We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY
Options
Comments
-
It was my turn in court with Thomsons today.
I met their Counsel whilst waiting for the preceedings to begin. She was a really lovely lady. She commented on how professional and organised my bundle was, and asked how much legal experience I had. When I said none, she talked me through the process, and stated she thought it would be on submissions alone. Their witnesses were not going to appear, and she explained that the request for a stay was rescinded because they should have included it in their defense, and had not done so.
So my case goes back to a flight from Egypt in September 2009. There was a technical fault on the outbound flight, and as a consequence (knock on effect) my flight was delayed over 18 hours. Thomsons claimed extraordinary circumstances on the technical fault, and crew being out of hours. this was the only avenue they wished to go down, accepting I was on the flight, and I had refused to provide proof of losses as irrelevant.
Thomson had provided the crewing and operational logs for three separate dates in their defence. I used this to my advantage by showing that on one of those days, 6 separate aircraft had technical faults, out of 63 available aircraft, that almost 10%. Therefore a technical fault could not be extra ordinary, and was inherent in the airlines operations
In his summing up, the judge stated that the test of "reasonableness" related to reasonable measures to avoid the EC, NOT THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EC, which is what my delay was. He considered that the failure of the part was beyond the control of the airline.
However, he agreed that the threshold of proving extraordinary circumstances had not been proven, and therefore found in my favour.
I won:j. :j. :j
But be careful if you are using Eglitis to cover knock on effects and the issue of a particular aircraft on a particular day. These were considered as not proving my case in respect of knock on effects. However, Recital 5 of the regulations refers to cancellation (delay) of the flight (considered to be the flight in question, not the preceedings one)
I really didn't think I had been successful. Interest was set at 3%, payable only from the date I made a submission to court! but that's fine. I should have a cheque for £2057.11 in 28 days.
The judge refused Thomson the right to appeal
I really could not have done this with out the help and guidance from you guys on this forum.
Thank you so much:T. :T0 -
Congratulations, another one bites the dust!It was my turn in court with Thomsons today.
.....
In his summing up, the judge stated that the test of "reasonableness" related to reasonable measures to avoid the EC, NOT THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EC, which is what my delay was. He considered that the failure of the part was beyond the control of the airline.
However, he agreed that the threshold of proving extraordinary circumstances had not been proven, and therefore found in my favour.
I won:j. :j. :j
I really could not have done this with out the help and guidance from you guys on this forum.
Thank you so much:T. :T
There would appear to be some debate devloping on this aspect....If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide
The alleged Ringleader.........0 -
It was my turn in court with Thomsons today.
I won:j. :j. :j
I really didn't think I had been successful. Interest was set at 3%, payable only from the date I made a submission to court! but that's fine. I should have a cheque for £2057.11 in 28 days.
The judge refused Thomson the right to appeal
I really could not have done this with out the help and guidance from you guys on this forum.
Thank you so much:T. :T
Congratulations, its a good feeling isn't it!!0 -
Congratulations, another one bites the dust!
There would appear to be some debate devloping on this aspect....
I agree. The judge said that the wording in Wallentin paragraphs 39-40 was unclear on this issue, and could be read two ways. As this was his first case regarding the legislation, he did look to Counsel to help him with some understandings
But still came down on my side in the end.
Anyone preparing their bundle needs to do a great deal of prep before they go into court0 -
I agree. The judge said that the wording in Wallentin paragraphs 39-40 was unclear on this issue, and could be read two ways.
Thanks. Very interesting stuff.
I am no expert in the art of legal interpretation but, as law goes, surely Wallentin is reasonably clear. I thought 39-40 dealt with avoidance of the EC and 41 with the measures taken to avoid consequences of an EC. The words I have underlined must relate to the EC and the bold to the consequences - or am I oversimplifying?
39. ... not in respect of all extraordinary circumstances, but only in respect of those which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
40. ... since not all extraordinary circumstances confer exemption, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them to establish,.., that they could not on any view have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say by measures which, at the time those extraordinary circumstances arise, meet, inter alia, conditions which are technically and economically viable for the air carrier concerned.
41. That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.0 -
It is worth noting (for others) that one of the first things that Thomson accepted in my day in Court was that they noted that I was the sole claimant but they would not contest that I could claim for all parties mentioned in the 'details of claim'. The Judge gave him a quick kick in the .... to say he'd have allowed it anyway as I made the booking and clearly was the person paying the bill, hence making the claim.andytricks wrote: »he tried to say that as I had only made the claim in my name and not all four passengers separately, I could only claim 400 euros for myself,and that £1000 was a very good offer.
I just said I would do 3 more separate claims for my wife and 2 kids and that I would only accept the full amount. which he then did!
Nice result BTW, £1,000 must have been tempting for about half a second, glad you stuck to your guns, as any offer to settle shows they know they are onto a loser, and should warn others to push for their full amount claimed.:beer:I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove a thing!
Quidco and Topcashback, £4,569
Shopandscan, £2,840
Tesco Double The Difference, £2,700
Thomson EU261/04 Claim, £1,700
British Airways EU261/04 Claim, EUR12000 -
Hi,
Our party was booked on a July flight with Thomson from Manchester to Palma. We were delayed six hours and there were a lot of unhappy passengers at the airport because we were getting very little information.
