Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

ftd83

Hi Everyone,

I too have started an MCOL claim against Thomson for a cancelled flight from Antalya to Manchester in July 2012. Flight was cancelled at the departure gate after 3 hours of waiting around, they refused me transfer to another flight back to UK. Interestingly for a 'family' company who's moto alleges to be 'Thomson Cares' it didn't bother them that I had a theatre list the next day (I'm a paediatric surgeon) and all the children would obviously be cancelled if I didn't turn up!

I paid £60 for a flight to Gatwick then £100 to get back to Manchester at 1am (7 hours behind scheduled arrival). My partner stayed behind and got treated like crap, especially as they lost our bags and she had to buy new clothes (£80). The rescheduled flight left 2 days later and arrived 34 hours behind schedule.

Basically multiple delayed correspendence from Thomson ensued with them claiming the reverse thruster broke down on the previous flight. They sent me a cheque for £43 as a refund on the flight I didn't use - no explanation as to how this was calculated and seems incredibly cheap to me for a flight to Turkey. They refused to respond to any subsequent letters even when ABTA intervened. They are of course claiming extraordinary circumstances for the delay and do not accept that I should have had a choice of re-routing or transfer. They also deny that they have any responsibility to get me back to Manchester, all they have to do is give me £43.

The ABTA people did not fill me with confidence to go down their arbitration route. They seem to be puppets for the airline industry however they now say Thomson are in breach of their code and are investigating. I started MCOL action for £923 including costs and 400 euro compensation each on 26th April. Today they lodged an acknowledgement of service but no details of their defence. I am asuming this is a standard tactic in order to get more time to deal with the amount of cases they have.

My biggest regret is not paying another £160 to get my partner out of Turkey on the Gatwick flight with me. I do not really care about the money now, it is personal. The responses they write back are complete lies and are clearly scare tactics to put people off. If I wrote such lies on complaint letters I would be sacked and probably removed from the GMC register!

Does anyone have any recent experience with Thomson offering out of court settlements or just not putting in a defence? I am not that bothered if they defend the case anyway as I am used to Coroners courts and think I can present a case pretty well, I cannot see how they can defend the action anyway. Good luck to anyone else going down this route.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Mine also mentions nelson v tui which until now I had not heard of. My minds a bit of a whirl at the moment on it. I need to find a counter action against the Montreal and the nelson and then counteract the extraordinary circumstances

Vauban

ftd83 wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

I too have started an MCOL claim against Thomson for a cancelled flight from Antalya to Manchester in July 2012. Flight was cancelled at the departure gate after 3 hours of waiting around, they refused me transfer to another flight back to UK. Interestingly for a 'family' company who's moto alleges to be 'Thomson Cares' it didn't bother them that I had a theatre list the next day (I'm a paediatric surgeon) and all the children would obviously be cancelled if I didn't turn up!

I paid £60 for a flight to Gatwick then £100 to get back to Manchester at 1am (7 hours behind scheduled arrival). My partner stayed behind and got treated like crap, especially as they lost our bags and she had to buy new clothes (£80). The rescheduled flight left 2 days later and arrived 34 hours behind schedule.

Basically multiple delayed correspendence from Thomson ensued with them claiming the reverse thruster broke down on the previous flight. They sent me a cheque for £43 as a refund on the flight I didn't use - no explanation as to how this was calculated and seems incredibly cheap to me for a flight to Turkey. They refused to respond to any subsequent letters even when ABTA intervened. They are of course claiming extraordinary circumstances for the delay and do not accept that I should have had a choice of re-routing or transfer. They also deny that they have any responsibility to get me back to Manchester, all they have to do is give me £43.

The ABTA people did not fill me with confidence to go down their arbitration route. They seem to be puppets for the airline industry however they now say Thomson are in breach of their code and are investigating. I started MCOL action for £923 including costs and 400 euro compensation each on 26th April. Today they lodged an acknowledgement of service but no details of their defence. I am asuming this is a standard tactic in order to get more time to deal with the amount of cases they have.

My biggest regret is not paying another £160 to get my partner out of Turkey on the Gatwick flight with me. I do not really care about the money now, it is personal. The responses they write back are complete lies and are clearly scare tactics to put people off. If I wrote such lies on complaint letters I would be sacked and probably removed from the GMC register!

Does anyone have any recent experience with Thomson offering out of court settlements or just not putting in a defence? I am not that bothered if they defend the case anyway as I am used to Coroners courts and think I can present a case pretty well, I cannot see how they can defend the action anyway. Good luck to anyone else going down this route.

I have huge sympathy with what you write. For me too, this has become a personal point of principle. I find the lack of integrity in the way some airlines have handled this issue to be scandalous.

I am fortunate to have been well educated and am a confident operator. But I recognise many people won't have those advantages, and the airlines' letters are designed to brush such people away in the belief that most will lack the ability and motivation to pursue what is owed to them. And the airlines are probably right, but that doesn't make it any less shameful.

