Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

tomclarky wrote: »

At what point during the 6th year does a claim become no longer valid?

I.e, my delayed flight was in July 2007. If i make a claim soon but i don't get a court hearing until after July this year, would that count as having expired beyond the 6 years?

The initial papers need to be submitted to the court at least a day before the sixth anniversary of the flight. So you have time - you need to write a letter first, and give them reasonable notice to respond. I'd give them a fortnight, and then write a final Notice Before Action letter giving them a further 14 days, before starting proceedings.

laticsforlife

mrsvee1999 wrote: »

hi there, im a little confused as to whether i will be able to start a compensation complaint or not? my flight was delayed in oct 2010 from glasgow to mexico by 10 hours or so, im not sure of flight numbers or exact times and have no documentation (must have binned it all) can i still make a claim, thanks??

You can, although they will say its over 2 years so out of time - so you will have to go through the whole procedure of Claim, Letter, NBA, Court (or appoint a claims firm and lose 30% minimum of the win)

There are posts on here on page 1 that show templates etc, and you can use the Flightstats site to get the details of the exact times of your flight (if you know the dates of the delayed flight you should be able to trace it - and you don't need the tickets)

laticsforlife

bazaar wrote: »

Lactics, use TUI at the Luton address, if thats who you have been dealing with. If Thomson try to state its served at the wrong address, you deal with that by stating just that youve been using the same address for correspondence and TUI have not informed you otherwise. People here are trying to help a lot of people, but being bolshy like that wont help your cause if youre asking for help. A certain amount of this process is self help so you understand what youre doing, or just leave it to those shysters at a no win no fee joint, choice is yours

Cheers.

Wasn't being bolshy, just sarcastic. Apparently it's the highest form of intelligence!

I sent my letters to Thomson Airways Ltd (which used to be Thomsonfly Ltd and before that Britannia Airways Ltd) and to both addresses, but of course their headed paper comes from Luton and has Crawley in the footer as the RO.

I think it wise to use the RO, as the Company is all part of the TUI UK Ltd Group.

The structure seems to be

Thomson Airways Ltd is a subsidiary of
Tui Travel Holdings Ltd which is a sub of
Tui Travel Plc

But Thomson (i.e the travel agent who I booked with, and not the airline I flew with) is a trading name of Tui UK Ltd a sub of Thomson Travel Group Holdings Ltd which itself is a sub of Tui Northern Europe Ltd which is a sub of a Jersey Company (no tax avoidance there then, MUCH!).

As the Compensation is from the Airline then I'll stick with Thomson Airways Ltd.

Basingstoke_Betty

Hi - I've just posted on the general thread, but have been advised to come here:

Hi, this is my first time on a forum so pls be gentle.

The details:

Thomson Airways have denied our claim to delayed fight compensation. We were delayed in November 2012 18.5 hours on a flight from Cape Verde to London. The flight is a 'turn-around' flight with crew serving both outbound and return. The outbound flight had a minor technical fault which delayed it's departure from London by 40 minutes, we watched it land in Cape Verde only an hour late. We were ON THE PLANE, REFUELLED AND READY TO LEAVE with only a 1.5 hour delay. However, the crew now did not have enough flying hours left in their legal contracts to fly us home, instead we were flown to Tennerife, de-planed, coached to hotels, and returned to the airport the next day to fly on the same plane with the same crew the remaining way home. A total delay of 18.5 hours. I have all the documentation.

Thomson's opinion:

Thomson claim that the initial technical fault was 'exceptional circumstances'. I maintain that 1) they cannot refer to a previous flight when looking at cause. 2) Even if they do refer to this, the delay to that flight was only 40 minutes. 3)our delay was due to poor staff scheduling, there was nothing wrong with our plane and it was fit to fly, in fact it DID fly, but Thomson could not provide staff with enough man-hours to do so.

My forum question:

I have, today, sent everything to the CAA, but am interested to know if you think I should go via the small claims court instead as the CAA seem to be pretty overwhelmed with this at the moment.

Do I have an open and shut case here? HAS ANYONE RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM THOMSON following CAA?

Thanks,
BB

Sammie1

The CAA have over 5700 claims they told me they will be looking at them all on an individual basis but I wouldn't expect anything happening quickly might be worth checking your house insurance see if you have legal protection.
I am giving it another month and if I still haven't got anything resolved via CAA that's the route I will go dont know if uou saw watchdog last night but i was on it Regards Karen

karl60

Hope someone can answer the questions below.
Can I claim interest on the compensataion payment?
If so when is the interest calculated from?
If Thomson take this to a hearing, do I get to choose where the hearing is, or do Thomson get to choose?

Many Thanks

romanby1

karl60 wrote: »

Hope someone can answer the questions below.
Can I claim interest on the compensataion payment?
If so when is the interest calculated from?
If Thomson take this to a hearing, do I get to choose where the hearing is, or do Thomson get to choose?

Many Thanks

Yes 8% from the delay
The date of the delay
You can ask for it to be at your local County Court.

Bonters

Well, my claim just took an interesting twist with Thomson! I served NBA dated 12 March, even despite receiving their letter quoting the erroneous 2 year rule. Had not heard anything more, but today (9 May), just received another letter which is NOT marked Without Prejudice, as all others have been, and does NOT make any mention of the 2 year rule! Instead, it concentrates upon a huge pre-amble about the Regulation 261, it's effects, the extraordinary circs and so on. They then go on to claim the ECs in the following fashion.
"In the case of your flight, the delay was the result of operational disruption caused by delays to other aircraft caused by meteorological conditions incompatible to the operation of the flight, which put simply means that the weather made it insufficiently safe for the flight to operate"
So, I wonder what the more experienced folk on here make of that? I am pretty much of the opinion that they have shot themselves in the foot well and truly? I believe what they say to be entirely correct, in that other airports had suffered bad weather (snow and so on), but at East Midlands, it was entirely clear and other flights were departing normally throughout the period of our 9 hour delay. I've already told them this. And still they seek to rely on 'knock-on' effects of other disruptions, which are clearly not applicable under Regulation 261. I'm a good deal more confident now! :T

Ich_2

And they were all arriving normally at the destination as well, and not having issues en-route as well?

Oh and able to get back to the point of departure without problems?

For clarity, destination and point of departure do also include the declared alternate airports in case of problems at the first.

romanby1

Bonters wrote: »

Well, my claim just took an interesting twist with Thomson! I served NBA dated 12 March, even despite receiving their letter quoting the erroneous 2 year rule. Had not heard anything more, but today (9 May), just received another letter which is NOT marked Without Prejudice, as all others have been, and does NOT make any mention of the 2 year rule! Instead, it concentrates upon a huge pre-amble about the Regulation 261, it's effects, the extraordinary circs and so on. They then go on to claim the ECs in the following fashion.
"In the case of your flight, the delay was the result of operational disruption caused by delays to other aircraft caused by meteorological conditions incompatible to the operation of the flight, which put simply means that the weather made it insufficiently safe for the flight to operate"
So, I wonder what the more experienced folk on here make of that? I am pretty much of the opinion that they have shot themselves in the foot well and truly? I believe what they say to be entirely correct, in that other airports had suffered bad weather (snow and so on), but at East Midlands, it was entirely clear and other flights were departing normally throughout the period of our 9 hour delay. I've already told them this. And still they seek to rely on 'knock-on' effects of other disruptions, which are clearly not applicable under Regulation 261. I'm a good deal more confident now! :T

They are being vague as to which plane in their fleet was affected. It could have been anyone that had no knock on effect to your flight
Suggest you ask them to state categorically whether it was the plane that was to be later scheduled for your flight.