Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

gagsy999 wrote: »

Hi terry73
Im just reading your blog from 14/07/2013 im just filling my n1 court form in did you submit your form or did you just send it off to Thomson first to see if they folded? many thanks

Why would they fold if you send them a N1 form? Unless it is sent to the Court, it means nothing. Indeed, it only reinforces the sense that you a desperate to avoid legal action - which may even work against you down the line when they think about settling.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you must gird your loins and start the process - or walk away. Those are your choices. This is no longer a letter writing exercise.

VicW7

Hi
Wondered if someone can offer their words of wisdom. We have had a claim on going for a 19hr delay with Thomson since March 2013. Today after many phone calls I was told the delay we experienced on the 4th June 2010 was due to the volcanic ash cloud! The said disruption happened in April (14-20th) so I am not sure how this is the case. I certainly don't remember this being the case and I am sure we would have been advised of this. The cabin crew told us that our flight was never coming and that Thomson had loaned pilots to BA to cover their strikes and had left themselves short.
What can I do now? I know the ash cloud didn't effect our flight!

delvey

Received Thomson defence today. Its actually quite funny how bad it is. May start my own thread so it doesn't get lost in here now it may be going to court

romanby1

gagsey 999
4).It will besaid that an adverse inference should be drawn to the fact that the defence haschanged it reason for the delay on two occasions. It is also submitted that theDefendant has failed to prove that the cancellation has been caused byextraordinary circumstances or that either of these faults actually occurred.No detail is given in the defence of the circumstances which lead to thecancellation.of Mr ******and Miss ****** flight.



It would also besaid that given the exact same fault occurred on Mr ****** & Miss ******flight to Cancun that a fault of this nature is inherentin the normal exercise of the activity of the Air Carrier.

In relation toparagraph 3 of the defence statement; All responses in relation to the reasonfor delay have been by TUI Travel, who are the owners of the plane both Mr *****& Miss ***** travelled on which displays the TUI logo on its tail, and assuch it is submitted that TUI is the correct carrier in this instance

Good statement. One point, Do you have a statement from Mr*** and Miss***. If not it might not be admissable, it is hearsay.
If you can Private message whoever posted that they may offer a signed statement to that fact.

shellbob83_2

Received the below email from Thomson today regarding my claim:

Thank you for your correspondence.

Here at Thomson Airways, we are committed to on-time performance across our flying programme. 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.

We invest significantly in operational initiatives, engineering excellence and having a modern fleet; they all help to keep the frequency and duration of delays to a bare minimum. As a result, for the past few years, Thomson Airways has been one of the best performing airlines in the UK and has been able to keep the title of most on-time charter airline.

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.

Delays are always a disappointment for us, not only in respect of the effect that they have on passenger enjoyment and comfort, but also as 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 much more of a challenge.

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.

The European Court of Justice has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long passengers have to bring their claims, we need to look at our national law. The Supreme Court in the UK has said that all claims to do with "international carriage by air" are subject to the framework of the Montreal Convention which provides that claims need to be brought within two years. We, therefore, can't consider claims for flights that were delayed more than two years ago.

Keeping an eye on the purpose and spirit of the Regulation and doing that while continuing to deliver real value to our customers is a challenge that can only be met by applying the law robustly and not making payments where there is no entitlement. If we didn't apply the rules in this way, prices would need to rise for you and all other customers.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. And rest assured that we are doing all we reasonably can to ensure that your future flights with Thomson Airways arrive on-time.

Yours sincerely

K Chamberlain
Flight Delay Advisor
After Travel Customer Support

Can anyone tell me what the next course of action is please? Is it worth complaining to the CCA?

Any help much appreciated.

darkwarrior

So a bit concerned, not received the defence by post. I contacted MCOL who emailed me back and said it was sent out on the 9th. She also attached a questionnaire "Directions Questionnaire - SMall Claims Track", which uses a lot of doom and gloom language about incurring further costs.

matt2baker

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt2baker View Post
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.

Mark2spark replies.....
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?
Airlines get out of this by claiming that the regs are displayed publicly by the check in desks, I also think some airlines have a www version of it under the T & C's for on-line bookers.

matt2baker replies.......
The only thing is, the wording states......It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice.

So if its at the check-in desk, and I'm in departures..........I ain't gonna be able to read it!!

blondmark

shellbob83 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the next course of action is please? Is it worth complaining to the CCA?

Any help much appreciated.

No don't bother with the CAA. Thomson's 2 year scam relates to claims brought under the Montreal Convention, but that's nothing to do with your claim.

If your plane was delayed or cancelled you would bring a claim for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 instead, and therefore time limits under the Montreal Convention are irrelevant. Thomson is essentially a fundamentally dishonest company that hopes you won't realise this and will go away empty handed while they steal the compensation that is rightfully yours.

Write back giving them 14 days to settle your claim and then sue for the compensation they owe you.

bazaar_2

Vauban wrote: »

The trouble is, I am afraid that it DOES require several hours of reading up - unless you're very lucky. I could happily post my skeleton argument for others to copy, but unless you've done the background reading on the regulation, the case law and the process, you are not going to be equipped to take this forward. There are no short-cuts. Read the FAQ - and all its links - as a minimum.

Absolutely agree, that people need to look at the regs, and go through the threads involving their own airlines,
believe me, ive read these thereads a lot and gone through the regs.
However, these cases are all individual and theres no one way fix. so people should be aware of this. Centipedes post, is simple and should be a sticky, just saying thats all

happychap7

I put myself as the claimant and put the following in the particulars of claim section before I submitted my initial MCOL proceedings. Is this okay or do I need to try and change anything. I have edited it for the post but the full names were included and 2 of the passengers are children

Passenger Names : XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX.

I claim compensation under Article 7 of EC

261/2004 pursuant to the Sturgeon judgment in

the ECJ (Case C-402/07) dated 19 November

2009) which provides for 400 Euros (£339) per

passenger per delayed flight to be paid in

the following circumstances.

Our flights were delayed leaving XXXX

and XXXX respectively. We arrived in

XXXX XXXXX hours after the scheduled

arrival time and in XXXXX XXX hours after

the scheduled arrival time. The airline has

not provided a reason or defence for

the delays.

The claimant claims interest under section 69

of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of

8% a year from XXXX to XXXX on

£XXXX and also interest at the same rate

up to the date of judgment or earlier payment

at a daily rate of £0.59.