn't tell me an exact date, but did say it was immanent. By mid morning alone, a further 15 people had called the person I was speaking with complaining about Thomson.

Update on my case, I called TUI to highlight to them that my complaint was within the two years and my address had changed. The delay team were on lunch and the representative working specifically on my case did actually call me back.

Apparently they had noticed that my case was within two years (despite sending the letter), however as the main cause of our delay was an in flight safety fault, they are claiming it be an extraordinary circumstance out of their control. This is where it comes into the grey area of technical faults.

I did ask in what circumstances would a claim be legitimate for compensation and to be deemed in their control. Apparently any fault spotted in the pre flight safety check which then results in a delay could potentially qualify for compensation. So in theory, based on the fact they missed the fault on the ground and it surfaced whilst airborne, it is out of their control.

A full explanation has since been sent to me.

I did cheekily ask if any cases have been successful, and the response was they are not able to comment on third party cases.

Mark2spark

Sounds like an incompetent pre flight check to me. Sue.