Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

blondmark

Cherrycherry wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better to call district court and find out? Because it seems that there are several ways to do that and the judge is not even giving me a timescale when it has to been done.

Sure

Oh it says I need ten characters ... well this should do it then.

dp2603

Received Thomson defence today.

Paragraphs 1-9 are the usual wordings regarding proof and 2 year time limit and it then states that

In the alternative, the aircraft intended to operate the claimants flight (G-YH) was subject to a reactionary delay due to industrial action by the French Air Traffic Controllers along with severe weather conditions. The industrial action carried out by the French ATC meant that many morning departures for Spain were delayed by up to 2 hours. Prior to the claimants flight, Aircraft G-YH was scheduled to make a return flight from Birmingham to Alicante, Spain. That flight (TOM 7214) was due to depart for Alicante at 06.05 on 15 June 2010, but as a result of the industrial action, was unable to depart until 07.52. Flight TOM 7214 then had to divert to Valencia due to localised thunderstorms in Alicante. These extraordinary circumstances resulted in aircraft G-YH departing from Alicante back to Birmingham with a delay of 5 hours and 29 minutes. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the claimants flight to Antalya, Turkey of 5 hours and 5 minutes.

It is averred that the matters above were caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the claimant. As such, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied Boarding Regulations, no compensation is payable in these circumstances.

"The defendant believes the facts stated in this defence to be true. I am duly authorised by Thomson Airways to sign this statement." The authorised signature is actually missing on Thomsons defence.

Paragraph 5(3) does state that EC's can effect the flight concerned or the previous flight operated by the same aircraft, which appears to be the situation in my case.

Do I now require Thomsons to provide further details regarding the French ATC industrial action, the weather conditions mentioned and the steps taken to avoid our delay. I have searched the internet for details but to no avail.

Any advice would be really appreciated

blondmark

dp2603 wrote: »

Received Thomson defence today.

"The defendant believes the facts stated in this defence to be true. I am duly authorised by Thomson Airways to sign this statement." The authorised signature is actually missing on Thomsons defence.

Any advice would be really appreciated

You should write to The District Judge and state:

As the Defendant has failed to provide a signed Statement of Truth in its Defence, I would respectfully request that the Court strike out the Defence.

romanby1

blondmark wrote: »

You should write to The District Judge and state:

As the Defendant has failed to provide a signed Statement of Truth in its Defence, I would respectfully request that the Court strike out the Defence.

I agree with the above. Thomsons are "Trying it on" again, it looks as though they cannot truthfully sign the statement . If they had they would have to provide. proof of what they are stating if it goes to court and maybe they are not too sure of the facts.

blondmark

romanby1 wrote: »

I agree with the above. Thomsons are "Trying it on" again, it looks as though they cannot truthfully sign the statement . If they had they would have to provide. proof of what they are stating if it goes to court and maybe they are not too sure of the facts.

Well my experience of Thomsons is that they have no compunction about lying and falsifying documents under a Statement of Truth. In dp's case I would think their legal dept was too sloppy to notice the lack of signature.

Still it gives him/her grounds to request a strike out, which all adds to the fun, and since the Judge has the discretion to bin their defence, it may be dp's lucky day.

matt2baker

dp2603 wrote: »

Received Thomson defence today.

Paragraphs 1-9 are the usual wordings regarding proof and 2 year time limit and it then states that

Paragraph 5(3) does state that EC's can effect the flight concerned or the previous flight operated by the same aircraft, which appears to be the situation in my case.

Is this a valid fact - no-one has commented on this paragraph yet, so does this effectively mean than knock-on delays due to ECs are a way of dismissing a claim?

Also, with the possibility of knock-on delays being attributed to my own claims (and my son's recent delay), I am interested in whether it is possible to determine where the aircraft came from before my own flight was delayed. Does anyone know where this data exists (other than on a Thomson-only computer)? Obviously this would help me in disputing any maintenance ECs to the aircraft prior to my flight.

matt2baker

Extract from.....