So I welcome those of us prepared to tread this path and show folk the way. I'm now just waiting for a court date, but a few others have already been through the process. See the link below - there are a couple of Thomson victories. Let's make this list a long one!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4573907

Stay in touch - there are lots of useful folk on this site who can offer you good advice as you pull your case together. Good luck.

Vauban

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Mine also mentions nelson v tui which until now I had not heard of. My minds a bit of a whirl at the moment on it. I need to find a counter action against the Montreal and the nelson and then counteract the extraordinary circumstances

FOS: I think I've seen a couple of well-written defences that knock down the Montreal !!!! - I'll try to dig them out and PN them to you. And I've been working on my own submission to demolish the extraordinary circumstances argument: happy to PN you that part of my draft defence to you too, if helpful.

JPears

ftd83 wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

I too have started an MCOL claim against Thomson for a cancelled flight from Antalya to Manchester in July 2012. Flight was cancelled at t.............. I do not really care about the money now, it is personal. The responses they write back are complete lies and are clearly scare tactics to put people off. If I wrote such lies on complaint letters I would be sacked and probably removed from the GMC register!

Does anyone have any recent experience with Thomson offering out of court settlements or just not putting in a defence? I am not that bothered if they defend the case anyway as I am used to Coroners courts and think I can present a case pretty well, I cannot see how they can defend the action anyway. Good luck to anyone else going down this route.

Well said. As you say, if I had the rudeness and audacity to reply to a complaint in the same manner, or not reply at all, I would be probably struck off GDC or suspended very rapidly.
Companies (and their legal firms) forget or choose to ignore that some of their clients are used to dealing in a professional manner, for the better of everyone involved.

Gooseman41

Hi Vauban

Thanks for helpful info etc. I would very much appreciate any help you can give and would be grateful for a view of your defence relating to extraordinary circumstances. If you find the details re the Montreal, again I would be appreciative.

romanby1

Vauban wrote: »

FOS: I think I've seen a couple of well-written defences that knock down the Montreal !!!! - I'll try to dig them out and PN them to you. And I've been working on my own submission to demolish the extraordinary circumstances argument: happy to PN you that part of my draft defence to you too, if helpful.

I too would be very interested in a well written defence
I am in the process of writing our statement for our case that has been listed. To my eyes it looks quite impressive but any further assistance would be welcome.
Thomsons also are defending on the Montreal Convention and quite honestly I am having difficulty in working out what the defence is.
They are saying a 261 claim has to be brought within 2 years using Article 35. Montreal where as many posts state this is not the case in a 261 claim. That is my understanding.
They are also saying an unexpected technical fault occurred in another aircraft resulting in an unavoidable reactionary delay. many on here say that is not an Extraordinary Circumstance. I agree.
They are also relying on paragraphs 24 and 25 of Wallentin-Hermann.
The defence of 5 pages appears to me to be a load of hog wash to confuse and cast doubt in the strength of our case.
The above defence statements appear to me, they are shooting them selves in the foot or I am going bonkers.
I would like someone to tell me I am not.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I would be very grateful for any documentation Vauban.

I am convinced we are part of a cut and paste production line!

Mine is also 5 pages long - coincidence????

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Here is a sample of the "defence" as I have access to OCR so scanned documents can be made into computer text so I can be a nifty at cutting and pasting!

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

• By reason of article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 as amended, as a matter of English law the liability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.

• The Montreal Convention deals with the liability of the carrier, including (by its article 19), for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers and baggage.

• As a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.

• One such condition set out by the Montreal Convention is its article 35, which provides that:

1. "The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckonedfrom the date of arrival at the destination, or from the dale on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.
2. The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case."

• In the premises: Any claim for 261 Delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal Convention, including that contained in its article 35, in that it is a claim against a Community air carrier (the Defendant) in respect of the delay in the carriage by air of a passenger. And

• As a matter of English law any right to damages in respect of 261 Delay Compensation was therefore extinguished if no action was brought against the Defendant in respect of it within two years of February 2009. No such action was brought within that 2 year period (this action having been issued in 2013). Accordingly, the current proceedings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or are an abuse of the court's process.

THE DEFENCE THEN GOES ON TO CLAIM EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH I WONT BORE YOU WITH BUT IT WAS A "TECHNICAL FAULT"

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

• The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss.

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

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT :rotfl::T


Anyone else get a similar result?

jenn1ewest1

can someone help clarify for me as I am receiving conflicting advice.
I filed a claim on the 16th of April thomson sent acknowldegment on the 19th .My question is do I wait fourteen days or twenty eight days from the 19th to ask for judgement by default.
I would also appreciate if anyone could point me in the direction of the well written defences on the montreal ruling as they will certainly go down this route as well as the extraordinary circumstances.
JH