Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

blondmark

pymers wrote: »

hi all
I am going to write back to Thomson today concerning my letter I got back from them (I put the letter up on a previous post on here)
my first question I am going to sak them is why the c-ducts were not check as it is to do with the airflow !!!!
2) why did they not have a stand by crew when they knew that the crew they had would be out of hours I was going to walk away from this but have decided to take it further I will give them notice of intent that unless I have this sorted out in the next 28 days I will be taking it to court any advise would be appreciated of what to put in my letter to Thomson
thank you

Something like:

Dear Sir/Madam

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated ****.

Kindly evidence with full particularity:

(a) the pre-flight checks, if any, relating specifically to the C-Ducts, together with a report of what tests, if any, were conducted on them, and the results of any such tests; and

(b) what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the delay resulting from defective C-Ducts was minimised, with particular focus on the foreseeable requirement for a standby crew and a full explanation as to why a replacement crew was not deployed.

Please acknowledge safe receipt of this letter promptly and by no later than [+7 days]. Please also note that unless a full written response is received by [+14 days] or such later time as I may subsequently agree with you, I shall commence court proceedings without further notice to you.

Yours faithfully

... then when they ignore you, sue them in mid-August.

blondmark

Orange_Smartie wrote: »

So should I write a letter before action to Monarch giving 14 days and then if no satisfactory response seek to add them to the proceedings?

Bit puzzled as to why Thomson didn't just blame Monarch in the numerous items of correspondence prior to the instigation of legal proceedings. Also, why if the sub charter was arranged before the flight date did it carry a Thomson reference?

Yes, Monarch need a Letter Before Claim as it may be nothing to do with them, and Thomson may be inventing the whole story, in which case they can pay Monarch's costs if they are dragged into the claim unnecessarily.

blondmark

NWSteve wrote: »

I'm after some advice.

We had a ski holiday flight back in 2010 that had a 7 hour delay going out. Problem is that I can't remember the reason for the delay- who should I contact for that information- Thomson or the CAA?

Many thanks

Thomson of course. Give them 2 weeks to respond before issuing proceedings.

roseandrog48

Hi , very similar response now recieved from Thomson to that of Orangesmartie #2186, seems to be a complete mishmash of defense from Thomson, i could do with a little guidance as i intend to pursue.
Response as follows:-
[FONT=Arial, serif]1. It is strictly denied that the Defendant ("the Airline") is liable for compensation under what is assumed to the[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the "Regulation").[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]2. It is admitted and averred that the Airline operated Flight TOM047 intended to operate on the 5th January[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]2011 from London Gatwick (LGW) to Samana, Dominican Republic (AZS) ("the Flight").[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]3. The Claimant is required to prove that he and his party travelled on the Flight.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]4. By reason of article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 as amended, as a matter of English law the liability of a[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]5. The Montreal Convention deals with the liability of the carrier, including (by its article 19), for damage[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers and baggage.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]6. As a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]7. One such condition set out by the Montreal Convention is its article 35, which provides that:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]/. "(1) The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]ii. (2) The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]the case."[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]8. In the premises: Any claim for 261 Delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Convention, including that contained in its article 35, in that it is a claim against a Community air carrier (the[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Defendant) in respect of the delay in the carriage by air of a passenger.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]9. It will be said by the Defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's flight was subject to an[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]unforeseeable technical fault prior to its departure, whilst on the ground the previous day at Puerto Plata[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Airport, namely, a fuel leak in the right engine of the aircraft.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]10. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the Claimant's flight.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]11. It is averred that the matters pleaded above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Boarding Regulations, no compensation is payable in the circumstances. The Defendant relies on the following:-[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]a. At all material times, the Defendant operated a reasonable system of checks and[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]maintenance to the aircraft concerned.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]b. The defect was found prior to the departure of the other aircraft in question.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]c. The defect was the result of extraordinary circumstances outside the Airline's actual[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]control.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]d. The defect did not stem from events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]the air carrier.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]e. The Defendant will rely on [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]Nelson [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]and 717/ (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), in[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]particular Paragraph 39.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]12. For the reasons set out above, the claim for compensation of 600 Euros per person pursuant to the Denied[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Boarding Regulations is denied.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]13. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]14. As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.[/FONT]

romanby1

roseandrog48 wrote: »

