Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Harrys_gran

Submitted claim April 2013 to Thomson for flight delay from Palma to Manchester IN July 2007, when plane took off from Palma and then returned immediately - electrical problem. Delay at Palma from 10.30am flight returned to Manchester at midnight same day.

Following info on Forum:

1. Claim sent in April 2013 to First Choice with response from TUI (Thomson) rejected stating outside the 2 yr period Europe says is valid, although from this forum I know to be untrue.

2. Contacted CAA and submitted claim from which (I assume) has come a further response from Thomson today again rejecting claim.
CAA say that 8 weeks delay in claims and unable to contact by phone as dept. not taking phone calls but have emailed anyway.

If I am to submit claim to Small Claims this needs to be within 6 yrs which is 23/07/2013 but despite searching forum can't find anyone with a positive result from Small Claims hence the question 'is it worth it' ?

Open to suggestions !

111KAB

Harrys_gran wrote: »

If I am to submit claim to Small Claims this needs to be within 6 yrs which is 23/07/2013 but despite searching forum can't find anyone with a positive result from Small Claims hence the question 'is it worth it' ?

Open to suggestions !

See my result here > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338887/Our-victory-thousands-left-stranded-flight-delays-Couples-payout-26-hour-ordeal.html

Think you are sailing close to the wind an indeed if you haven't issued an NBA you need to get on with it tonight. Basically up to you if you want the money or not!

jenn1ewest1

Harrys_gran wrote: »

Submitted claim April 2013 to Thomson for flight delay from Palma to Manchester IN July 2007, when plane took off from Palma and then returned immediately - electrical problem. Delay at Palma from 10.30am flight returned to Manchester at midnight same day.

Following info on Forum:

1. Claim sent in April 2013 to First Choice with response from TUI (Thomson) rejected stating outside the 2 yr period Europe says is valid, although from this forum I know to be untrue.

2. Contacted CAA and submitted claim from which (I assume) has come a further response from Thomson today again rejecting claim.
CAA say that 8 weeks delay in claims and unable to contact by phone as dept. not taking phone calls but have emailed anyway.

If I am to submit claim to Small Claims this needs to be within 6 yrs which is 23/07/2013 but despite searching forum can't find anyone with a positive result from Small Claims hence the question 'is it worth it' ?

Open to suggestions !

try reading the court success thread

happychap7

Hi
I've just started MCOL proceedings and Thomson's have until the 19/07/13 to acknowledge receipt of the claim etc. I'm just starting to consider which witnesses I need for court. My wife and I can confirm we were on the 2 delayed flights and I have a letter from Thomson's dated Nov 12 confirming my family travelled with them on the relevant dates in 2010 from Manchester/Antalya respectively. They have marked the letter ' without prejudice.' Should I be asking for the person who wrote the letter from Thomson's to be called to court or is the Judge likely to accept the letter along with our accounts as proof we were on the flight as its only on the balance of probabilities in any case. I'm expecting one of Thomson's points in their statement to ask us to prove we were on the flight.
Thanks

111KAB

happychap7 wrote: »

Hi
I've just started MCOL proceedings and Thomson's have until the 19/07/13 to acknowledge receipt of the claim etc. I'm just starting to consider which witnesses I need for court. My wife and I can confirm we were on the 2 delayed flights and I have a letter from Thomson's dated Nov 12 confirming my family travelled with them on the relevant dates in 2010 from Manchester/Antalya respectively. They have marked the letter ' without prejudice.' Should I be asking for the person who wrote the letter from Thomson's to be called to court or is the Judge likely to accept the letter along with our accounts as proof we were on the flight as its only on the balance of probabilities in any case. I'm expecting one of Thomson's points in their statement to ask us to prove we were on the flight.
Thanks

Doubtful the Judge will even ask for proof (but include in your witness statement) and no need to call upon the Thomson letter writer. Sounds to me as though your wife and yourself have it 'covered' and should you be asked to prove you were on the flight(s) you have sufficient documentary evidence.

Vauban

Harrys_gran wrote: »

Has anyone actually been awarded & received flight delay compensation from Thomson ?
If I am to go to Small Claims (Thomson have rejected with usual 2 yr exclusion statement) will need to do so in the next 2 weeks.
Is it worth it ?

Only you can decide whether "it's worth it". But if you're asking about success rates, of the eight legal cases stated and concluded against Thomson - and reported by the claimants on this website - Thomson has lost or settled each case in full in all eight cases.

daisyslass

I posted on the 5 July post no 1844 stating I was waiting for my reply from Thomson. Well I now have it.First reply reason for delay was A REACTIONARY DELAY DUE TO UNFORSEEN TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THE ENGINE ON THE ORIGINAL AIRCRAFT DUE TO OPERATE OUR FLIGHT (AN UNEXPECTED SURGE IN THE ENGINE JUST PRIOR TO DEPARTURE) I asked for more details as this was not the reason we had been given. After many phone calls and emails I received a phone call on the 5 July saying a letter was in the post detailing the reason. The letter states. THE DELAY WAS DUE TO A DISRUPTION EARLIER IN THE FLIGHT PROGRAMME.THE AIRCRAFT DUE TO SERVICE YOUR FLIGHT HAD TO MAKE A DIVERSION DUE TO A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. ONCE IT HAD LANDED IT REQUIRED A HEAVY LANDING CHECK. THIS WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS ABLE TO SERVICE THE REST OF THE FLIGHT PROGRAMME.IN ORDER TO MINIMISE DELAYS ANOTHER AIRCRAFT WOULD BE SCHEDULED TO OPERATE YOUR FLIGHT. HOWEVER AT THIS POINT THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNDERGOING ENGINE REPAIRS IN LUTON. AN OPERATIONAL DECISION WAS TAKEN THAT IT WAS MORE BENEFICIAL TO USE THE NEW AIRCRAFT RATHER THAN WAIT FOR THE ORIGINAL AIRCRAFT TO MAKE ITS RETURN TO THE UK.THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS DELAY WAS THE DIVERSION OF THE ORIGINAL AIRCRAFT DUE TO MEDICAL EMERGENCY THEREFORE NO COMPENSATION IS DUE.
The fact we had been lied to in the first reply according to the lady I spoke to could have been down to human error. Does the fact it was a medical emergency now alter the case?

Vauban

daisyslass wrote: »

The fact we had been lied to in the first reply according to the lady I spoke to could have been down to human error. Does the fact it was a medical emergency now alter the case?

This sounds all very odd - I would ask for a clear chronology of what plane was affected when. It sounds like this medical emergency was several flights before your own, and was not sufficient of itself to cause a delay. But I doubt that the airline will fully 'fess up, and you may need to take them to court to get the full picture. But then ask yourself: if you didn't have a case, why are they being so cagey?

daisyslass

They say the plane scheduled to serve our flight was the one coming back to the uk when it was diverted to Barbados because of the medical emergency. So they thought it would be better to schedule another plane to minimise the delay. However at that point it was undergoing engine repairs at Luton.We ended up being delayed 7hrs. In our first letter from Thomson they say it was the original plane which I am taking to be the one diverted that had the engine surge.

RM2013

I've been looking at the Flight Event Timeline on Flightstats relating to the flight I was on. Can anyone tell me what ' AEQP changed to B763' means.
Our flight was held up due to a repair being carried out on the engine.