Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

David_e

MrsChewy wrote: »

Have you seen the CAA guidelines could be bad news for those of us who have already submitted claims.

Interesting! It does say "where airlines may not have to pay". Presumably they could have published the same list and put "where airlines might have to pay".

Also, potentially crucially, it then says:

"When more than one of the circumstances may apply, the CAA would look at all relevant circumstances and would consider the actions that the airline took to avoid the disruption.

Reasonable measures

The test for whether compensation is due has two parts. The second part is whether the airline has taken reasonable measures to avoid the disruption to the flight concerned. This means that if an airline has failed to plan appropriately for situations listed above, it may still have to pay compensation."

Bonters

Pierre_De_Grenoble wrote: »

I tried giving my claim to Bott & Co (ie Euclaim) first they told me that they couldn't find my details so I copied and pasted them the "flightstat" page, and then they said I had no claim as First choice Airlines had merged with Thomsons..

A cynical mind might suspect that they simply don't want the hassle of a claim against Thomson, because they know they will have to work for their commission

Steve

Unfortunately EUClaim work on a strict percentage system in assessing your claim initially. If you can get through that first stage, and have it passed to Bott & Co, you're cooking on gas. If EUClaim decline you at the first hurdle, you're struggling. They actually declined me in the first instance, but I know one of the guys at Bott & Co, who is keen as mustard and relishes the fight. He despises the way the likes of Thomson are treating people. He pulled the necessary strings and had my claim accepted, and took it on himself. It does appear to me that Bott & Co. are very keen and competent.

blondmark

MrsChewy wrote: »

Have you seen the CAA guidelines could be bad news for those of us who have already submitted claims.

Well that extensive list just goes to show quite how biased the CAA really is; fortunately the ECJ does not share their view. You need only look at wallentin-hermann v alitalia (c-549/07) to see how limited the defence of ECs is in relation to technical failure. Essentially if the failure is inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier, and most failures are, then a defence of ECs will fail.

Judgments of the ECJ are binding on the English courts; opinions of the CAA are not.

Mark2spark

MrsChewy wrote: »

Have you seen the CAA guidelines could be bad news for those of us who have already submitted claims.

The list of extraordinary circumstances where airlines may not have to pay lump-sum compensation includes:
· removal of unaccompanied baggage due to a serious security concern
· bad weather that impacts on the safe operation of the flight
· bad weather that closes the airport of departure or arrival, or where the number of flights are limited by bad weather
· air traffic control restrictions
· where a passenger or crew member becomes seriously ill or dies on-board or during the flight
· where a bird hits the plane
· where a hidden manufacturing defect is discovered
· where the plane is damaged by a third party on the ground
· damage to the plane caused by a foreign object which happens during the previous flight
· any technical problems which cause a turnaround or diversion
· premature failure of technical parts with a defined lifespan
· failure of technical parts where it is impossible to predict the failure in advance
· technical problems discovered shortly before the flight where maintenance has been carried out properly
· smoke, fire or fumes on board (not caused by a failure to maintain the aircraft properly)
· employment strikes, for example air traffic control strikes
· air traffic restrictions at the airport of arrival or departure, or where there are restrictions on blocks of airspace that the plane was due to fly through
· war
· terrorism
· closure of the airport for security reasons
· hijacking of the aircraft
· bomb discoveries or bomb threats

The bias of the CAA is breathtaking, - as I've long suspected.
I think a fun game could now be for people to come up with reasons for compensation to be paid? - as it appears that the list covers just about anything/everything.

Mark2spark

SUNNY wrote: »

Hi we flew with virgin to orlando and on the return flight we were delayed 27 hours. We put in the claim and yesterday recieved a letter from virgin saying the have declined our claim because of extraordinary circumstances. Our scheduled flight had a technical problem being a oil leak from the engine so that had to be changed and there other plane was under repair due to a lightning strike and couldn't be used.I don't think I will give up here as it seems they have fobbed us off with a answer that covers them and would stop us pursuing. Please anyone with any advice I would really apreciate it

Any particular reason that you have asked a Virgin delay question on a thread that has the Title

THOMSON ONLY

???

Virgin deny everything. Read the Virgin thread to find out. Then commence a proper claim via NBA and court.

kandm_2

I think I have finally got my witness statement prepared, I am going to send it off early next week. I know this is a big ask - but are there any more experienced forum posters out there who have the time/inclination to have a quick whizz over to see if it looks ok (even just a bit better than the Thomson defence )
Would be greatly appreciated!

Mark2spark

pm me please

Kaiser_06

matt2baker wrote: »

I cannot think of a reason not to - of course you could always contact the airport itself for advice and information on who is to blame and and who to claim from.....?

Anyone advise the best action for me to take now? EUClaim won't take it on for me. Are there any other nwnf firms working these cases?

I'm not keen on starting court case in case I have to pay Thomsons costs.

Vauban

Kaiser_06 wrote: »

Anyone advise the best action for me to take now? EUClaim won't take it on for me. Are there any other nwnf firms working these cases?

I'm not keen on starting court case in case I have to pay Thomsons costs.

I think you should walk away.

The NWNF companies are cherry-picking the easy wins at the moment, as the market is flooded with claimants. There must be at least something complex in your case which makes them disinclined to take your case.

The financial risks to folk in the small claims court are not great - but it's true you might ave to pay the other sides expenses (eg travel) - but not legal costs (which are not recoverable).

glentoran99

Kaiser_06 wrote: »

Anyone advise the best action for me to take now? EUClaim won't take it on for me. Are there any other nwnf firms working these cases?

I'm not keen on starting court case in case I have to pay Thomsons costs.

If someone is willing to take it on I wouldn't walk away try flightdelaycompensation.eu