Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

jenn1ewest1

Lindagreenacre wrote: »

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.

why have you issued an LBA and start court proceddings its the only way
JH

pymers

romanby1 wrote: »

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.

what is an NBA letter
thank you

jenn1ewest1

pymers wrote: »

what is an NBA letter

thank you

notice before action

karl60

Families claiming.
I am ready to submit my MCOL and am claiming for myself, my wife, 2 children and the mother in law.

Can I do this as the lead passenger, and the person who paid, or does everyone have to claim independently?

Thanks

LULU5779

I have now received Thomsons defence….

1. In accordance with the regulation, which applies to the operating air carrier, it will be said that the correct defendant should be Thomson Airways Ltd. The defendant asks that the court compel the claimant to substitute the defendant for Thomson Airways Ltd.

2. 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”)

3. It is Admitted and averred that the airline operated Flight TOM 071 on the 13th May 2010 for Punta Cana, Dominican republic PUJ, to London Gatwick, uk

4. The claimant is required to prove that he and his party travelled on the flight

5. 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 Montr!al convention relevant to such liability.

6 the Montreal Convention deal 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.

7. as a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montr!al convention sets out the condition sunder which claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.

8 – 11 two year rubbish

12. It will be said by the defendant that there was a delay on the aircraft which was scheduled to operate the claimants’ flight. The flight was delayed for 21 hours and 35 minutes. This was due to the ash crisis whereby, in response to concerns that volcanic ash ejected during the 2010 eruptions of eyjafjallajokull in Iceland would damage aircraft engines, the controlled airspace of many countries was closed to instrument flight rules traffic, resulting in the largest air traffic shut down since world war 11. The closures cause millions of passengers to be stranded not only in Europe but across the world. With large parts of European airspace closed to air traffic, many more countries were affected as flights to and from Europe were cancelled.

13. Usually, crew would be in Punta Cana to operate the return flight (the Claimant’s Flight). Unfortunately, due to the ash crisis, rescue flights were in place which required extra crew. The crew who operated the inbound flight to Punta Cana were unable to operate the outbound flight as they were out of hours.

14. it is averred that the matters pleaded in the paragraph 12 and 13 above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that, pursuant to article 5 (3) of the denied boarding regulations, no compensation is payable in the circumstances
15. The defendant will rely on Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd (C-12/11), where it ruled that natural disasters such as the eruption of Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull and the subsequent cloud of volcanic ash in 2010, constitutes extraordinary circumstances.

Do I carry on with this claim? I thought this might happen as it was around the same time but our delay wasn’t about this, it was crew going out of hours. I began to research this a while ago and I found the following:

Our holiday was 5th May 2010 – 12 May 2010

I have found on the the CAA website a time line of volcanic ash crisis events which started on the 14th April and reopened on 20th April 22.00pm

• Remains open as normal to 3rd May 2010.

• 3-5 May Scotland and northern Ireland closed.

From then onwards uk airspace remains open as usual.

• We departed with no problems or delays from Gatwick on the 5th may

• 8-10 may Airport closures in south west, southern and central Europe.

• 12th May we where due to return from Dom Rep. Delayed 13th May.

Also press release from Gatwick says it remained open from 21st April with no other problems. I can’t find anything in the press for those days but I will check all Thomson flights to and from Punta Cana the whole week and see if there where any other delays or cancellations and they are saying the crew weren’t there and the inbound crew couldn’t fly the return due to flying hours.

Do you think I should carry on with this?

joetopps

Hello all,
I lodged my MCOL at the back end of May, it was deemed served by the courts as of the 3rd June and Thomson responded to say they intended to defend the claim.

They had 28 days from the 3rd June which falls today and as yet nothing has been updated on the MCOL website.

Can I request judgment online once the courts have closed today or do I need to wait until tomorrow?
Thanks

romanby1

Lulu5779.
Their defence except for the ash cloud is almost identical to their defence to our claim settled out of court at the last minute. Go for it to the bitter end if necessary they will probably fold.

