Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

richardw

Gibbon1 wrote: »

... am I having the wool pulled over my eyes ...

Yes - they want to hold on to money and deny your entitlement, have a look at the link on the FAQs page near the start of this thread.

romanby1

richardw wrote: »

Yes - they want to hold on to money and deny your entitlement, have a look at the link on the FAQs page near the start of this thread.

If M.C. is the airlines response look up the Limitation Act on Google is says 6 years in England.

maxrhino

Just received a 3 page letter after a month long wait.
Flight TOM 2680 on 21/07/2012 from Manchester to Kos,
delayed 6 hours.

"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 despatched with this defect.
The decision was made to use an alternative aircraft in order
to reduce any further delay.The technical issue with the
aircraft was not due to poor maintenance and is not
something that could have been foreseen;therefore the
cause if this delay sits under extraordinary circumstances."

So no compensation for the delay which resulted in us arriving
at our hotel at 6am instead of 23:30 the night before.

111KAB

maxrhino wrote: »

The technical issue with the
aircraft .........the cause if this delay sits under extraordinary circumstances."

A technical problem with a plane is not extraordinary - in fact it is quite ordinary/regular occurrence. Therefore issue NBA giving 14 days notice and then proceed to MCOL.

LULU5779

merlinsmum0 wrote: »

Hello!

Long time lurker here looking for some advice in respect of my 2010 claim against Thomson. I have used the really helpful info on this forum and I am at the MCOL stage having now received Thomson's defence.

I'd be grateful for your thoughts:

1st page of the defence - all the usual 2 year rule stuff and asking that I show proof that we were on flight (I'm ok with this - plenty of info about in respect of the Limitations Act on here and we have our passports stamped showing we were at the airport which should be good enough).

2nd page - quotes unforeseeable circumstances and talks about the ash cloud chaos during 2010. It goes on to state that the delay was due to the crew who were due to bring us home having to bring home stranded passengers resulting in the crew going over their flying hours. It then states that this is classed as extraordinary circumstances.

The defence then talks of a defect being mentioned earlier in the defence but I think this has been left in error when they were copying and pasting!

Finally, Thomson deny interest and put us to strict proof of our loss.

Now, my quandary is this:

I appreciate that there was ash cloud disruption in April and May 2010. Having looked for info from a number of sources, it appears that the airspace was fully open from 18th May with no further ash cloud restrictions.

We did not fly out on our hols until 22nd May (no delay outbound from Manchester) and the delay affected our return flight on the 5th June!

In my opinion, Thomson had over 2.5 weeks to take reasonable measures to ensure that a crew was available to bring us home without us suffering such a long delay. However, I'm concerned that the courts may view the ash cloud defence favourably given that it is so often quoted as an E.C.

I'd be grateful for your thoughts

I have the same problem but our crew went out of hours so I have research the ash cloud there is a time line of events on the CAA website which states the airspace remained open from the 20th April print that off. Also you need to research press, news and the airport around the time of your delay to prove it was open with at the time of your travel. There was loads of things in the press and on media about it.

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2011&pagetype=90&pageid=12637

bazaar_2

Centipede100 wrote: »

I agree 100% with richardw in this. No name in the claimant box, they are not a claimant.

One proviso to this, by all means one person could act alone and then ask the airline to cough up for the remaining claimants if a successful judgment is obtained. This worked in my own case when a further 7 claimants were subsequently paid but the airline is under no obligation to do so and could force the other claimants to take action themselves.

totally agree centipede, our party members have no problem if faced with this

richardw

bazaar wrote: »

...our party members have no problem if faced with this

They should, because it is highly unlikely that you'll get compensation for them.
BTW IIRC Centipede100's case was quite a while ago now, it is highly unlikely that your other claimants would be treated similarly.

catoutthebag

N1 Ne1?
V

darkwarrior

blondmark wrote: »

No - fill in the bottom slip of the form they sent you and apply for judgment by default with immediate payment.

There doesn't seem to be a slip on the documentation they sent me, just the acknowledgment of service saying they intended to defend the whole claim and the letter acompanying it.

blondmark

darkwarrior wrote: »

There doesn't seem to be a slip on the documentation they sent me, just the acknowledgment of service saying they intended to defend the whole claim and the letter acompanying it.

If you issued proceedings using Form N1, the court would have posted you a form telling you how long the defendant has to respond. On the bottom of that is a tear-off form for you to request judgment by default.

If you issued online, there's a button to press to request judgment by default on the basis you have not received a defence within 4 weeks of service (where acknowledged as this has been).