We found out we could claim compensation under new EU regs and on arriving home I sent an email explaining the situation to Thomson and asking for compensation.
I received a reply saying that there was a problem a 'trailing edge flap'. It stated on the email "As part of our investigation I have checked our flight reports and can see your flight was delayed due to a technical defect being detected prior to a previous scheduled flight. The technical issue would have implicated safety if necessary repairs hadn't of been conducted. The issue with the trailing edge flap caused a warning during a previous flight, and whilst the aircraft landed safely with no adverse reaction, the issue needed further investigation. This resulted in disruption to the flight programme. Therefore the cause of this delay sits under Extraordinary Circumstances, as the technical issue with the aircraft was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could have been foreseen."
It states that the defect was detected PRIOR TO A PREVIOUS SCHEDULED FLIGHT and that THE AIRCRAFT LANDED SAFELY.
Later in the email it states "In the case of the issue that affected your aircraft, the technical problem was detected just prior to its departure" Now its just prior to our aircraft taking off.
I replied by email saying I wasn't happy with their reply as it looked like two explanations of the fault and didn't agree that this should fall under extraordinary circumstances.
I have since received another reply which now states that "the delay was due to the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight encountering a technical issue (a trailing edge flap defect) in-flight on its previous rotation. Following this, the aircraft declared a PAN emergency upon landing in Manchester, and despite landing safely, subsequently required attention from engineers, incurring a delay as a result"
Now its not 'PRIOR TO A PREVIOUS SCHEDULED FLIGHT' but it was 'INFLIGHT ON ITS PREVIOUS ROTATION'. The story has changed again !
Do you think that they are trying to avoid paying compensation or would I have a case for a claim?0 -
sorry, I forgot to say we had alreadly left the courtroom at this point as the guy asked if he could make a phonecall to Thomson regarding the lack of witnesses. he called me into an interview room and made me the offer.The cheeky so and so! How come they were still trying to haggle actually in court?!
Well done, by the way!
then when he finally agreed to the full amount we nipped back in court and he told the judge we had settled.0 -
It was my turn in court with Thomsons today.
I met their Counsel whilst waiting for the preceedings to begin. She was a really lovely lady. She commented on how professional and organised my bundle was, and asked how much legal experience I had. When I said none, she talked me through the process, and stated she thought it would be on submissions alone. Their witnesses were not going to appear, and she explained that the request for a stay was rescinded because they should have included it in their defense, and had not done so.
So my case goes back to a flight from Egypt in September 2009. There was a technical fault on the outbound flight, and as a consequence (knock on effect) my flight was delayed over 18 hours. Thomsons claimed extraordinary circumstances on the technical fault, and crew being out of hours. this was the only avenue they wished to go down, accepting I was on the flight, and I had refused to provide proof of losses as irrelevant.
Thomson had provided the crewing and operational logs for three separate dates in their defence. I used this to my advantage by showing that on one of those days, 6 separate aircraft had technical faults, out of 63 available aircraft, that almost 10%. Therefore a technical fault could not be extra ordinary, and was inherent in the airlines operations
In his summing up, the judge stated that the test of "reasonableness" related to reasonable measures to avoid the EC, NOT THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EC, which is what my delay was. He considered that the failure of the part was beyond the control of the airline.
However, he agreed that the threshold of proving extraordinary circumstances had not been proven, and therefore found in my favour.
I won:j. :j. :j
But be careful if you are using Eglitis to cover knock on effects and the issue of a particular aircraft on a particular day. These were considered as not proving my case in respect of knock on effects. However, Recital 5 of the regulations refers to cancellation (delay) of the flight (considered to be the flight in question, not the preceedings one)
I really didn't think I had been successful. Interest was set at 3%, payable only from the date I made a submission to court! but that's fine. I should have a cheque for £2057.11 in 28 days.
The judge refused Thomson the right to appeal
I really could not have done this with out the help and guidance from you guys on this forum.
Thank you so much:T. :T
Sstaggy first of all well done on your success this has certainly made me even more determined to see my case through.I have been today to pay the court fees ready for my hearing in November.I queried as to whether I needed to pay my fees as Thomson had requested for my case to be part heard as I too had my delay in 2009 and the clerk told me that the letter had just been put on file and that thomsons had not actually paid the fee to stay the case so that the case will continue and it will be up to the judge on the day as to whether he hears the whole case so role on November to see what develops0 -
Have now received Thomson defence for 18hr+ delay on 25/10/09 Mcr to Pathos (TOM 2730); usual stuff about having to prove we were on the flight, 6 points outlining 2year rubbish and then we get to point 11 - 'The delay to the Claimant's flight was caused by a delay to the departure time of the aircraft caused by an unexpected technical fault with the engine which required test runs. The delay caused led to a decision being made to move the flight to a replacement aircraft. However a delay in the replacement aircraft being catered led to the crew running out of flying hours to operate the Claimant's flight'.
Haven't heard the 'test runs' point before and wonder if the experts on here think it's significant?
Although it could be construed that they did attempt to recover the situation, I still think it fails the 'reasonableness' test but would welcome any other views. Thanks0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards