Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

razorsedge

Steg65 wrote: »

Hi I am new to forums. Hope I've posted on the right page.
I have just had a call from Thompson about a delayed flight on 29th October 2010 from Sharm el sheikh to Manchester airport, Where me and my sons flight was delayed by approx 22 hours. This call was in response to the online claim I sent them one month ago. I was asked by the lady who called me if I was going to claim on my travel insurance for this delayed flight as this is the route I need to go. Is this true? I must add she did give me an address to send my information to another department flight delays, needs to look at it, after I told her I will be taking it to court. Some advice please.

Please note you have the wrong spelling for the airline, it's Thomson not Thompson. If you are going to court then attention to details like that will be very important.
I would say almost the right thread. This thread deals with the two year time claim limit Thomson are claiming exists. If that is what the lady told you then fair enough, right thread. Otherwise there is a dedicated general thread for Thomson here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4384699

Weather you have a valid claim from the airline would depend on the circumstances causing the delay. However, having said that, 22 hours is a delay that does not pass any 'reasonable measures to limit the delay' test.

More advice:
Have a read of the FAQ's. They are on page one of the Thomson thread. You will need to thoroughly understand the regulation and subsequent case law to do this yourself through the courts. If you do not fancy the idea of all that try using a NWNF firm.

Your travel insurance may provide you with something but this would be in addition to any thing due from the airline in the event that you have a valid claim for delay under EU261/2004

David_e

Steg65 wrote: »

I was asked by the lady who called me if I was going to claim on my travel insurance for this delayed flight as this is the route I need to go.

What brass neck (again) from an airline, apparently seeking to mislead passengers into thinking that is their only recourse.

In any event, how much does the average travel policy pay for delays?

legal_magpie

David_e wrote: »

What brass neck (again) from an airline, apparently seeking to mislead passengers into thinking that is their only recourse.

In any event, how much does the average travel policy pay for delays?

I think we got £20 each plus the £1600 odd we won from Thomson

David_e

legal_magpie wrote: »

I think we got £20 each plus the £1600 odd we won from Thomson

Exactly! I never claimed on my insurance as it was a similar derisory amount and I wasn't sure whether there would be any "no claims" impact for the following year's premium.

Kew73

So, just to be clear, if the airline succeeds in the appeal, is this the absolute end of the road for all of us who issued a legal claim after 2 years...or are there any other possibilities?!...or am I clutching at straws?!

dxc_chappie

[Moved from Huzar appeal thread]

Vauban wrote: »

In respect of Dawson, the EU law says definitively that national limitations apply. The case is therefore to establish whether in British law the national limitation is 2 or 6 years.

Yes, but EU law also says definitively that claims under EC 261 are not damages and fall outside of the MC. This is also acknowledged in the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stott V Thomas Cook and is therefore also English law.

Since EC 261 claims are neither damages or fall under the MC then Sidhu should not apply and the appeal should fail.

But the law is, as they say, a long-eared, slow, patient, sure-footed domesticated mammal, Equus asinus, related to the horse.

Vauban

dxc_chappie wrote: »

[Moved from Huzar appeal thread]

Yes, but EU law also says definitively that claims under EC 261 are not damages and fall outside of the MC. This is also acknowledged in the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stott V Thomas Cook and is therefore also English law.

Since EC 261 claims are neither damages or fall under the MC then Sidhu should not apply and the appeal should fail.

But the law is, as they say, a long-eared, slow, patient, sure-footed domesticated mammal, Equus asinus, related to the horse.

Interesting. From my own observation of them, I would say that the judges were not especially impressed by the distinction between compensation and damages. I don't recall if the Stott argument was run past them.

akm

had a reply from caa
the caa veiw, which has beenprovided to Thomson AIRWAYS is that in the uk the limitation period for bringing a claim to court for compensastion for denied boarding , cancellation and delays ( of more than three hours on arrival) is SIX YEARS from the date of the disrupted flight.

David_e

akm wrote: »

had a reply from caa
the caa veiw, which has beenprovided to Thomson AIRWAYS is that in the uk the limitation period for bringing a claim to court for compensastion for denied boarding , cancellation and delays ( of more than three hours on arrival) is SIX YEARS from the date of the disrupted flight.

That's what most of us have always believed. I shouldn't imagine that Thomsons will listen to the CAA on this point. Anyway, all will be revealed before long.

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

That's what most of us have always believed. I shouldn't imagine that Thomsons will listen to the CAA on this point. Anyway, all will be revealed before long.

That has been the CAA's view for some time.

This must be why they rushed to provide support for claimant in the Dawson case. Oh, wait - you mean they just sat on their hands and have done nothing to actually make this "view" a reality. How unlike the CAA!