Jump to content

Cityboy62

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Cityboy62

  1. This was my response to tc5712 back in August. My advice hasn't changed since then:
  2. This might sound a little harsh but isn't meant to be so take it as advice in good faith in response to your question: Read para 10 of TUI's Ts and Cs where it specifies that if you paid a low deposit (and you did since you admitted to that in your OP) you must pay the rest of the deposit should you cancel. Next time you make any travel arrangements, make sure you take out travel insurance at the same time since this might have covered you for the reason you need to now cancel. If you don't pay the remainder of the deposit the tour operator is within their rights to sue you in the county court for this amount due plus the cost of any court fees incurred.
  3. The original ticket was non-refundable, the fact that your family member had to buy another ticket due to wanting to visit their mother earlier plays no part in that. Anything else that flows from that event is not the fault of the airline and I cannot see any reason why the airline should reimburse your family member due to their not wanting to fulfil the original contract. If there is any claim whatsoever, it might be via whatever travel insurance your family member held at the time. For information, all airlines will cancel further legs of the same journey where the flights are not taken in the order in which they appear on one's itinerary. This too appears in the airlines' Ts and Cs.
  4. If your flight was delayed in arriving at its destination (airport) by more than 3 hours you are entitled to compensation under EC261/2004 from the operating airline (Thomson Airways). The airline will not pay out for your losses in resort and you will indeed have to rely on the package tour regs for these. The airline has little defence under precedent case law to a claim if the reason for the delay was either due to crew sickness or to technical issues with the aircraft but you may well have to issue a legal claim in the small claims track before they settle or you go to a hearing.
  5. You could try post #4 of this thread on MSE: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4384583
  6. You should then send them a Letter before Action, briefly restating how your claim arose and what monetary compensation is due per passenger and state that unless you receive that compensation or a valid defence under the Regulation for not paying up within 14 days of the date of your letter you may commence legal action without further notice.
  7. The only way you will receive compensation is either by taking legal action yourself or engaging the services of a no win no fee company in which case you would forfeit about 30% of any compensation due. IMO you have a valid claim since what does a problem with an aircraft in Tenerife have to do with your flight from MAN to AGP? And clearly corrosion builds up over a period of time rather than suddenly appearing so the problem cannot have been entirely unforeseen, could it?!!! Do not bother seeking the advice or assistance from the CAA. They are about as much use a chocolate fireguard. And since the flight time from MAN to AGP is about 3 hours, what did Monarch do to try to prevent the delay reaching such proportions? Use another aircraft from their fleet? Charter from another airline? 23 hours could hardly be defined as the airline using all reasonable measures to prevent a delay can it?
  8. Before you start examining any breach of contract you need to study the hotel's terms and conditions regarding your booking. Do the Ts and Cs allow the hotel the opportunity to unilaterally 'upgrade' or cancel your booking or force you to pay more in the event that the hotel wishes to change it? If the terms do not allow the hotel to do this, then you may indeed have a claim for possible breach unless the hotel offers a satisfactory remedy. Such remedies might include allowing your original booking to stand, offering to put you up in an equivalent local hotel or to pay you a sum to take your business elsewhere amongst others. You could start by either naming the hotel or by copying the Ts and Cs into this thread for further scrutiny.
  9. Ignore the pdf they have sent to you, it is a "wish-list" of items that the airlines and NEBs would like to see included as extraordinary circumstances but has no legal status whatsoever and indeed seems to contradict existing case law on extraordinary circumstances. The clue is in the word "guidance" somewhere on page 1!!
  10. I refer you to the advice I gave you in my initial post: "Monarch will resist paying out and you will have to issue a legal claim to see any money from them even though the aircraft you were supposed to be on wasn't in fact the one on which you flew since it had a tech problem". You will have to issue a legal claim to see any compensation, no other methods you choose to employ will improve your chances.
  11. W-H v Alitalia dates from Dec 2008. The Kramme case never had a judgment published as it seems the case was withdrawn, presumably settled by the airline after the legal Opinion was delivered. You don't need to add anything further to your letter as advised by stu007, the airline is only too aware of the precedent case law in W-H!
  12. Corrected the letter you should send to the airline!
  13. The inbound flight from BFS to PMI was delayed 67 mins and, whilst it is only supposition on my part, it is likely that the crew will have 'timed out' meaning that they wouldn't have sufficient flying hours left that day to complete your flight to BFS. The root cause of this was almost certainly due to the French ATC strike which placed severe flying restrictions across and over France that day. IMO you would face an uphill battle in any court hearing to convince a judge to award compensation as the airline seems to have a valid defence to any claim.
