Thomson: 2 year claims limitation letter

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I am interested in gathering data to see how many people in this forum have received the Thomson Airways letter stating that claims for delay compensation are limited to 2 years. This is for my own interest but may be of interest for others.

We all know this appears to be a fob off but having had the letter I am interested to learn how people are going to proceed forward.

I have set this up as a poll and people who choose to partake can select more than one relevant polling option.

All participants will remain anonymous. I am simply interested to gauge the extent of the issue.

Thanks so much.

Also feel free to use the thread to provide any further remarks on your experience with Thomson regarding this matter. If you are, however, seeking advice on the way forward please look at the FAQs section on the Dedicated Thomson thread.

Mark2spark

I don't have a claim with Thomson, but if I had, I would proceed straight to court, report them to both the CAA & my MP and my Euro MP, I would also continue to badger them up until the court date in the hope that they would further incriminate themselves.
If they offered to settle out of court I would refuse, as I would want to bring the case to a judge and hopefully get the national press involved.
I would also look into ways of getting the CAA to enforce punitive measures against them, and the possibility of taking action against the CAA if they didn't. Bit of a long shot that one but I would look into it.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

I don't have a claim with Thomson ...

Like what he said, only with fewer smiles;)

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Their behaviour is totally deplorable. Is there a way of getting the anger generated by this notified on the fron of this website. Perhaps MSES could contact Thomson.

Ich_2

Just out of interest has anyone actually taken or sought legal advice on this matter, whilst it appears they are acting incorrectly has anyone proved it?
Remember AFIK no one on here is a lawyer.
I would hate folk to go down the routes suggested and it fail (unlikely I know but possible)

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Ich wrote: »

Just out of interest has anyone actually taken or sought legal advice on this matter, whilst it appears they are acting incorrectly has anyone proved it?
Remember AFIK no one on here is a lawyer.
I would hate folk to go down the routes suggested and it fail (unlikely I know but possible)

I have not sought legal advice but if you google the no win no fee claims sites for this compensation those that choose to say the limit is 6 years. I would be hopeful they are not wrong. The CAA when I contacted them said it was six years too.

Mark2spark

What legal advice do you need? Surely the Press Release from the ECJ following the More decision says everything?

Mark2spark

If anyone was that worried, that could use the Section 8 method to start a claim, where the judge would give directions first on whether the 2 year claim is going to stand or not, before anyone goes to the trouble of a potentially expensive claim.

It also strikes me that this method could be used for those that don't have their original booking confirmation but have other evidence of being on the flight claimed for, where the airline won't proceed with the claim.

Ich_2

Yes read that and it states to follow the rules of the "host" country which in England is usually 6 years. I understand all that
However company is saying their legal advice has told them that it has been decreed by a supreme court that it is 2 years for aviation claims. To adequetely counter that someone needs their own advice, it would not look good in court if they are actually right as a lot of claims will fail and folk be out of pocket.

I see you have suggested an alternate safer route

Mark2spark

Ich wrote: »

Yes read that and it states to follow the rules of the "host" country which in England is usually 6 years. I understand all that
However company is saying their legal advice has told them that it has been decreed by a supreme court that it is 2 years for aviation claims. To adequetely counter that someone needs their own advice, it would not look good in court if they are actually right as a lot of claims will fail and folk be out of pocket.

I see you have suggested an alternate safer route

Herein lies the problem. Thomson are relying (I assume) on something that the Supreme Court must have said previously, that relates to an aviation claim before the issue of EU261/2004, namely the Montreal Convention.
But the Press Release from the ECJ on More, also says (at the bottom on page 2);
"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".

So what the ECJ is saying is that the compensation payable under EU261 is an indisputable fixed monetary amount, and NOT a claim in the same way that a 'aviation claim' under the Montreal Convention would be made. It also goes on to say that EU261 operates before the MC can come into play, therefore no 2 year time limit.

Ich_2

Have it your way, in my own sphere I've seen too many fall down by using their own interpretations of laws without proper advice. I would hate it to go wrong on here for so many!