Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

jenn1ewest1

laticsforlife wrote: »

Indeed SAR not FOI.

That's the thing, I think we booked in-store as I have no emails from Tui. I have no idea how I paid (EDIT - I have now found the payment to Tui in June 2008 on my bank statements - god bless online banking for keeping them going back years).

As we were essentially a night-flight (because of the delay), so all we did was try and sleep so didn't buy anything either on the plane or in the virtually closed airport, so I am relying on the booking to prove I came home on that flight.

Hence why I did the SAR to see what they have on me.

if you booked in store just pop in and get them to reprint the booking documents its all stlll there on their systems
JH

stavros42

Tomisoc wrote: »

Cheque for £1,042.05 received on 8 June.

This flight was subjected to approx. 9½ delay for ‘technical reasons’ and my wife and I had the usual night in the uncomfortable check-in area. It was scheduled to leave at 2250 and finally left at about 0815 the next morning. We didn’t experience bad treatment at Gatwick – it was just non-existent and left us incandescent. As soon as I got home, I complained in writing, including a request for compensation and had the standard fobbing off. I contacted the CAA, who eventually advised that it did seem that I had a case, but to leave any legal action until after the Sturgeon case in October 2012.

Notes on the Claim:

I tried to complete the on-line claim form, but the Particulars of Claim page seemed to be missing, so I used the paper version instead.

Apparently I should have named Thomson Airways Ltd. (at the Luton address) as the Defendant instead of TUI UK Ltd., although I would not worry too much about this if you have already submitted your claim.

The claim was served on 17 January and Thomson’s had until 31 January to reply. They made no response, so a Default Judgement in my favour was made on 12 February. Then – surprise, surprise! On 6 March they made an Application to ‘set aside’ the judgement (i.e. go back to the 17 January) on the grounds that they had ‘a real prospect of successfully defending the claim’ and that ‘the application has been made promptly’. Apart from the hearing date, I received no details of their defence from my local County Court and only received these after writing to the Court.

Thomson’s Defence

In a nutshell, they were claiming the technical defect was, as usual, due to extraordinary circumstances. I will spell out the details as I guess they may be of interest to many readers:

Two full days before our flight, a hydraulic leak was discovered on our aircraft, G-DBLA. It took 1hr 15min to diagnose and then 22hr to fly-in a technician and spare parts from the UK (we do not know where the aircraft was). It then took 1hr 15min to carry out the repair. They then had 25hr 15min (plus, possibly, a time-difference in their favour) to get the aircraft in position for our flight. Remember, I did not have any of these details until well after Court proceedings had started.

They were going to use the Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia case to show that if any fault develops after an aircraft has been maintained correctly, then it must be extraordinary.

The Set Aside Hearing, County Court 16 May

Thomson’s sent a barrister who gave me a copy of the Nelson v TUI and others case, which he wanted to use but had not been mentioned at all in their Application.

Their case was shot apart. I argued that a leak of this nature was ‘standard fare’ for Thomson Airways and not extraordinary at all - it was how they responded to it that mattered. They had not explained why parts and technicians were not available locally, wherever that was. They had also not explained why the aircraft could not have been brought back to Gatwick in a period of more than 25hr.

The lady Judge refused to allow the original Judgement to be set aside and furthermore refused the barrister leave to appeal as the defence was so “full of holes”.

Conclusions

The Set Aside hearing was to all intents and purposes the real thing but had by-passed the usual Court procedures such as Allocation Questionnaires, etc. - I cannot really complain about this.

One of the Rulings of the Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia case goes directly against their argument and is worth spelling out here:

3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

What should Thomson’s (and other airlines) learn from all this?

That they cannot go on ignoring the law just because they don’t like it. The lady judge in Hull actually made a very profound comment at the end of the hearing:

You may not like this Regulation and I may not be completely comfortable with it, but my job is just to apply the law as it stands.

And what about me?

I actually have some sympathy with Thomson’s over this Regulation in that compensation can be out of proportion. All the airlines must have been fast asleep when the Regulations were first drafted prior to 2004. Note that new proposals which should strike a fairer balance between the interests of passengers and those of airlines are scheduled to come into effect from next year. However, I have no sympathy with their dogged refusal to accept any responsibility and not even offer us a pie and a pint (should we have wanted this in the middle of the night!). This is what is getting peoples’ backs up and I’m afraid now looks like it is going to bite them back very hard.

That is why in March 2011 I offered Thomson’s the opportunity to pay £200 each to my wife and me for a “quick settlement”. Of course, they did not respond.

I do not feel any sense of victory. They made me do some damned hard work which took quite a few hours – my compensation would effectively be far less if I costed this at a professional rate. On this forum, there are people apparently starting claims of up to six years old. I really have to question their motivation if they were not incensed enough at the time to send off complaints. This is just being part of the compensation culture. If, on the other hand, they have been fuming all this time and had claims repeatedly rejected, then they should stop all this conjecture on reasons for delay (which they just don’t have anyway) and get on with the claim! At worst, if they lose they could claim costs on the grounds that only legal action produced the necessary details for the delay.

