Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY
Options
Comments
-
-
ClareJM001 wrote: »my claim goes back to 2010 so i would've thought i had a chance..........
Yes you probably do stand a chance if you know the 'law' and realise claims cannot go back to 2005 and the ECC (like the CAA) is a waste of time.0 -
Sandramcuk wrote: »Can I find out if the am flight actually existed at the time of booking??
Possibly. But I don't know how. This sub forum more deals with the compensation available under EU Regulation 261/2004.
You might be better off posting a new thread in this other sub forum
0 -
I know this may have been covered however I would like to know some opinions on my case.
In June 2013 we went to Jamaica. The flight from Birmingham was delayed for 3hrs45. No info was given to us at the airport until 3hrs in where we were given a voucher for £5 for food.
When we returned I decided to put in the template letter and claim. The first response received cited bad weather and airport closure as the delay. I responded to this via the CAA and they sent the request back to Thomson. The airport was open and it was definitely not bad weather.
Thomson did not reply after CAA intervention so I emailed them on 9 Janaury 2014. Today I received a response again saying bad weather had caused a knock on delay to us and as it was exceptional circumstances they would not pay.
When on the aircraft flying out, the Pilot told us the aircraft had been flown from Bristol due to a fault noted on the aircraft we were due to fly on. The fault was picked up the previous day. So with that in mind, surely Thomson had enough time and notice to rectify the situation before our flight?
Any thoughts would be great as I am now at a loss as to whether I should respond or leave it.......0 -
I know this may have been covered
It has, so please read the FAQsAny thoughts would be great as I am now at a loss as to whether I should respond or leave it.......
If you read the FAQs, you'll find all you need. No-one can do it for you (well, apart from a no win no fee firm).0 -
It would be helpful if you gave you flight details.
If you were TOM564 or TOM796 (BHX -> MBJ) on 14th June 2013 then Thomson will defend the claim on the grounds that "[the aircraft sustained] a hydraulic failure with its' rudder, rendering the aircraft unfit to fly."
In their opinion this is extraordinary, in my opinion it isn't.
With regards the bad weather, this was presumably on a previous flight. In my opinion bad weather on a previous flight is not extraordinary, however this argument isn't always successful at Court.0 -
I have been pursuing a claim via the small claims court and Thomsons sent a letter dated 3/2 saying they were applying for a stay pending results of the appeal. Today I've received a letter from the court dated 5/2 saying
1."It is ordered that the claim be struck out,the action not having been brought within two years of the arrival at destination of the flight referred to in the statement of case and the right to damages for delay having therefore been extinguished."
2.Because the order has been made without a hearing,the parties have the right to have the order set aside,varied or stayed. A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service."
I'm really confused and have no idea what to do next. I would be really grateful for any advice. Thanks.0 -
OK this is bad news. You need to get onto the court straight away and ask for setaside. How a judge can make this order when the defendants have only asked for a stay pending an appeal!doublechris wrote: »I have been pursuing a claim via the small claims court and Thomsons sent a letter dated 3/2 saying they were applying for a stay pending results of the appeal. Today I've received a letter from the court dated 5/2 saying
1."It is ordered that the claim be struck out,the action not having been brought within two years of the arrival at destination of the flight referred to in the statement of case and the right to damages for delay having therefore been extinguished."
2.Because the order has been made without a hearing,the parties have the right to have the order set aside,varied or stayed. A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service."
I'm really confused and have no idea what to do next. I would be really grateful for any advice. Thanks.
Shocking.If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide
The alleged Ringleader.........0 -
doublechris wrote: »I have been pursuing a claim via the small claims court and Thomsons sent a letter dated 3/2 saying they were applying for a stay pending results of the appeal. Today I've received a letter from the court dated 5/2 saying
1."It is ordered that the claim be struck out,the action not having been brought within two years of the arrival at destination of the flight referred to in the statement of case and the right to damages for delay having therefore been extinguished."
2.Because the order has been made without a hearing,the parties have the right to have the order set aside,varied or stayed. A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service."
I'm really confused and have no idea what to do next. I would be really grateful for any advice. Thanks.
Don't panic! The wording sounds bad, but it's in your hands. This happened to me too - I've been in court today to discuss it and I'll post that separately.
Complete an N244 Application, and send that off along with the £80 fee to the court ASAP. Send a copy directly to Thomson too.
If you only received it today, and it was dated the 5th, add a note explaining that. It must have been slow in the mail, or just as likely slow getting posted by the court.
You'll need to write an explanation of why you think the case should not be struck out, eg the time limit is actually 6 years. I used the wording from this postt: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63036105&postcount=2880
It was enough to convince the judge that the 2 year rule was under dispute, and a hearing on the issue was needed.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards