Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

glentoran99

Vauban wrote: »

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).

If he isnt willing to take it to court himself but can find a NWNF firm to take it then why not go for it. nothing whatsoever to lose

Kaiser_06

Vauban wrote: »

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).

I never realised they couldn't claim legal costs. That's good. Tbh, I have no idea how I would launch a court claim so am probably best trying a nwnf company to take this on for me. Anyone have any knowledge of Claim4Flights.Com?

Thanks

jamesh

Found the new CAA list of "Extraordinary Circumstances" its like they got Thomson to write it for them:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

Plus the page releasing them:

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2263

bazaar_2

jamesh wrote: »

Found the new CAA list of "Extraordinary Circumstances" its like they got Thomson to write it for them:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

Plus the page releasing them:

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2263

The CAA has no authority, its for a court to decide. Then theres the reasonalbility test as to what they did to reduce the delay. It means that anyone thinking this was going to be an easy ride, needs to be better prepared for court, get reading folks, then when questions are raised, we can discuss them

jamesh

bazaar wrote: »

The CAA has no authority, its for a court to decide. Then theres the reasonalbility test as to what they did to reduce the delay. It means that anyone thinking this was going to be an easy ride, needs to be better prepared for court, get reading folks, then when questions are raised, we can discuss them

Thanks,

I was only checking to see if it was any extra help, if it had been more positive it would make things easier.

bazaar_2

jamesh wrote: »

Thanks,

I was only checking to see if it was any extra help, if it had been more positive it would make things easier.

hi James,
I want a pair of those rosey glasses your wearing.:) have a good weekend

Orange_Smartie

I've now had the Defence through on the last day from Thomson. To my surprise they are not now citing the two year nonsense and they have made no reference to extraordinary circumstances. Their Defence is blaming Monarch airlines. As it is very short I have copied it below:-

1. It is strictly denied that the Defendant ("the Airline") is liable for compensation under what is assumed to the Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the "Regulation").

2. It is denied that the Defendant operated flight TOM122 on 21 December 2010 from Manchester Airport, to Puerto Plata Airport, Dominican Republic ("the Flight"). It will be said by the Defendant that prior to the Claimant's flight, the Defendant's fleet experienced unforeseeable technical problems, the aircraft intending to operate the flight being part of that fleet. The Defendant sub chartered the flight to Monarch Airlines prior to the 21 December 2010. Therefore the air carrier for the flight was Monarch Airlines and not the Defendant. Monarch Airlines were able to operate the flight albeit at a delay of 2 hours 25 mins at 9.00am. However the flight was delayed in excess of 4 hours as Monarch Airlines could not operate the flight at the contracted time of 9.00am.

3. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the Claimant's flight.

4. For the reasons set out above, the claim for compensation of 600 Euros per person pursuant to the Denied Boarding Regulations is denied.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their loss.

6. As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.

Just as an aside, we were scheduled to fly at 6.35am and didn't take off until four hours later. We were then diverted to refuel as the plane we had was too small which resulted in a delay of over 6 hours.

Has anyone else had anything like this?

bazaar_2

Orange_Smartie wrote: »

I've now had the Defence through on the last day from Thomson. To my surprise they are not now citing the two year nonsense and they have made no reference to extraordinary circumstances. Their Defence is blaming Monarch airlines. As it is very short I have copied it below:-

1. It is strictly denied that the Defendant ("the Airline") is liable for compensation under what is assumed to the Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the "Regulation").

2. It is denied that the Defendant operated flight TOM122 on 21 December 2010 from Manchester Airport, to Puerto Plata Airport, Dominican Republic ("the Flight"). It will be said by the Defendant that prior to the Claimant's flight, the Defendant's fleet experienced unforeseeable technical problems, the aircraft intending to operate the flight being part of that fleet. The Defendant sub chartered the flight to Monarch Airlines prior to the 21 December 2010. Therefore the air carrier for the flight was Monarch Airlines and not the Defendant. Monarch Airlines were able to operate the flight albeit at a delay of 2 hours 25 mins at 9.00am. However the flight was delayed in excess of 4 hours as Monarch Airlines could not operate the flight at the contracted time of 9.00am.

3. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the Claimant's flight.

4. For the reasons set out above, the claim for compensation of 600 Euros per person pursuant to the Denied Boarding Regulations is denied.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their loss.

6. As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.

Just as an aside, we were scheduled to fly at 6.35am and didn't take off until four hours later. We were then diverted to refuel as the plane we had was too small which resulted in a delay of over 6 hours.

Has anyone else had anything like this?

most of these defence will be generic, note the grammatical error in point 1. thats a cut and paste job.
for the rest of their defence, its a thomson flight number, so was contracted from Monarch . why? because they had problems in their fleet. OK, so where in their fleet? They dont say do they.
They contracted the flight and so they in turn should claim from Monarch.( my bet is they probably have anyway). So you ask for the details surrounding this issue.
IE, did they as part of their contract with Monarch receive any compensation for the delay? Youve got to ask the pertinent questions from their defence. theres loads to ask.
Oh and by the way, you dont have to wait until your day in court to ask these questions.
Civil Procedure Rules are there to try to avoid court, its up to you if you want to use them at this stage. I am.

LULU5779

I too have fallen in to the trap of only putting my name in the claimant box, however I am not too worried as I wrote in the particulars

“I am claiming compensation for myself, my partner xxxxxx and our daughter”

Hoping that this is enough for the court to see it is for all of us.

Plus I recently had the dilemma of putting TUI Travel as the defendant and was advised on here to withdraw and reissue a new claim as Thomson as TUI would defend on the fact that it wasn’t them. I didn’t follow this advise and after a few weeks of stressing I received the defence where TUI had changed the defendant to Thomson Airways for me and wrote Substitute the defendant for Thomson Airways saving me another £80.00.

I do think with a little common sense these things can be dealt with.

MGOR

These are interesting and I wonder if Thomson have been delayinf responses knowing these are due out? It will also be interesting to see if they do further investigations on claims and discover 'new' reasons for delay to fit in with these guidelines!

I've just submitted a claim via N1 form for a 24 hour delay due to a failure of both pilot headsets. They carry only 1 spare so couldn't fly and had to wait for replacements to be flown from UK. There where 5 other Thomson planes on the ground at the same time including at least 2 others of the same type B737. Why they couldn't take a spare from one of the other aircraft is beyond me. I would suspect that the headsets are also generic to all planes in the fleet (all Boeing)

Any views on whether this delay falls within the new definition of extraordinary circumstances would be appreciated.