Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Grumpelstiltskin wrote: »

Watch BBC 1 NOW 11.40 Sherrifs at Thomson

squintsquad wrote: »

Hi there, just to let you know received a letter today from Thomson, our flight was delayed 3.40 mins, manchester to turkey 2013. This is what they say, our flight was delayed due to an electronic engine controller technical defect being detected prior to departure. The aircraft is unable to be legally dispatched with this defect. #Etc etc, the cause of this delay sits under Extraordinary circumstances. No compo being payed out, is this the end of my claim now?. Thanks

flower202 wrote: »

Case tomorrow 2pm - if it was not for razorsedge and dxc_chappie I would be completely and utterly underprepared.. mind has been slightly taken up with family illness. But no matter what happens big thank you to you guys...:-)

Wish me luck....

BTW has anyone been held in contempt of court yet......

NickyPower wrote: »

I have received the following defence from Thomson and would appreciate any advice. Many thanks in advance



1) It is strictly denied that Defendent ("the Airline") is liable for compensation under what is assumed to be Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the "Regulation")

2) It is admitted and averred that the Airline Operated Flight ***** on **** 2013 from Ibiza, Spain to London Gatwick.

3) It will be said by the defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's flight was subject to an unforeseeable technical fault on the previous flight rotation prior to the Claimants flight namely a nose wheel tyre deflation requiring a replacement part to be sourced, transported and fitted.

4) The delay in replacing the part led to a decision to source a replacement aircraft to perform the outbound flight and the Claimants inbound flight.

5) This resulted in a delay to the departure of the claimants flight.

6) It is averred that the matters pleaded in paragraph 11 (THERE IS NO PARAGRAPH 11??) above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied Boarding Regulations no compensation is payable in the circumstances. The Defendant relies on the following:-

a) At all material times, the Defendant operated a reasonable systems of checks and maintenance to the aircraft concerned.

b) The defect was found prior to the departure of the aircraft in question.

c) The defect was a result of extraordinary circumstances outside of the airlines actual control.

d) The Defendant will rely on Nelson and TUI (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), in particular Paragraph 39.

7) For the reasons set out above the claim for compensation of 250 Euros per person pursuant to the Denied Boarding Regulation is denied.

8) The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss.

9) As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.


Any advice as to what I should be putting in my bundle??