Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

catoutthebag

Thanks for letting me know. Again only saw n1 mentioned at page 20 or something here :rotfl:

Where may I acquire one?

panholio

Hi,
I have just issued a claim against Thomson through the moneyclaim website for a delayed flight in September 2011. Thomson admitted technical fault to me in several letters - they ignored my LBA so I have issued the claim.

However, I am concerned I have made a mistake. The booking was for two people, myself and my partner. I did the claim online and only put my name on the MCOL form. Was that an error? I booked and paid for the flights and was the lead passenger.

Cheers..

Camaro3

catoutthebag wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know. Again only saw n1 mentioned at page 20 or something here :rotfl:

Where may I acquire one?

Go to this website & download: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/forms

bazaar_2

richardw wrote: »

You may be about to make a classic error that is one of the first things that airline solicitors pick up on, so it's great that you asked.

If you use MCOL and can't get your partner's name in the claimant box, then she isn't a claimant, it is as simple as that and the District Judge DJ won't argue with the airline's solicitor, so the claim wouldn't include your partner.

So don't put her name in the description.
If it can't go in the claimant box then don't use MCOL, use form N1 for your claim.

ive got the same issue as we are claiming as a group, In my claim I named everyone at the start, I also named First Choice, Ive got the defence, (poor grammar and all )however
1.Thomson defence states failed to serve proceedings on correct defendant, the defendant be substituted to Thomson Airways ( So, people please be careful), Thomson also state the Claimants right of reservice be dispensed with. I take this as Thomson allowing this 'error' as the claim was served at the correct address.
2.They next go on to deny the claim because it was EC due to a hard landing on a previous flight into a different airport..
3. claimant required to prove that she travelled on the flight.
4. they go on to explain the delay to this other flight causing a reactionary delay.
5. the defendant claims EC, and relies on
a, we carried out reasonable checks and maintenance
b, defect found prior to departure of claimants flight ( YES, on a different flight to a different airport?)
c, therefore EC outside the airlines actual control.
d, Now this is the funny one, "the defect did not stem from events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier@ (OK, so a plane takes off, what does it do at its destination, Just materialise out of the air?? they really are taking the proverbial with this one. Ive my answer but if any of you want to add any sarcasm to put on my witness statement, feel free.
6, they deny 8% interset, blah blah, ( Why is it allowed on MCOL then Ive also stated rate at which the court sees fit, so shove that up yer bayonet).
OK, Rant over, any help really appreciated, maybe Ill have to reclaim via post if this goes wrong for us all.

jenn1ewest1

Any court dates coming up in the next few weeks its all gone quiet,I am still waiting for my court date to come through from Worcester,
JH

dxc_chappie

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

Any court dates coming up in the next few weeks its all gone quiet,I am still waiting for my court date to come through from Worcester,
JH

I got a letter with my court date yesterday - it's set for mid Aug. Now working on my witness statement ....

nicandx

Togenberg wrote: »

Hi, We were also on this flight. The letter given to us at Newcastle airport on arrival suggested we go through our insurers.

Today submitted a claim using the MSE template as we feel it is Thomson who should be paying compensation. Will post when/if we receive a reply.

Hi

Just wondered if you have had a reply to your complaint? I have received a letter today stating that they are claiming 'extraordinary circumstances' due to the technical issue being unforeseen yet they do not appear to have acknowledged the fact that again we were almost a further three hours delayed whilst we sat on the plant whilst they had another 'technical issue' investigated (after being left for 24 hours in the hotel with not one word from a Thomson's rep). They also claim we were provided with 'sufficient welfare' whilst in Athens and whilst I do agree we were given a meal shortly after arrival at the hotel and were also provided with breakfast and lunch the following day, we checked in at Athens Airport and then had to endure a wait whilst they finished repairing the initial fault. We were not then provided with any form of refreshment until on board the plane, which consisted of a cheese and ham sandwich and a can of pop as, according to the flight attendant, they had no way of supplying any other form of food. If you didn't like cheese and ham you were stuffed!
I feel the extraordinary circumstances statement is very common and again I do appreciate things happen but to then have to sit on a plane (which stunk to high heaven of fuel) to wait whilst another technical fault is repaired is beyond being out of their control.

I look forward to hearing if you have received any form of communication from Thomsons. I certainly intend to take this to court.

Thanks

nicandx

nicandx wrote: »

Hi

Just after some advice!

We (myself, partner and 2yr old son) were booked on a return flight (TOM475) from Sharm El Sheikh to Newcastle on 25th March 2013.

We departed from SES on time but after a couple of hours into the flight we were advised by the captain that we were having to divert to Athens to land due to a 'minor technical issue'. We then, a good 30 minutes after being told, landed at Athens airport to be greeted by eight fire engines on the runway. The captain had also had to dump the fuel (I understand this is common procedure in these situations).

We were taken off the flight and taken to a hotel on the airport. To be fair to Thomsons we were supplied with dinner (at 1am as we had landed approx 7.30pm and it took a while to have all the guests checked into the hotel). We were also supplied breakfast the following morning and then lunch at 1pm.

We had to visit the airport pharmacy to obtain nappies and wipes as, due to expecting to on way home, we had only a handful of supplies with us, having left all excess at the kids club in the resort. I know the little one would have needed them anyway but it was 21 euros for a pack of nappies and wipes!!

