Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

jenn1ewest1

Gooseman41 wrote: »

After my previous post two days ago with regard to the defence I had received. I today have sent the allocation questionnaire back along with my cheque for £40 and also the small claims mediation form.

Interestingly when I got home on the doormat was a letter from the county court in Northampton. This was relating to the same claim (I am also awaiting a different claim defence) but this was a form titled' notice of defence that amount claimed has been paid'. I am now confused. There should be a form N9B which says is attached but this form isn't attached!! The long and short of this new form I have received says 'that the defendant says that the amount you are claiming has been paid (see attached form N9B)'.

Am I going mad? I have not received any money as yet. What do I do now. Attached is the same defence everyone appears to be getting and comically mine on this copy of a fax has got someone else's claim number crossed out and my one written on it!,,,

Can anyone shed any light on what I do now! And what is form N9B?

Thanks

please can you let us know what the outcome of todays letter is as I am about a week or two behind you and I am waiting to see what defence they come up with as mine was five years ago and a twenty four hour delay
JH:T

danielmegson

Evening All,

Apologies if etiquette is incorrect, this is my first post.

After a fantastic honeymoon with Thomson, we were informed the flight going back (7500km) was going to be delayed for 6 hours. Usually I don't complain or seek compensation, and would be happy to spend extra time in a resort, but this was the first holiday the new Mrs. M and myself had spent away from the kids, and she was longing to see them. This was the only negative factor in what was an otherwise perfect holiday, hence the claim.

So, I have copied the standard letter and attached a photocopy of the boarding pass and also a copy of the letter they had given us when we (finally) disembarked in the UK.

The holiday rep on resort, and the flight crew all told us (including the captain of the flight over the PA system) that the delay was due to a "Scheduling issue" which had meant that they were over their flying time. However, in the letter it says they "experienced transfer delays in the outbound sector".

Would this mean that they are trying to use a different excuse to try and validate the delay?

Any other tips for dealing with them? Does anybody know if this affects further holiday bookings with TUI?

Regards,

DM

markavo1

phritchie wrote: »

Very interesting, it sounds like they've just sealed the deal for you! (once all this 2 years rubbish is sorted...).

I'm in a similar situation, flight delayed by 4 hours leaving Birmingham for Cancun on Feb 22nd 2010. The reason given by the captain at the time was that the aircraft was delayed by weather leaving the Caribbean on a previous flight. All the other flights left Birmingham as normal that morning. When I wrote to Thomson I got back the 2 year letter, but no other excuses. Here's an extract from what I wrote back with (I also challenged the two year limit).



It is precisely clear in the definition of extraordinary circumstances that poor weather conditions must be associated with the operation of the flight concerned. Disruption elsewhere in the fleet due to weather doesn't count. This is laid out much more clearly than technical faults for instance.

Good luck with you claim. Personally I'm hesitent to go through the court route until the two year limit is rubbished, mostly for the cost risk and effort (got a baby on the way next month). I know a lot of people are ahead of me if I was to join the queue, so I'm ashamed to say I'm waiting for them to spearhead the way.
However, I'm getting more tempted, as the claim was over 3 years ago, so if I took it to court the extra interest I could add would be ~300 euros for our 1200 euro claim! That's getting towards a favorable risk if the case fails and I have to pay costs...

I really cannot understand why Thomson are sticking to this 2 year time limit nonsense. There has already been a case this exact point, where the ECJ ruled that the time limits of the montreal convention are not the applicable time limits. Read Joan Cuadrench More v KLM (C‑139/11), in particular paragraphs 28 and 29.....

"28 The compensation measure laid down in Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 falls outside the scope of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑581/10 and C‑629/10 Nelson and Others [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 55).

29 Consequently, the two-year limitation period laid down in Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention and in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention cannot be considered to apply to actions brought, inter alia, under Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004."

davidbrian55

thompson defence:
claimant is required to prove he travelled on the flight (despite many letters and calls asking for copies of documents)
two year rule!
unforeseeable technical fault prior to its departure, namely, a problem with one of its engines. (goes on to say 'operated a reasonable system of checks and maintenance')
will rely on nelson and tui (cases c-581/10 and c-s69/10)
distance, grand cirle method?

any light or offers much appreciated. Am trying to find out details of what the engine fault was or should it have been part of routing maintenance and/or should the parts/maintenance have been readily available.

davidbrian55

forget linked cases, nelson and tui though! assistance with technical please. suggestions welcome.

Camaro3

I have sent Thomson an SAR for infromation regarding my flight back from Spain (delayed 6.5 hours). I note from davidbrian55, Thomson are asking for proof of getting on the flight. If thomson "can't or won't" give me the info, could a visa receipt from the airport shop 45 minutes before the flight took off be admisable in court?

chelle_375

Hiya

Sent a letter to Thomson approximately 8 weeks ago. They replied within around two weeks saying they're really busy 'blah blah blah' and that they'll get back to me when they can - no timescale was noted on the letter.

Can anyone recommend how much longer we should leave it before sending the NBA? I feel like 8 weeks is a joke for them to not even send a letter back fobbing us off!

Also does anyone know if its the lead passenger that must be making the claim? The holiday was booked in my partners name, I sent the letter in my name yet they sent the 'busy' letter back in my partners name.

It was a 23 hour delay on a flight to CUN in February 2013 that was due to a technical problem on the incoming aircraft.

Thanks!

Orange_Smartie

Do I list all the passengers in my party as claimants on the one Court Claim Form? The claimants would be me, my husband and our three children.

Also, Can I sign the claim form on everyone's behalf or do we all have to sign?

jenn1ewest1

davidbrian55 wrote: »

thompson defence:
claimant is required to prove he travelled on the flight (despite many letters and calls asking for copies of documents)
two year rule!
unforeseeable technical fault prior to its departure, namely, a problem with one of its engines. (goes on to say 'operated a reasonable system of checks and maintenance')
will rely on nelson and tui (cases c-581/10 and c-s69/10)
distance, grand cirle method?

any light or offers much appreciated. Am trying to find out details of what the engine fault was or should it have been part of routing maintenance and/or should the parts/maintenance have been readily available.

pop in to your local shop and get them to print off your booking documents

Mrsrestore

I have just received my stock response reply from Thomsons denying me any compensation ( I was delayed in India by 10 hours due to flight staff not adhering to Indian Govt visa regulations and therefore a shortfall of crew for the flight arose!)They quote the Montreal Convention to me and state that as my claim was > 2 years old it cannot be considered! I have today responded to state that I do not believe that in the circumstances the Montreal Convention applies and that I found their response quoting engineering excellence patronising as they fail to mention or acknowledge the nature of neither my complaint nor the reasons for my delayed flight!I have now filed my complaint with CAA and await an outcome, which if not acceptable, will result in my seeking redress through the courts.