Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

matt2baker wrote: »

I have read ALL the posts on this thread over the past few months, and the dawning realisation is that, now I'm at the stage of sending an NBA, I may need to distinguish whether its a Delay or a Denied Boarding claim.

One of my two flight claims is for a delay before boarding, the other was a delay necessitated by getting off the aircraft having boarded it and almost taken off.

What constitutes a Denied Boarding then? I thought these were both just straightforward "delays".......

A delay is when you board the aircraft operating your flight and it arrives at your destination late. Denied boarding is when you present yourself for check-in as appropriate but are refused permission to board the flight, which takes off (delayed or not) leaving you behind to take a later flight.

Thesiteagent

Hi,
I have just received Thomson Airways defence.
Our flight was delayed by over 5 hours from Palma to Luton in June 2010. We were told at the time it had developed a fault over Cyprus the previous day.
As follows,
1. Denies the airline it is liable.
2. It admits it operated the flight.
3. It requires me to prove we were on the flight.
4. By reason of article 3 of EC Regulation2027 as amended, as a matter of English law the ability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.
(Interestingly the only reference I can find on this EC regulation concerns accidents)
5. The Montreal Convention deals 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.
6 As a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which claims to establish liability, if disputed are to be made.
7. Says under the Montreal Convention claims must be brought within 2 years.
8. In the premises: Any claim for 261 delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal Convention.
9. Says that as no action was brought within 2 years the claim was extinguished and I am therefore wasting the courts time. (As if).
10. In the alternative
11. It will be said by the defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's flight was subject to an unforeseeable technical fault prior to its departure, namely a problem with one of the aircraft's doors.
12. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the claimants flight.
13. It is averred that the matters pleaded in paragraph 11 above were caused by EC's 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.
The defendant relies on the following:-
a) At all material times the defendant operated a reasonable system of checks and maintenance to the aircraft concerned.
b) The defect was found prior to the departure of the other aircraft in question. (What other aircraft)
c)The defect was the result of EC's outside the airline's actual control.
d) The defect did not result from events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier.
e) The defendant will rely on Nelson and Tui (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), in particular Paragraph 39.
14. For the reasons set out above, the claim for 400 Euros per person pursuant to the denied boarding regulations is denied.
15. The claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss. (Its compensation, not damages).
16. 8% interest is an inappropriate rate.
Cant read the signature, Customer litigation Executive.

Seems like a load of bunkom to me, comments?

JPears

Thesiteagent wrote: »

Hi,
I have just received Thomson Airways defence.
Our flight was delayed by over 5 hours from Palma to Luton in June 2010. We were told at the time it had developed a fault over Cyprus the previous day.
As follows,
1. Denies the airline it is liable.
2. It admits it operated the flight.
3. It requires me to prove we were on the flight.
4. By reason of article 3 of EC Regulation2027 as amended, as a matter of English law the ability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.
(Interestingly the only reference I can find on this EC regulation concerns accidents)
5. The Montreal Convention deals 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.
6 As a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which claims to establish liability, if disputed are to be made.
7. Says under the Montreal Convention claims must be brought within 2 years.
8. In the premises: Any claim for 261 delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal Convention.
9. Says that as no action was brought within 2 years the claim was extinguished and I am therefore wasting the courts time. (As if).
10. In the alternative
11. It will be said by the defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's flight was subject to an unforeseeable technical fault prior to its departure, namely a problem with one of the aircraft's doors.
12. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the claimants flight.
13. It is averred that the matters pleaded in paragraph 11 above were caused by EC's 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.
The defendant relies on the following:-
a) At all material times the defendant operated a reasonable system of checks and maintenance to the aircraft concerned.
b) The defect was found prior to the departure of the other aircraft in question. (What other aircraft)
c)The defect was the result of EC's outside the airline's actual control.
d) The defect did not result from events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier.
e) The defendant will rely on Nelson and Tui (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), in particular Paragraph 39.
14. For the reasons set out above, the claim for 400 Euros per person pursuant to the denied boarding regulations is denied.
15. The claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss. (Its compensation, not damages).
16. 8% interest is an inappropriate rate.
Cant read the signature, Customer litigation Executive.

Seems like a load of bunkom to me, comments?

as you succinctly summarised, all bunkum apart from point 2.....

Thesiteagent

JPears wrote: »

as you succinctly summarised, all bunkum apart from point 2.....

Ha Ha Ha Thought you would see it like that

matt2baker

Vauban wrote: »

A delay is when you board the aircraft operating your flight and it arrives at your destination late. Denied boarding is when you present yourself for check-in as appropriate but are refused permission to board the flight, which takes off (delayed or not) leaving you behind to take a later flight.

Sorry - still as clear as topsoil. This "Denied Boarding" wording is very subjective.

I arrived to check-in on time in both instances.................For one of the flights, check-in was delayed due to lack of aircraft (this was at Manchester).

Therefore, if a flight was delayed leaving before its scheduled time, then surely I would have been denied boarding it at the time it should have left (even if the aircraft wasn't there?)