REGULATION (EC) No 261/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 11 February 2004

2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a
flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written
notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in
line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger
affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent
notice. The contact details of the national designated body
referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in
written form.

I've never been given any notices by (Thomsons) for my delays.....nor seen any queries on this thread either. Have I missed out, or been shielded from knowledge about making a claim?

blondmark

matt2baker wrote: »

Extract from.....

REGULATION (EC) No 261/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 11 February 2004

2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a
flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written
notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in
line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger
affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent
notice. The contact details of the national designated body
referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in
written form.

I've never been given any notices by (Thomsons) for my delays.....nor seen any queries on this thread either. Have I missed out, or been shielded from knowledge about making a claim?

Although airlines are obliged to provide notice of passengers' entitlements during delays, Thomson have an especially cavalier attitude to the law, and because there is no particular penalty for failing to comply, they don't.

Vauban

matt2baker wrote: »

Is this a valid fact - no-one has commented on this paragraph yet, so does this effectively mean than knock-on delays due to ECs are a way of dismissing a claim?

The knock-on issue has been much debated on this forum. There is nothing in article 5 (3) relating to knock-ons (if you read it - which you should - you'll see it simply says that compensation isn't payable if extraordinary circumstances caused the delay.

The preliminary para 15 of the regulation talks about how extraordinary circumstances can apply "to a particular aircraft on a particular day", which seems to me that some knock-ons could be captured by this clause. However, the point is surely that the original delay needs to be caused by extraordinary circumstances, and ordinary technical failure is not that (as the Wallentin judgement makes clear).

The other point about knock ons is that with every hour that passes from the time of the original incident, the more difficult it is for the airline to demonstrate that they used all available means to get you on your way.

matt2baker wrote: »

Also, with the possibility of knock-on delays being attributed to my own claims (and my son's recent delay), I am interested in whether it is possible to determine where the aircraft came from before my own flight was delayed. Does anyone know where this data exists (other than on a Thomson-only computer)? Obviously this would help me in disputing any maintenance ECs to the aircraft prior to my flight.

There are websites that can help you to plot the journey of the plane. But what do you think that will tell you? If the original problem was a technical failure, it doesn't matter. It wasn't extraordinary - not matter where the aircraft came from.

matt2baker

Vauban wrote: »

The knock-on issue has been much debated on this forum. There is nothing in article 5 (3) relating to knock-ons (if you read it - which you should - you'll see it simply says that compensation isn't payable if extraordinary circumstances caused the delay.

The preliminary para 15 of the regulation talks about how extraordinary circumstances can apply "to a particular aircraft on a particular day", which seems to me that some knock-ons could be captured by this clause. However, the point is surely that the original delay needs to be caused by extraordinary circumstances, and ordinary technical failure is not that (as the Wallentin judgement makes clear).

The other point about knock ons is that with every hour that passes from the time of the original incident, the more difficult it is for the airline to demonstrate that they used all available means to get you on your way.



There are websites that can help you to plot the journey of the plane. But what do you think that will tell you? If the original problem was a technical failure, it doesn't matter. It wasn't extraordinary - not matter where the aircraft came from.

It was more out of the fact that if necessity prevails, having a counter-argument to hand would be useful when a defence states that there was a problem prior to my flight I've yet to find a website that plots aircraft by registration number, as flight numbers are more widely logged. First hurdles are the 2 year letter I've received and the response to my other claim that's been on their system since February! Of course, I may not need to worry about knock-on delays or knock-on EC's

UPDATE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I've just looked at the timeline on FlightStats.com for one of my claims - apparently the flight was recorded as a 'time adjustment' 13 hours before scheduled departure, and logged as due to be 4 hours late to depart, even at that point. So, Thomsons had AT LEAST 13 hours (or more) to arrange for replacement aircraft/replacement crew/spare replacement parts etc. Their response to the delay will make interesting bedtime reading!!