Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

pymers

hi
have wrote 3 letters to Thomson trying to claim back for flight delay from Gatwick to Mombasa 2012 the first letter was in April I have not had anything back from them to say they have received my letters what can I do next
thanks

pymers

hi
I am new here and I need help have been writing to Thomson/firstchoice airlines since april to try and claim compensation for a flight delay that occurred in November 2012 Gatwick to Mombasa they have not written back to me to even say they have received my letters what can I do now
thank you

romanby1

pymers wrote: »

hi
have wrote 3 letters to Thomson trying to claim back for flight delay from Gatwick to Mombasa 2012 the first letter was in April I have not had anything back from them to say they have received my letters what can I do next
thanks

They do not reply they want you to go away your only solution is a NBA letter. Even then they may not reply and then it is off to court.

happychap7

Hi
I was lucky enough to make contact with DROYLIE who offered a copy of her statement against Thomsons that her husband (a barrister) had prepared. The section below should assist individuals where Thomsons are blaming ' knock on effects ' from problems with other aircraft. It seems an easy to understand section from the statement and it obviously worked.

1) At paragraph ** the Defence submit that the delay was caused by an “unexpectedand unforeseeable technical issue with an aircraft within the carrier’s fleet”.The fault was specifically not with the aircraft the Claimant was to fly on.The fault lay with another aircraft. The captain of the aircraft that eventually carried the Claimant informed all passengers that the original aircraft had been rerouted to ****to replace an aircraft there.

2) Article5 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Cancellation’, states:

‘1. In case of cancellation of a flight, thepassengers concerned shall:

(c)have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance withArticle 7, unless:

…

3. An operating air carrier shall not beobliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove thatthe cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not havebeen avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

3) Itis submitted that the Defendant has failed to prove that the cancellation hasbeen caused by extraordinary circumstances. No detail is given in the defenceof the circumstances which lead to the cancellation. It is submitted thatrerouting one aircraft to deal with failings in another part of the carrier’sfleet cannot, without more, amount to extraordinary circumstances.

If anyone wants any help with the other sections let me know. This is just the specific section relating to one of Thomsons defences.

Vauban

happychap7 wrote: »

Hi
I was lucky enough to make contact with DROYLIE who offered a copy of her statement against Thomsons that her husband (a barrister) had prepared. The section below should assist individuals where Thomsons are blaming ' knock on effects ' from problems with other aircraft. It seems an easy to understand section from the statement and it obviously worked.

1) At paragraph ** the Defence submit that the delay was caused by an “unexpectedand unforeseeable technical issue with an aircraft within the carrier’s fleet”.The fault was specifically not with the aircraft the Claimant was to fly on.The fault lay with another aircraft. The captain of the aircraft that eventually carried the Claimant informed all passengers that the original aircraft had been rerouted to ****to replace an aircraft there.

2) Article5 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Cancellation’, states:

‘1. In case of cancellation of a flight, thepassengers concerned shall:

(c)have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance withArticle 7, unless:

…

3. An operating air carrier shall not beobliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove thatthe cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not havebeen avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

3) Itis submitted that the Defendant has failed to prove that the cancellation hasbeen caused by extraordinary circumstances. No detail is given in the defenceof the circumstances which lead to the cancellation. It is submitted thatrerouting one aircraft to deal with failings in another part of the carrier’sfleet cannot, without more, amount to extraordinary circumstances.

If anyone wants any help with the other sections let me know. This is just the specific section relating to one of Thomsons defences.

This is fine, if your circumstances mirror Droylie's (ie because of a failure elsewhere in the fleet, the plane scheduled to operate your flight was used elsewhere, and your flight was cancelled). But if your flight was delayed because your plane was late on a previous leg (the more common knock-on effect), then this wording would not be appropriate, IMHO.

paul600rr

Vauban wrote: »

As there is nothing in the regulation that says the predictability of the fault or the adequacy of the maintenance schedules make technical failures "extraordinary", I would respectively contend that the airline are feeding you bovine excrement. Take 'em to court, and end this nonsense, would be my advice.

so what is my next step small claims court what do i need to prepare first any help be good ????

thanks
paul

spaceaarvark

Mark2spark wrote: »

What a shame that you didn't take a few moments to read the FAQ's
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58530911&postcount=2
before committing to spending time writing that lot out :undecided

There now... Isn't the knowing, sotto voce response more satisfying than the bold, size 20 red capitals?
:rotfl:

friendofbillw2

paul600rr wrote: »

so what is my next step small claims court what do i need to prepare first any help be good ????

thanks
paul

With the greatest of respect old chap, if you are going to be successful in forcing the airlines to part with your compensation you are most likely going to have to read the FAQs, this thread, other threads on this forum and a fair bit of stuff from other sources. If after that you still have some questions then we can help, but you're going to have to do your own homework. But it will pay off if you go the distance and have to plead your case in front of a judge.

If you don't have the time or inclination to go to those lengths, you need to engage a no win no fee firm. But assuming you have a cast-iron case, you'll still lose roughly a third of what you are entitled to.

Your move.

jenn1ewest1

happychap7 wrote: »

Hi
I was lucky enough to make contact with DROYLIE who offered a copy of her statement against Thomsons that her husband (a barrister) had prepared. The section below should assist individuals where Thomsons are blaming ' knock on effects ' from problems with other aircraft. It seems an easy to understand section from the statement and it obviously worked.

1) At paragraph ** the Defence submit that the delay was caused by an “unexpectedand unforeseeable technical issue with an aircraft within the carrier’s fleet”.The fault was specifically not with the aircraft the Claimant was to fly on.The fault lay with another aircraft. The captain of the aircraft that eventually carried the Claimant informed all passengers that the original aircraft had been rerouted to ****to replace an aircraft there.

2) Article5 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Cancellation’, states:

‘1. In case of cancellation of a flight, thepassengers concerned shall:

(c)have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance withArticle 7, unless:

…

3. An operating air carrier shall not beobliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove thatthe cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not havebeen avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

3) Itis submitted that the Defendant has failed to prove that the cancellation hasbeen caused by extraordinary circumstances. No detail is given in the defenceof the circumstances which lead to the cancellation. It is submitted thatrerouting one aircraft to deal with failings in another part of the carrier’sfleet cannot, without more, amount to extraordinary circumstances.

If anyone wants any help with the other sections let me know. This is just the specific section relating to one of Thomsons defences.

I too was lucky enough to receive a copy of Droilies bundle and whilst our claims were quite different i have found it really useful in helping me set out my summaryin the correct format

Lindagreenacre

pymers wrote: »

hi
have wrote 3 letters to Thomson trying to claim back for flight delay from Gatwick to Mombasa 2012 the first letter was in April I have not had anything back from them to say they have received my letters what can I do next
thanks

Hi, I sent a letter to Thomson After Travel Customer Support at Wigmore House on 28 March (94 days ago). There was no reply and so I sent another letter on 20 April - no reply. Since then I have sent emails and posted lots of comments on Thomson's Facebook page. In reply to the facebook posts, I receive replies that they will look into my issue. Still nothing. I think that, looking at other posts to Thomson on Facebook, that they have a standard response to make it look as if they are doing something, while we all know that they are inept and could not care anything about their customers.