And, my other flight,

If I boarded a flight, had to get off and wait for another aircraft, then that too is a delayed flight? Or not?

Vauban

matt2baker wrote: »

Sorry - still as clear as topsoil. This "Denied Boarding" wording is very subjective.

I arrived to check-in on time in both instances.................For one of the flights, check-in was delayed due to lack of aircraft (this was at Manchester).

Therefore, if a flight was delayed leaving before its scheduled time, then surely I would have been denied boarding it at the time it should have left (even if the aircraft wasn't there?)

And, my other flight,

If I boarded a flight, had to get off and wait for another aircraft, then that too is a delayed flight? Or not?

Delayed boarding is not denied boarding. Ask yourself: did the flight (not the plane) you were scheduled to be on take off without you? If not, it is not denied boarding.

Example: I am booked on BA 001. When I get there, I discover that it has been delayed three hours, and they have moved lots of other people from a connecting flight onto it. Consequently there are not enough seats, and I must wait for flight BA 002 instead. BA 001 takes off three hours late. I have been denied boarding.

Alternatively, I am booked on BA 001. I go to check in but there is no plane. They tell me that the plane has been sent to pick up passengers elsewhere. I have to come back tomorrow morning, when BA 001 will take off 12 hours late. In this circumstance I have been delayed.

Basically if your flight (not your plane) takes off without you, it's denied boarding. Otherwise it's delay.

StanVanDamn

Hi everyone,

I'm at the point where Thomson's have denied my claim due to unusual circumstances and the next step is the small claims court. I don't think I have the confidence to step in the small claims and put forward my case. So I have 2 questions

1) If I did go to small claims and lost - what would be the financial consequences to me?

2) If I was to appointment a company to handle this on my behalf could anyone recommend one and just roughly how much they would take off my compensation?

Thanks

matt2baker

Vauban wrote: »

Delayed boarding is not denied boarding. Ask yourself: did the flight (not the plane) you were scheduled to be on take off without you? If not, it is not denied boarding.

Example: I am booked on BA 001. When I get there, I discover that it has been delayed three hours, and they have moved lots of other people from a connecting flight onto it. Consequently there are not enough seats, and I must wait for flight BA 002 instead. BA 001 takes off three hours late. I have been denied boarding.

Alternatively, I am booked on BA 001. I go to check in but there is no plane. They tell me that the plane has been sent to pick up passengers elsewhere. I have to come back tomorrow morning, when BA 001 will take off 12 hours late. In this circumstance I have been delayed.

Basically if your flight (not your plane) takes off without you, it's denied boarding. Otherwise it's delay.

Thank you - that does help considerably now - and that topsoil is much less cloudier too - although that bovine excrement added daily by Thomsons that you refer to is getting a bit strong and obviously designed to keep people at bay................;)

matt2baker

Not sure if this is a new idea from Thomsons, as I haven't seen any other references to it on here. I've had my "apology for the delay but its too late as its over 2 years" letter today. At the end of the letter, in different font and in bold typeface, (obviously added as an afterthought to this standard letter sent to us all), is...
"We're constantly reviewing the service provided by our After Travel Customer Service Support Team to make sure it's the best it can be. To do that, we need your feedback. By telling us about how your complaint was handled, you'll help us to monitor our progress and improve our service. All you need to do is complete a short survey by following this link: www.
thomson.co.uk/aftertravel-survey
It should only take about ten minutes. We'd like to say thanks in advance for taking the time to complete it - we look forward to hearing from you."

The survey is straightforward, and can be anonymous as at the end it asks for a reference number on your letter, should you wish to identify yourself that is........;) the survey takes about 3 minutes, more if you need to think about how to praise Thomsons.

I feel so much happier now, knowing that Thomsons are genuinely concerned for their customers and want to help us..................... :j

yeah, right!!

mumoftwomonkeys

laticsforlife wrote: »

I agree - time to take action.

At least you are not stuck with the 2nd argument of 2 years vs 6 years, and are only talking about EC's.

I think it has been mentioned on plenty of occasions in this thread that knock-on effects are NOT EC's, your flight was clearly a) on time, and b) not subject to any technical fault; it was only Thomsons operational decision to fly customers home in order (which I don't have too much of a problem with, as I can imagine the riot had they been left behind whilst you lot went home!).

But what I take issue with is why it takes 22 hours to fix a plane when they could quicker and easier just fly another from the UK to one of their bigger holiday destinations in Europe to bring you home - also I previously had to land with Thomson at Palma and sit on the apron whilst they repaired something because, and I quote, Palma has the parts needed as if we flew on to Tunisia, their airport doesn't have Thomson repair facilities so our plane would have been stuck there, so it seems to me that they could have fixed it onsite quicker than they did, and becuase of the popularity of that location ought to have had plans in place for when planes break down.

Please do not give up, it will be worth it in the end.

Thanks Vauban & Laticsforlife. So not bother with the suggested form but instead send a NBA to the Thomson address and wait. Assuming they don't reply what would I do then? Sorry - just worried I may be starting something myself which I'm not capable of finishing! Thank you:)