Hi , very similar response now recieved from Thomson to that of Orangesmartie #2186, seems to be a complete mishmash of defense from Thomson, i could do with a little guidance as i intend to pursue.
Response as follows:-
[FONT=Arial, serif]1. It is strictly denied that the Defendant ("the Airline") is liable for compensation under what is assumed to the[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the "Regulation").[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]2. It is admitted and averred that the Airline operated Flight TOM047 intended to operate on the 5th January[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]2011 from London Gatwick (LGW) to Samana, Dominican Republic (AZS) ("the Flight").[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]3. The Claimant is required to prove that he and his party travelled on the Flight.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]4. By reason of article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 as amended, as a matter of English law the liability of a[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]5. The Montreal Convention deals with the liability of the carrier, including (by its article 19), for damage[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers and baggage.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]6. As a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]7. One such condition set out by the Montreal Convention is its article 35, which provides that:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]/. "(1) The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]ii. (2) The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]the case."[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]8. In the premises: Any claim for 261 Delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Convention, including that contained in its article 35, in that it is a claim against a Community air carrier (the[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Defendant) in respect of the delay in the carriage by air of a passenger.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]9. It will be said by the Defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's flight was subject to an[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]unforeseeable technical fault prior to its departure, whilst on the ground the previous day at Puerto Plata[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Airport, namely, a fuel leak in the right engine of the aircraft.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]10. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the Claimant's flight.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]11. It is averred that the matters pleaded above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Boarding Regulations, no compensation is payable in the circumstances. The Defendant relies on the following:-[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]a. At all material times, the Defendant operated a reasonable system of checks and[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]maintenance to the aircraft concerned.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]b. The defect was found prior to the departure of the other aircraft in question.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]c. The defect was the result of extraordinary circumstances outside the Airline's actual[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]control.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]d. The defect did not stem from events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]the air carrier.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]e. The Defendant will rely on [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]Nelson [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]and 717/ (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), in[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]particular Paragraph 39.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]12. For the reasons set out above, the claim for compensation of 600 Euros per person pursuant to the Denied[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, serif]Boarding Regulations is denied.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]13. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, serif]14. As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.[/FONT]

Typical crap. It is useful if you have boarding cards CC statements invoices etc, but it is up to them to prove you were not on it with the aircraft manifest.
Montreal Convention does not apply this is a claim under EC Regulation 261/2004.
They have tp prove they made every effort to get you to your destination. read the regulation and the Wallentin-Herman and Sturgeon rulings, and any other EC rulings you can Google these.
Raed as many past posts on this site and you will get the jist of the course of action to take. A fault on an aircraft the day before is not an EC.
Para 13. your claim is not for a loss it is a right under the regulation.
Write a NBA letter rebuffing their response with a 14-21day response time with an offer or off to court it is.

roseandrog48

Many thanks for the prompt reply, i had followed proceedure ie sent my original claim letter in march, no response, sent a NBA leeter some 6 weekss later, again no initial response, raised an MCOL 23rd June & fstrangely had a response to both my previous letters within days, however they spouted the usual lies which others had recieved about the 2 year ruling etc .I've now responded to the court & accepted mediation ( as it seems it would be looked upon unfavourably by the Justice if you at least should have tried), expect to hear within 6 weeks, i asked for the case to be heard in my local court to reduce costs. I will keep going over previous advice in posts as many seems to have similar attributes. Thanks

ErnieW

Hi Everyone, Ive filed a MCOL against Thomson and now received a N180 form which I could do with some help with please. Ticked to mediation and will allocate my local county court. D2 Expert Advice - Do I tick yes? and if so state why and give the name of the expert? Can someone help here as im stuck? Thankyou

pymers

blondmark wrote: »

Something like:

Dear Sir/Madam

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated ****.

Kindly evidence with full particularity:

(a) the pre-flight checks, if any, relating specifically to the C-Ducts, together with a report of what tests, if any, were conducted on them, and the results of any such tests; and

(b) what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the delay resulting from defective C-Ducts was minimised, with particular focus on the foreseeable requirement for a standby crew and a full explanation as to why a replacement crew was not deployed.

Please acknowledge safe receipt of this letter promptly and by no later than [+7 days]. Please also note that unless a full written response is received by [+14 days] or such later time as I may subsequently agree with you, I shall commence court proceedings without further notice to you.

Yours faithfully

... then when they ignore you, sue them in mid-August.

thank you so much for that have just written my letter and will post it in the morning and we will see what happens

blondmark

roseandrog48 wrote: »

Hi , very similar response now recieved from Thomson to that of Orangesmartie #2186, seems to be a complete mishmash of defense from Thomson, i could do with a little guidance as i intend to pursue.
Response as follows:-

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 admitted and averred that the Airline operated Flight TOM047 intended to operate on the 5th January
2011 from London Gatwick (LGW) to Samana, Dominican Republic (AZS) ("the Flight").

3. The Claimant is required to prove that he and his party travelled on the Flight.

4. By reason of article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 as amended, as a matter of English law the liability of a
Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the
Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.

5. The Montreal Convention deals with the liability of the carrier, including (by its article 19), for damage
occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers and baggage.

6. As a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which
claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.

7. One such condition set out by the Montreal Convention is its article 35, which provides that:
/. "(1) The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of
two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the
aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.
ii. (2) The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of
the case."

8. In the premises: Any claim for 261 Delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal
Convention, including that contained in its article 35, in that it is a claim against a Community air carrier (the
Defendant) in respect of the delay in the carriage by air of a passenger.

9. It will be said by the Defendant that the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's flight was subject to an
unforeseeable technical fault prior to its departure, whilst on the ground the previous day at Puerto Plata
Airport, namely, a fuel leak in the right engine of the aircraft.

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

11. It is averred that the matters pleaded above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have
been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied
Boarding Regulations, no compensation is payable in the circumstances. The Defendant relies on the following:-
a. At all material times, the Defendant operated a reasonable system of checks and
maintenance to the aircraft concerned.
b. The defect was found prior to the departure of the other aircraft in question.
c. The defect was the result of extraordinary circumstances outside the Airline's actual
control.
d. The defect did not stem from events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of
the air carrier.
e. The Defendant will rely on Nelson and 717/ (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), in
particular Paragraph 39.

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

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss.

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

Article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 concerns claims for death and personal injury See HERE. I'm assuming you didn't die or lose any limbs onboard?

The Montreal Convention, as you know, is another smokescreen, but use More v KLM and links like THIS and THIS to prove it in court (ironically the last link was authored by the barristers chambers that Thomson themselves use!).

Fuel leaks are pretty routine and most definitely inherent in the normal activity of all air carriers (see Wallantin-Hermann). It's quite shameful that their defective pre-fight checks failed to pick up leaking fuel - it's the kind of thing you'd want to know about.

It's unclear what the 'other aircraft' in 11. b is (sloppy drafting).

Para 13 - you're not claiming for a loss - your claim is for compensation pursuant to EU Reg 261/2004.

Because it's Thomson, you should believe nothing. Insist on detailed documentary proof for absolutely everything.

All looks straightforward enough.

blondmark

ErnieW wrote: »

Hi Everyone, Ive filed a MCOL against Thomson and now received a N180 form which I could do with some help with please. Ticked to mediation and will allocate my local county court. D2 Expert Advice - Do I tick yes? and if so state why and give the name of the expert? Can someone help here as im stuck? Thankyou

No to experts.