We had absolutely no direct correspondence from Thomson and all the information we did find out was by contacting travel agents in the UK to see if they could shed any light on the situation. We were not told of any departure times until mid afternoon. We only knew we had to be at the airport for six as the hotel staff advised us we were only booked in until six then we were to go to the airport.

We arrived at Athens airport at 6pm to be checked in. We boarded the now repaired plane (they had to fly engineers from Luton with parts to rectify the problem) at approx 8.30pm.

As the plane was pushed back, there was an overwhelming aroma of fuel (I have since been told this would be the residue of the fuel which was dumped). This was highlighted but no response was given. As the aeroplane was pushed back the captain came back over the tannoy to advise that he was sorry but there was a secong technical issue and that they would have the engineers try to fix whilst we were on the aeroplane.

We were on the aeroplane from 8.30pm until 11.50pm until we were finally allowed to set off (as you can imagine by now there were a lot of worried people on the plane due to the technical issues encountered).

We set off and after a very turbulent runway episode and take off, we finally arrived at our destination airport at 1.50am (local time, four hours after flight took off). We were given a letter at the airoport by a Thomsons rep advising that the total delay was 27hrs 35minutes.

Can someone please advise what we need to do going forward as I am unsure from reading other posts where we stand with regards to the emergency landing issues (amongst others)?

Thanks in advance

I have received a reply today from Thomsons stating that they have looked into our claim and as follows is part of the reply:

'We've looked in detail at the circumstances that surround your experience and I can see from our internal airline reports that the aircraft experienced unforeseen technical issues with the engine in-flight. The aircraft then had to make an emergency landing at Athens Airport for this to be investigated and repaired. Components that form part of the aircrafts engine have a certain life span. Therefore this would be classed as Extraordinary Circumstances as this would not be a result of poor maintenance or anything that could have been foreseen. Therefore this delay is classed as Extraordinary Circumstances.'

The letter then goes on the quote other gibberish (I assume they do this to try and baffle people and therefore hope they give up - something which I won't be doing!).

It then states:

'In the case of your flight, the cause of delay an 'unexpected flight safety shortcoming' arising from the discovery of a technical fault that doesn't fall into the category of something that was or ought to have been discovered during routine maintenance.'

Then quotes the decision of the Wallentin-Hermann V Alitalia.

Specific replay to our complaint:

'In the case of the issue that affected your aircraft, there was an unexpected surge in the engines while in-flight. As a problem with engines could potentially be a serious problem, the aircraft has to be inspected, and in some cases, repaired as soon as possible. Incidents such as these are rare and not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of the failure of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement that scheme accordingly, the failure in-flight was entirely unexpected. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances'.

I guess no airline actually knows they are going to have an in-flight failure or is that me just being me?!

Any thoughts with regards to going forward would be appreciated.

Thanks

1967lor

Hi, I just received a reply from Thomson which I sent to them on 09-05-2013, and 9weeks later a reply. Myflight was cancelled from Sharm el Sheilk on 13-02-2012, I looked flight up on flightstats, and it said flight was cancelled, we were all led to believe it could not leave Cardiff as the pilot had been on duty and would exceed his hours due too diversions to Gatwick, back in the Uk.
anyway our flight

ThomsonAirways TOM533

Depart:

Sharm ElSheikh Mon 13-Feb-2012 17:25

to

Arrive:

Cardiff Mon13-Feb-2012 21:30 was cancelled until the following morning were the flight departed SSH around 0930 approx. 14 hours late.

in the long and short of it Thomson declined any compensation saying it was classified as extraordinary circumstances, they say my flight was delayed due to a late inbound aircraft, and they have to look at the root cause. after they checked records they found the previous scheduled flight experienced a technical issue with the cabin pressurisation following takeoff from Cardiff airport. The decision had to be taken to divert to Gatwick for a repair, they then go on to say they they used a different aircraft, therefore this delay is classified as EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

then they go on and say, they have looked in detail of the circumstances that surround my experience and from their internal records, that following take off of the 2nd aircraft from Gatwick airport the 2nd aircraft experienced unforeseen technical issues withthe radar and......................... the paragraph ends there!!!!

this is where it got confusing as the letter stops dead there and starts listing court of justice CJEU ARTICLE 7 THEN EXTRAORDINARY CURCUMSTANCES Paragraph 14

Then the letter goes on to say in case of my flight the delay was in reaction to the delay to another aircraft caused by an "UNEXPECTED FLIGHT SAFETYSHORTCOMING" Arising Midflight.

then aload of baffle from CJEU WALLENTIN-HERMAMAN ETC ETC ETC.

Without me scanning the 3 pages of baffle to you it is too long to put in this box.

what baffles me is the abrupt ending of the 1st part of letter "The Radar and................ nothing else that would remotely continue to the next page.



is there any way I can continue with a claim, as Thomson has clearly stated that Compensation is not payable.
I think I may of made a mistake though as I wrote flight delayed, but it was cancelled, any views on this would be of help, manys thanks in advance, 1967lor

1967lor

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.

Thomson defence in my no compensation letter states 2 aircraft failed to leave the UK for SSH, resulting in an 14-16 hour delay, their defence is of EXTRAORDINARY CURCUMSTANCES, the following morning Thomson plane arrived with a jumbo jet, all passengers on flight could sit in the 1st 10 rows it made me laugh, I would be grateful for any help you could assisit me with, many thanks Lor