Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

airport_madness

:mad:i have just taken martins advice and 92 days later thomson tell me i am entitled to nothing as a bird delayed our flight by 16 hours from egypt. is this true i ask you as last year in egypt we were told there had been a thunderstorm in glasgow and it had backed the flights up all week and that was why we were delayed as the crew were all over their allotted flying times so could not fly out that night i dont normally complain but i thought 16 hours was excessive so i took martins advice and tried but does anyone ever get paid out how do you know if they are lying or covering their own backs !!!!!

bazaar_2

airport_madness wrote: »

:mad:i have just taken martins advice and 92 days later thomson tell me i am entitled to nothing as a bird delayed our flight by 16 hours from egypt. is this true i ask you as last year in egypt we were told there had been a thunderstorm in glasgow and it had backed the flights up all week and that was why we were delayed as the crew were all over their allotted flying times so could not fly out that night i dont normally complain but i thought 16 hours was excessive so i took martins advice and tried but does anyone ever get paid out how do you know if they are lying or covering their own backs !!!!!

Youll need to do a little homework, read up on the stickys on the main page. Then check on line, to see if there was indeed a brid strike repoorted ( For your flight, NOT any previous one),
Then you decide how you want to play this.
Oh and by the way, Thomsons are one of the worst for being truthful, so make your conclusions there

delvey

So anyone want a laugh at Thomson defense? Well here goes.
A few days after I filed with MCOL I received a letter from Thomson with there 'excuse' of why my flight was delayed. The state the Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 case, as they do.
So with out going through the whole letter they stated

" I have established the root cause of the delay to be; Damage to the aircraft which unless rectified would not of been legally able to operate it's flight plan."

Further along
"In the case of your flight, the delay was the result of damage to the aircraft caused by third party ground handling operatives"

This they claim, is an "extraordinary circumstance".
Which clearly it is not. It is neglect on the part of the baggage handlers.
Anyone agree?

Now for there defense letter, which is comedy gold

Basically they admit they operated the flight, yet deny compensation.
There reason is this
"4) It will be said by the Defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's outbound flight was subject to an unforeseen technical fault, namely a fuel tank surge valve defect on the aircraft's earlier flight. Engineers were flown out from the UK to rectify the fault and the aircraft was serviceable on 2nd July 2011."

So the 2 'excuses' are different. I presume that I will be able to use the letter stating damage by 3rd party baggage handlers in court?
I presume that by stating they had to fly engineer's out that the plane I was supposed to get on was in another country when the fault occurred?
Which therefore would exclude this from any excuse for my flight?

As you can see, it is all a load of bull poo.

Now I have to fill out form N180. DO I have to include any supporting information with this? And do I need to send a copy to Thomson or will the court do this? And it mentions fees in the N180 but I am not sure if I have to pay any

Thanks for any help

bazaar_2

delvey wrote: »

So anyone want a laugh at Thomson defense? Well here goes.
A few days after I filed with MCOL I received a letter from Thomson with there 'excuse' of why my flight was delayed. The state the Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 case, as they do.
So with out going through the whole letter they stated

" I have established the root cause of the delay to be; Damage to the aircraft which unless rectified would not of been legally able to operate it's flight plan."

Further along
"In the case of your flight, the delay was the result of damage to the aircraft caused by third party ground handling operatives"

This they claim, is an "extraordinary circumstance".
Which clearly it is not. It is neglect on the part of the baggage handlers.
Anyone agree?

Now for there defense letter, which is comedy gold

Basically they admit they operated the flight, yet deny compensation.
There reason is this
"4) It will be said by the Defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's outbound flight was subject to an unforeseen technical fault, namely a fuel tank surge valve defect on the aircraft's earlier flight. Engineers were flown out from the UK to rectify the fault and the aircraft was serviceable on 2nd July 2011."

So the 2 'excuses' are different. I presume that I will be able to use the letter stating damage by 3rd party baggage handlers in court?
I presume that by stating they had to fly engineer's out that the plane I was supposed to get on was in another country when the fault occurred?
Which therefore would exclude this from any excuse for my flight?

As you can see, it is all a load of bull poo.

Now I have to fill out form N180. DO I have to include any supporting information with this? And do I need to send a copy to Thomson or will the court do this? And it mentions fees in the N180 but I am not sure if I have to pay any

Thanks for any help

The N180, is the directions questionarre which is to determine which track it goes to, ( will be small claims ) youll also have the mediation paperwork too, so fill that out with yes.

Make sure you serve a copy on Thomsons as well, as sending to court ( recorded signed for)
Then you wait until the court gives an allocation to court. THEN, you get to shoot holes in their defence.
We are about the same timeline, just sent mine off last friday

delvey

bazaar wrote: »

The N180, is the directions questionarre which is to determine which track it goes to, ( will be small claims ) youll also have the mediation paperwork too, so fill that out with yes.

Make sure you serve a copy on Thomsons as well, as sending to court ( recorded signed for)
Then you wait until the court gives an allocation to court. THEN, you get to shoot holes in their defence.
We are about the same timeline, just sent mine off last friday

So send a copy direct to Thomson?
I will agree to mediation but cannot see if Thomson will

bazaar_2

delvey wrote: »

So send a copy direct to Thomson?
I will agree to mediation but cannot see if Thomson will

yes, send them a copy, It says so on the N180 or in your cover letter from court.
Send the original with your fee to the court.

delvey

Thanks, which fee though? It does not mention on the front cover letter of any fee and I have already paid a fee via MCOL

EDIT: Right paid the initial money claims fee via MCOL, then according to EX50 no fee for claims under £1500 for small claims track. So do I need to pay the hearing fee now?

kandm_2

bazaar wrote: »

kandm wrote: »

this link might help also,


Thank you - will have a read through it now

bazaar_2

delvey wrote: »

Thanks, which fee though? It does not mention on the front cover letter of any fee and I have already paid a fee via MCOL

EDIT: Right paid the initial money claims fee via MCOL, then according to EX50 no fee for claims under £1500 for small claims track. So do I need to pay the hearing fee now?

correct under 1500 no fee for the DQ.

delvey

So when do I have to pay the hearing fee?
Thanks for the advice