Enom

Hello,

Can I confirm, if I submit an MCOL 3 weeks before the cut off 6 year period, even if the court case continues beyond the 6 year cut off, it would still be okay?

Thanks,

happychap7

LULU5779 wrote: »

I have now received Thomsons defence….

1. In accordance with the regulation, which applies to the operating air carrier, it will be said that the correct defendant should be Thomson Airways Ltd. The defendant asks that the court compel the claimant to substitute the defendant for Thomson Airways Ltd.

2. 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”)

3. It is Admitted and averred that the airline operated Flight TOM 071 on the 13th May 2010 for Punta Cana, Dominican republic PUJ, to London Gatwick, uk

4. The claimant is required to prove that he and his party travelled on the flight

5. 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 Montr!al convention relevant to such liability.

6 the Montreal Convention deal 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.

7. as a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montr!al convention sets out the condition sunder which claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.

8 – 11 two year rubbish

12. It will be said by the defendant that there was a delay on the aircraft which was scheduled to operate the claimants’ flight. The flight was delayed for 21 hours and 35 minutes. This was due to the ash crisis whereby, in response to concerns that volcanic ash ejected during the 2010 eruptions of eyjafjallajokull in Iceland would damage aircraft engines, the controlled airspace of many countries was closed to instrument flight rules traffic, resulting in the largest air traffic shut down since world war 11. The closures cause millions of passengers to be stranded not only in Europe but across the world. With large parts of European airspace closed to air traffic, many more countries were affected as flights to and from Europe were cancelled.

13. Usually, crew would be in Punta Cana to operate the return flight (the Claimant’s Flight). Unfortunately, due to the ash crisis, rescue flights were in place which required extra crew. The crew who operated the inbound flight to Punta Cana were unable to operate the outbound flight as they were out of hours.

14. it is averred that the matters pleaded in the paragraph 12 and 13 above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that, pursuant to article 5 (3) of the denied boarding regulations, no compensation is payable in the circumstances
15. The defendant will rely on Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd (C-12/11), where it ruled that natural disasters such as the eruption of Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull and the subsequent cloud of volcanic ash in 2010, constitutes extraordinary circumstances.

Do I carry on with this claim? I thought this might happen as it was around the same time but our delay wasn’t about this, it was crew going out of hours. I began to research this a while ago and I found the following:

Our holiday was 5th May 2010 – 12 May 2010

I have found on the the CAA website a time line of volcanic ash crisis events which started on the 14th April and reopened on 20th April 22.00pm

• Remains open as normal to 3rd May 2010.

• 3-5 May Scotland and northern Ireland closed.

From then onwards uk airspace remains open as usual.

• We departed with no problems or delays from Gatwick on the 5th may

• 8-10 may Airport closures in south west, southern and central Europe.

• 12th May we where due to return from Dom Rep. Delayed 13th May.

Also press release from Gatwick says it remained open from 21st April with no other problems. I can’t find anything in the press for those days but I will check all Thomson flights to and from Punta Cana the whole week and see if there where any other delays or cancellations and they are saying the crew weren’t there and the inbound crew couldn’t fly the return due to flying hours.

Do you think I should carry on with this?

I agree with Centipede. Thomsons would have known the flight crew would have been over their hours long before your flight left the UK. Remember its on the balance of probabilities at a civil court and i'm sure having read your circumstances any reasonable judge would think its highly likely that the ash cloud didnt affect your flight and also highly likely flight crew going over their hours is a common occurence for airlines and not extraordinary!

spaceaarvark

karl60 wrote: »

Families claiming.
I am ready to submit my MCOL and am claiming for myself, my wife, 2 children and the mother in law.

Can I do this as the lead passenger, and the person who paid, or does everyone have to claim independently?

Thanks

You can do it for the group.