Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

catoutthebag

On page 13
Originally Posted by Mark2spark
Be aware that the above letter you mention, giving them notice of impending court action unless they settle, HAS to be addressed to the company secretary at the registered address. (for it to be legally valid) (All explained in the FAQ's)

Which I correctly/incorrectly interpreted, lead be to send a 2nd letter nba (this time to co sec).

But wondered of anyone had received the above letter in relation to NBA and thomson aknowledging 'recent developments'?

I have reg with mcol, but will give them a final call tomorrow

CobyBenson

You could never be faulted for taking Mark2spark's approach, but it's not necessary.

From the letter you received it sounds like they haven't realised you've already written before and they'll just be repeating the steps they took previously.

friendofbillw2

CobyBenson wrote: »

There's absolutely no requirement to write to a company secretary.

Since Companies Act 2006 became law there has been no requirement for companies to even have a secretary, so addressing your letter that way could give the airline more wriggle room, not less.

romanby1

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Since Companies Act 2006 became law there has been no requirement for companies to even have a secretary, so addressing your letter that way could give the airline more wriggle room, not less.

We used the Small Claims Court Fast track and were told by the court to use the Head Office address (Wigmore Lane Luton) which is where the legal department is located.

xsally83x

I have made a complaint to Thomson for the delay i had on the 7th of May 2013 from LGW to Santorini. I made the complaint on the 16th of May as soon as i was back. We were supposed to depart at 6.00am but didnt leave until 12am. I have finally had a response after chasing and chasing and this was the response:

Following the regulation precisely we have to look at the root cause of the flight delay, when establishing whether compensation is due or not. As part of our investigation I have checked our flight reports and can see your flight was delayed due to a technical defect being detected prior to departure. The aircraft is unable to be legally dispatched with this defect. The technical issue with the aircraft was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could have been foreseen; therefore the cause of this delay sits under Extraordinary Circumstances.

This sounds like rubbish to me? What is my next step? letter to the CAA?

111KAB

xsally83x wrote: »

This sounds like rubbish to me? What is my next step? letter to the CAA?

Read through thread and in particular FAQ's on page one. CAA a waste of time and effort. If you have tenacity and patience NBA to airline then Court action if not suggest you contact Coby Benson via this website.

xsally83x

I have read so much on here and it just gets all a bit confusing

As long as i know that its rubbish what they have said and that i have a case then i will keep on until i get somewhere

Thank you for your help

Pbryan101

Hi All
Delayed for 22.5 hrs coming back from Goa due to a hydraulic leak. Did the usual letter writing and got rejected due to extraordinary circumstance etc. Now issued court proceedings and received defence from Thomson. Couple of questions
They have changed the defence from EC above to the Montreal convention limitation of two years - Thats wrong ...right?
Said I didn't travel on the flight!! and if I did travel on the flight then it arrived only 1 hr late!

Just checked flight stats and it confirms I hr late arrival......now I know I was delayed for 22 hrs ....how can this be right...can they fix the flight stats data because if definitely:( wrong

CobyBenson

Pbryan101 wrote: »

Hi All
Delayed for 22.5 hrs coming back from Goa due to a hydraulic leak. Did the usual letter writing and got rejected due to extraordinary circumstance etc. Now issued court proceedings and received defence from Thomson. Couple of questions
They have changed the defence from EC above to the Montreal convention limitation of two years - Thats wrong ...right?
Said I didn't travel on the flight!! and if I did travel on the flight then it arrived only 1 hr late!

Just checked flight stats and it confirms I hr late arrival......now I know I was delayed for 22 hrs ....how can this be right...can they fix the flight stats data because if definitely:( wrong

They raise the Montreal argument on every case older than 2 years. It is hopefully going to get resolved in the English Courts over the next few months.

What do Thomson say the scheduled and actual arrival times were?

Which of the two times do you disagree with?

Pbryan101

I disagree with their assertion that the flight arrived 1 hr late when in fact it was a day late! Slight mistake on flight stats (i put the wrong date in) There is now no data for the actula flight ever having taken place.