As the the lady judge said " the law is the law", you can't nitpick the bits that suit the claimants or the airlines England 6 years Scotland 5 years, it's the law.

jenn1ewest1

laticsforlife wrote: »

Omg, I don't believe the quality of their defence.

1. Letter dated 11th May 2013 instead of 11th June.

2. Letter says delayed flight claim TOM4659, Palma - Gatwick, errr no TOM2140 Antalya -Manchester, so all they've done is copy and paste my name onto someone else's letter, lazy ba....

3. Flight number in point 2 of defence is now TOM1240 instead of 2140, and quoted as 06/09/08, when it actually flew on 07/09/08 (semantics maybe, but it is a past tense sentence saying they 'operated' a flight).

4. The claimant is required to prove that SHE travelled on the flight. Errr I'm a bloke.

5. "The defect was found prior to the departure of the flight in question" -except that the outgoing flight that became ours was delayed also by 9hrs so it wasn't a fault on our flight at all.

6. By far the biggest lie is their unforeseen le technical fault argument.

They say that lightening struck the plane damaging the randome (which is the radar cover), the winglets and fuselage ON FLIGHT TOM2140.

But I already know it wasn't our plane that was hit, because that plane didn't come at all, an unscheduled 767 came to us after its journey from somewhere long haul into manchester.

Then they say the nearest parts were in Luton, the airline did all they could to rectify the situation and arranged to source the new parts. As soon as the parts were replaced the flight went ahead.

Again this is total lies, as it wasn't the same plane that was struck that carried us.


Ok rant over.

Now what? I cannot see anything that I am supposed to do on MCOL. Their defence is now on there from yesterday.

my defence off thomsons was the standard two year followed by and in their words
" a problem with one of the engines surely they should really provide more indepth information as to what the problem was

eddibus

I also wrote to thomson in May concerning 7 hour delay in september 2013 on flight from Manchester to Bodrum. I have been completely ignored and no reply to date.
what step should I take next? Any advice would be appreciated

jenn1ewest1

eddibus wrote: »

I also wrote to thomson in May concerning 7 hour delay in september 2013 on flight from Manchester to Bodrum. I have been completely ignored and no reply to date.
what step should I take next? Any advice would be appreciated

you need to do a bit of legwork and read some of the posts on here and the next step will become apparent very quickly
JH

Vauban

eddibus wrote: »

I also wrote to thomson in May concerning 7 hour delay in september 2013 on flight from Manchester to Bodrum. I have been completely ignored and no reply to date.
what step should I take next? Any advice would be appreciated

You want to know what to do next? I recommend you read the "What to do next?" link in the FAQs on page one. If you want compensation, it's going to take a bit of elbow grease - sorry!

poplar

Hi all
There dont seem to be many success stories, but the few that have been successful well done !

I wrote to Thomson regarding a claim of 25 hour delay in nov 2007
the date i sent the claim letter was 11th April 2013
I have had no reply at all from Thomson its been ( 64 days ) is this normal or should i be doing something
please advice me unsure what to do

Thank-you

lyndac40

Hi poplar,

Look here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4573907 looks good to me. Small claims seems the way to go.

lynda x

Bonters

Tomisoc wrote: »

Cheque for £1,042.05 received on 8 June.

I actually have some sympathy with Thomson’s over this Regulation in that compensation can be out of proportion. All the airlines must have been fast asleep when the Regulations were first drafted prior to 2004. Note that new proposals which should strike a fairer balance between the interests of passengers and those of airlines are scheduled to come into effect from next year. However, I have no sympathy with their dogged refusal to accept any responsibility and not even offer us a pie and a pint (should we have wanted this in the middle of the night!). This is what is getting peoples’ backs up and I’m afraid now looks like it is going to bite them back very hard.

That is why in March 2011 I offered Thomson’s the opportunity to pay £200 each to my wife and me for a “quick settlement”. Of course, they did not respond.

That just about sums the whole thing up for me. I do think that the level of compensation applied by this Reg is a bit too heavy, but I certainly would not be bothering at all with mine if we'd been treated better at the time of the delay, and at least given polite service and accurate information. Instead, a paltry voucher, which the barman wouldn't accept for a bottle of wine to pass the time! We're in our 60's and so hardly drunken lager louts! I have been speaking recently to a specialist Solicitor for Bott & Co, Cheshire, who is pursuing thousands of these cases. He tells me that he has recently seen a defence drafted for Thomson by a barrister and a schoolkid could have made a better job of it. He is appalled at the way airlines are treating potential claimants and loves the fight and winning the proper compo. So be determined people, the wins are coming through and the airlines are a shambles on this issue.

helenm4920

HiI don't know if anyone can advise??


Sent NBA letter and received no response (I didn't expect one!!)


So now applied for paper forms to be sent from court. (I don't believe I can apply online as I am claiming for nine people in my party/booking).


I know I can claim 600 euros per person (mexico flight).


I need to convert the euros into GBP and not sure If I use the exchange rate at date of travel or today's exchange rate???


Also do I then add 8% interest to the figure?


Any advice would be appreciated.


Thanks