Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

My Nephew is trying to gain compensation from Thomson and was told yesterday that it is taking approx 56 days to deal with claims and they are being done on rotation and that they have over 1,000 claims to looks at.

I am not sure this is quite acceptable. He had to email over details to them and got a response saying his claim has joined the queue. It will not be good enough to wait 56 days to be told the time limit is 2 years when we all know it isn't.

Is it best to write to Thompson and request a response within 14 days and if no reply court action will proceed without further notice??

Edit: My Nephew called Thompson 15th Feb to get the ball rolling and was told a claim form would be arriving but nothing came. When he chased this yesterday he was told that they are not issuing forms now and people have to phone up or write in or email them.

catoutthebag

I think people need to stop playing Thomson's little games now.

If I don't get a response within 14days, it's COURT TIME!

That's what YOU should be doing too.

14 days is satisfactorily enough give the number of staffer they employ

No reply within 14days? Read the FAQ and SEND THEM TO COURT, MILK THEM DRY :money::rotfl:

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Folk shouldn't be having to fiddle and faff about to get the money they are entitled to.

And as for having to resort to a county court to gain money you are entitled to it's wholly disgusting. The government needs to intervene and tell the airlines to pay up.

Mark2spark

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

My Nephew is trying to gain compensation from Thomson and was told yesterday that it is taking approx 56 days to deal with claims and they are being done on rotation and that they have over 1,000 claims to looks at.

I am not sure this is quite acceptable. He had to email over details to them and got a response saying his claim has joined the queue. It will not be good enough to wait 56 days to be told the time limit is 2 years when we all know it isn't.

Is it best to write to Thompson and request a response within 14 days and if no reply court action will proceed without further notice??

Edit: My Nephew called Thompson 15th Feb to get the ball rolling and was told a claim form would be arriving but nothing came. When he chased this yesterday he was told that they are not issuing forms now and people have to phone up or write in or email them.

As you are learning, faffing about playing the airlines games is ridiculously torturous. 14 days NBA and court for your nephew.
Read the FAQ's (sticky) and you can see that the courts find 14 days notice to receive a reply perfectly reasonable.

Lozza123

It's 11 weeks on Monday since my claim forms were signed for. I sent 2 e-mails one of which I stated was NBA notice. Will an e-mail be classed as satisfactory for NBA as its over 14 days or will I have to write a letter. I am now furious with them as once again I was fobbed off yesterday I am finally taking action. I have now completed the court claims form on this site and its ready to send. So am I right in thinking that you can claim by submitting the online form.

Oscargrouch

Lozza123 wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that you can claim by submitting the online form.

Yes, you can do it online, full instructions are to be found here:-

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/

Believe you have to register with MCOL first, then fill in the form on screen, pay via Debit Card, and e-mail it to them. All instructions are on the site, just follow the rules to the letter...:)

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Right we have decided to take a more robust approach with Thompson. Fired off the letter giving them 14 days to pay. Not sent it by recorded. I am sure they will get it but if they choose to claim they haven't that's up to them. After 14 days we will sent the NBA. Again not by recorded. If they ignore that then we will issue a small claims. The courts don't send their paperwork by recorded so I assume if Thompson ignore two of our I recorded letters then they will ignore the court papers.

Tash14_2

Just spoke with Thompson customer services re my flight delay to Montego bay 26th June 2012. We were delayed for 5 hours at Gatwick, and my complaint letter was sent in with boarding passes on 31st January 2013.

I was advised earlier this morning that following legal advice, customers no longer need to complete a claim form, providing you can be verified as having been on the flight.

The wait continues for me.

Tallulah1981

Hello,

I have received this response from Thomson -

Thank you for your correspondence regarding your flight delay.

Here at Thomson Airways, we are committed to on-time performance across our flying programme. It sounds trite, but doing everything we reasonably can to get our aircraft to their destinations, and you on holiday, safely and on time is really important to us.

In terms of on-time performance, for the past few years Thomson Airways has consistently been one of the best performing airlines in the UK and we work hard to maintain the title of most on-time charter airline.

Delays are always a real disappointment for us, not only in respect of the effect that they have on passenger enjoyment and comfort, but also there is a real financial cost to us in circumstances which are almost always not our fault. That cost makes offering the best value fares and holidays more of a challenge.