  14. So your CC will protect you in case of the flight not occurring. But all the AFPI in the world will not protect your trekking holiday. Sounds like Flight Centre are trying to cash in on an insurance premium and what guarantee are they making that any alternative flights would be any less expensive. I would stick rather than twist in the same situation.
  15. Flight number and date would be useful before further relevant advice can be offered.
  16. Why would you want to change your flights? To simply ensure that you would then have AFPI...! Has AI notified you or the agent of any changes to your flights? How have you paid for the original flights?
  17. Thomson are using this 2 year nonsense in response to all claims more than 2 years old as a default position to try to put off potential claimants. It is nonsense and a legal ruling from the European Court of Justice has also put paid to their efforts (Cuadrench More v KLM): http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=130243&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=35093 What Thomson are trying to hide behind is the Montreal Convention which does set a time limit of 2 years to bring claims against airlines. The More judgment considered the MC time limits and ruled that these do not apply but that the time limit as set by each individual EU state under their national laws applied. In Eng/Wales that limit is 6 years, in Scotland it is 5 years. You will need to issue a Notice before Action setting a 14 or 21 day time limit for Thomson to settle your claim or you will proceed to commence legal action without further notice. From the posts on MSE, it seems that those who do in fact commence legal action are more likely than not to either have their claim settled before a hearing or that the airline loses in court. These are figures from the Court success thread on MSE.
  18. The Reg which applies is 261/2004: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML. For flight delays the Sturgeon case in the ECJ ruled that passengers are entitled to compensation on the same basis as passengers whose flights were cancelled. Your mother and friends are each entitled to 400 euros compensation so long as the reason for the delay was not down to "extraordinary circumstances". Examples of ECs would be "cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier as well as air traffic control issues. Technical issues with an aircraft have been ruled not to be ECs and therefore compensation would be payable. Your mother needs to write to KLM to find out the reason for the delay and to lodge her claim. The airline will usually deny the claim and say it is down to ECs but if she is persistent enough and issues a legal claim in the small claims track, most airlines will usually pay up before a hearing.
  19. I fear that you will have little or no redress in this situation. By your own admission you were "rather vociferous and assertive in my approach and very demanding". This demeanour is often taken as hostile by airport staff and can lead, as you experienced, to being removed from a flight or flights. You were raising your voice by saying you wouldn't pay the correct surcharge for overweight luggage which led to this scenario. In the same position I might have reacted in a similar way to the check in staff. Whether you should have been informed that you had been removed from both flights at the earlier time, I know not, certainly one would have assumed that to be the case. As for compensation I cannot see any forthcoming in your case.
  20. Not from the airline. Check the details of your travel insurance policy for what possible claim you may have for the lost nights in hotel/transfer/parking
  21. You will be claiming for a cancellation since the original flight plan from LTN-BJV was abandoned and a new flightplan was created from LGW-BJV. The compensation owed is 400 euros per passenger. Monarch will resist paying out and you will have to issue a legal claim to see any money from them even though the aircraft you were supposed to be on wasn't in fact the one on which you flew since it had a tech problem.
  22. That may be the case and for that your friend would have to complain via TS.
  23. I am not arguing about ABTA members committments to a code and breach of any code! Merely that it has no relevance to any recompense the OP's friend may seek to recover. The Reg I quoted applies to all flights which depart from the EU to all other countries and to flights on EU carriers when they are flying to the EU. It would be under this Reg the OP's friend would have to seek any recompense for denied boarding but I can see no way under the Reg that they would be able to do so. My point being it wasn't the airline's problem that the passenger did not comply with relevant local laws but that responsibility lies with the passenger. Relevant case law supports that viewpoint.
  24. A tough lesson to learn but one which I am sure won't be repeated by the OP or his friend. The ABTA code of conduct is just that, a code, which has no relevance to whether the OP's friend could recover any sums paid or in compensation for his lack of adequate documentation. The correct Regulation under which any compensation might be paid or reimbursement recovered would be EC 261/2004. There is no provision under 261/2004 for any reimbursement or compensation for denied boarding if the passenger's travel documentation is inadequate for the journey: Article 2 (j) "denied boarding" means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation;
×
×
  • Create New...