Thomson lose in Court

The_Deep

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-advice/10662931/Thomson-case-could-spell-end-of-unfair-holiday-cancellation-charges.html

An interesting result. I know that CCJs do not set precedents for other CC claims but it must be persuasive. Thomson suffered no loss, having fully mitigated it.

They were being greedy, all the Claimant wanted was a refund of his taxi money.

Exile_geordie

I wasnt aware the small claims court decision ends up with Thomson having a County Court Judgement against them.

And havent read anything about him wanting his taxi fare back either - he wanted the proper cost of his holiday.

Or have I read the wrong story here?

SailorSam

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64979557#Comment_64979557

Danijordi88

The_Deep wrote: »

An interesting result. I know that CCJs do not set precedents for other CC claims but it must be persuasive. Thomson suffered no loss, having fully mitigated it.

They were being greedy, all the Claimant wanted was a refund of his taxi money.

Very interesting that..... It just seems rediculous that they can impose the charges on genuine medical grounds and the insurance companies pay the price?

The_Deep

Sorry about the duplicate thread, I did do a search.

... but I wasnt aware the small claims court decision ends up with Thomson having a County Court Judgement against them.

The SCC is part of the County court

... havent read anything about him wanting his taxi fare back either - he wanted the proper cost of his holiday.

It's here.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/02/28/shropshire-pensioner-in-landmark-legal-win-over-holiday-firm/

interlog

The_Deep wrote: »

Sorry about the duplicate thread, I did do a search.

... but I wasnt aware the small claims court decision ends up with Thomson having a County Court Judgement against them.

The SCC is part of the County court

... havent read anything about him wanting his taxi fare back either - he wanted the proper cost of his holiday.

It's here.

You only get a County Court Judgement against you if you don't pay up after the Court has decided you owe the Claimant the money.

Obviously_the_best

Danijordi88 wrote: »

It just seems rediculous that they can impose the charges on genuine medical grounds and the insurance companies pay the price?

I was thinking the opposite. It seems ridiculous that Thomson should lose out because the customer can't travel, and that the customer should have claimed on the insurance which he obviously had as it's required by Thomson terms and conditions.

headpin

Obviously_the_best wrote: »

I was thinking the opposite. It seems ridiculous that Thomson should lose out because the customer can't travel, and that the customer should have claimed on the insurance which he obviously had as it's required by Thomson terms and conditions.

I thought the point was that Thomson had not lost out as they had re-sold the package? Surely their only cost was any additional admin in refunding the money and processing the original booking? They have a duty to mitigate which they did. They should not profit.

On the insurance issue we all pick up the cost through additional premiums by insurers having to meet unreasonable and profit milking claims through holiday companies being greedy and probably acting unlawfully.

Exile_geordie

The_Deep wrote: »

Sorry about the duplicate thread, I did do a search.

... but I wasnt aware the small claims court decision ends up with Thomson having a County Court Judgement against them.

The SCC is part of the County court

... havent read anything about him wanting his taxi fare back either - he wanted the proper cost of his holiday.

It's here.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/02/28/shropshire-pensioner-in-landmark-legal-win-over-holiday-firm/

It may be part of the County Court but this judgement does not leave a CCJ against them.

Ahh ok , a link to a different news story about it then.