Thomson Claim 2 years limit to claim

Mark2spark

County Courts have evolved away from the WP way of thinking. 'Open' letters are the way forward now, it shows that genuine attempts have been made to resolve.
WP letters have always been part of the costs consideration, that's because they arise once judgement has been given, the DJ can then see what party has been an ar se or not.

Camaro3

Thanks Mark, I think the point I was trying to make was that for WP to apply, there is two requirements, the second of which you have eloquently picked up on is that there must be a genuine attempt at resolution. Thomson however are just slamming the door in your face by trying to make you believe the 2 year rule & so that you don't proceed any further.

Mark2spark

Bumping this as a couple of posters are asking again the same questions.

Shunter64

Thanks for bumping this up Mark2spark. I have just written to Thomson or a delay back in 2009 so being able to locate the legislation will be really helpful.

Mark2spark

Thomson have now started inserting into their court defence statement:

The defendant will rely on Nelson and TUI (Casesc-581/10 and C-629/10), in particular paragraph 39.

Point 39 reads:

39 That said, it should be added that, with the adoption of Regulation No 261/2004, the legislature was also seeking to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers. Having laid down certain rights for those passengers, it provided at the same time, in recital 15 and Article 5(3) of that regulation, that air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation if they can prove that the cancellation or long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances which are beyond the air carrier’s actual control (Sturgeon and Others, paragraph 67).

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d59a8a0d88c3c541c6a381ad00c311ad5c.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4OaheLe0?text=&docid=128861&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=117862

Basically this is the ECJ ruling from 23 Oct 12 where the principles of the Sturgeon case were upheld.

Mark2spark

Bumping this as I see it arose on the Thomson thread yet again.

lolly81

Hi,

I've also had this '2 year limit' response from Thomson, and just thought I'd share the below paragraph from the ECJ press release about the More v KLM case re. the time limits for bringing 261/2004 cases. The court went so far as to make a distinct point that claims under Regulation 261/2004 fall outside of the Montreal Convention and it shouldn't be used to determine time frames. How can Thomson argue against this?

'The Court also holds that that finding cannot be called into question by the provisions of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, because the compensation measure laid down by Regulation No 261/2004 falls outside their scope, while remaining additional to the system for damages laid down by them. EU law establishes an independent system to redress, in a standardised and immediate manner, the damage caused by the inconvenience to which flight delays and cancellations give rise, which operates at an earlier stage than the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.'

Mark2spark

The ECJ press release as quoted above is linked in the FAQ's.

Remember people that Thomson can, and will, say ANYTHING to get you to drop your case, because there is absolutely no punishment or comeback on them for doing so.
To call the CAA an ENFORCEMENT Body is a joke. Their spokesman on Watchdog stated that they didn't think the 2 year stance was credible, and that it was 6 years in England, yet they haven't taken any action against Thomson yet, even though they are the only body capable of doing so.

jimcbob

Has anyone actually got to a court hearing against Thomson on this point? I've got one in early September, and was wondering if anyone has any experience of their approach (e.g. do they turn up?).

nigelpm

FWIW, I might have the first case of a district Judge striking my claim out because of the Montreal convention. See:

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