Very occasionally, though, and despite our very best efforts to prevent delays they can occur and we are truly sorry that your flight was delayed in the way that you have described.

In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union ("the Regulation") now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival.

Now that we've received your form, we've looked in detail at the circumstances that surround your experience. So let's look at the specific cause of your delay.

As part of our investigation I have checked our flight reports and can see your flight was delayed due to a late inbound aircraft. As part of the EU Regulation we have to look at the root cause of the delay to establish if compensation is due, and after checking the records from your flight I can see that earlier that day the aircraft scheduled for your flight was delayed due to being diverted to another airport as the aircraft experienced unforeseen technical issues and the decision had to be taken to divert to another airport for passengers' safety. Therefore this delay is classified as Extraordinary Circumstances.

As confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") in the judgment on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, British Airways, EasyJet and IATA v United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, the question whether a specific delay triggers an obligation to pay a proscribed amount of compensation pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation requires consideration as to whether the long delay is a result of extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It's important to note that the "all reasonable measures" test applies to the occurrence of the Extraordinary Circumstances not the delay that may have been its effect.

Plainly speaking, a small number of passengers may be entitled to compensation for a delay that results in those passengers reaching their destination airport in excess of three hours after their ticketed arrival time. However, if the cause of the delay was not the airline's fault (i.e. the result of Extraordinary Circumstances), there is no requirement to pay that compensation.

The definition of what amounts to "Extraordinary Circumstances" is given in paragraph 14 of the preamble of the Regulation, which states:

".obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."

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

To some there is a fundamental misunderstanding around whether technical problems can constitute Extraordinary Circumstances with many believing that no technical problems can fall into that category at all. This is simply not true, as confirmed by the CJEU itself; their decision of Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia provides some clarity.

In that particular case, the passengers were due to travel on a flight between Vienna, Austria and Brindisi, Italy, via Rome. Unfortunately, five minutes before the intended departure time, the customers were told the flight had been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation was that a complex engine defect in the turbine had been discovered the day before during a routine maintenance check.

In determining whether the cause of the "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" could be held as Extraordinary Circumstances, the Court stated in paragraph 24 & 25 the following:


"24. In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity.

25. Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, "extraordinary circumstances? under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004."
It was therefore held that, in the event that a technical fault was found during maintenance, or ought reasonably to have been found during maintenance, the resulting cancellation may not amount to Extraordinary Circumstances.

This approach makes sense as we agree that it may not be right that a passenger ought to bear the burden of the requirement to repair a technical problem that is detected during routine maintenance. But it flows from that conclusion that a problem that arises outside of regular maintenance and which is not the result of poor maintenance can't be inherent in the operation of an air carrier and therefore will be Extraordinary Circumstances.

Maintenance of the Thomson fleet of aircraft is conducted to some of the highest standards in the world. It's another area that we take extremely seriously as it affects safety, cost and on-time performance. Our approach is to have a regime that results in a schedule of assessment, service and part replacement which is significantly better than the manufacturer's recommendations.

In the case of the issue that affected your aircraft, the technical problem occurred while the aircraft was in-flight. As the defect in question was 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 appropriately, the failure in-flight was entirely unexpected. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances and compensation is therefore not payable.

At Thomson Airways we really value our ability to meet customer expectations. We already invest significantly in operational initiatives, engineering excellence and having a modern fleet; they all help to keep the frequency and duration of delays to an absolute minimum.

Observing the purpose and spirit of the Regulation and doing so while continuing to deliver real value to our customers is a challenge that can only be met by applying the rules robustly and not making payments where the delay is not our fault. Were we not to apply the rules in the way that we must, prices would need to rise for you and all other customers.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. We sincerely hope, and are doing all we reasonably can to ensure, that your future flights with Thomson Airways arrive on-time.

Yours sincerely,

My question is - Should I send the standard NBA template letter or should I adapt it to ask for further clarification regarding the 'technical fault' so as to confirm whether or not is was 'extraordinary.'

Thanks.

moriarty888

56 days up today. Have just spoken to them on the phone. They say they are aware that they have gone over the 56 days but are working through an enormous back log. I asked whether anyone's case has actually been dealt with yet and they said yes, some people have already had their claims dealt with. It would be great to find evidence of anyone who has been successful. Anyone out there?