Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Fletcher._S wrote: »

Hi
We were diverted on a flight from gatwick to Cancun to Bermuda due to the toilets failing,we were 23hours 45mins late arriving.
Thomson say this falls under the extraordinary circumstances .
Is this right or should I carry on with the claim.
Sandra

Have a read of the FAQs on the Thomson thread (page one) and others experiences too. Also search for "Toilets" on the forum and see what comes up. The short answer is faulty toilets are not ECs.

Errata

Technical faults - eg problem with the lavs - are not extraordinary circumstances.

matt2baker

................... according to the two letters I've received,

1).

Concerning your requests for further information about the technical fault we are unable to provide this to customers as it is against our company policy.

But (pleasingly) I have been assured that my "claim has been investigated thoroughly and this information provided is correct."

No details of the tech fault whatsoever, other than it occurred on the aircraft that was originally due to operate my flight.

Plus a few Blah-Blah paragraphs followed by "this is our final position on the matter".

2).

Still not budging on the 2 year rule, relying on their "pre-eminent aviation law QC" advice. (dictionary meaning of pre-eminent is superior, outstanding.......!) Blah-Blah plus "this is our final position on the matter".

So, for one claim, how come some forumites seem to have a fuller explanation of the EC tech failure in their letters, or did they find out more once a defence is put in place?

Also, in my other claim,, I have not had any "in the alternative" reasons either for my claim other than it's too late mate. Should I have expected to find out, or again, will that be at the defence stage - after I've paid my Small Claims fees......?

Advice and examples welcomed please

Vauban

matt2baker wrote: »

................... according to the two letters I've received,

1).

Concerning your requests for further information about the technical fault we are unable to provide this to customers as it is against our company policy.

But (pleasingly) I have been assured that my "claim has been investigated thoroughly and this information provided is correct."

No details of the tech fault whatsoever, other than it occurred on the aircraft that was originally due to operate my flight.

Plus a few Blah-Blah paragraphs followed by "this is our final position on the matter".

2).

Still not budging on the 2 year rule, relying on their "pre-eminent aviation law QC" advice. (dictionary meaning of pre-eminent is superior, outstanding.......!) Blah-Blah plus "this is our final position on the matter".

So, for one claim, how come some forumites seem to have a fuller explanation of the EC tech failure in their letters, or did they find out more once a defence is put in place?

Also, in my other claim,, I have not had any "in the alternative" reasons either for my claim other than it's too late mate. Should I have expected to find out, or again, will that be at the defence stage - after I've paid my Small Claims fees......?

Advice and examples welcomed please

The details you seek only come after you start legal action, unfortunately. But the fact that the airline won't share them should work in your favour when you bring this to court.

Larry1000

Our Thomson flight from Tenerife was cancelled in March this year. We were provided with overnight accommodation and meals. Upon return I claimed Denied Boarding compensation and Thomson refused the claim because they say that the outgoing flight from Gatwick was delayed due to the discovery of three screw on the ground during pre-flight checks which required investigation because of possible safety issues. When the aircraft arrived at Tenerife the crew were out of hours so the return flight was cancelled. The airline claim 'Extraordinary circumstances'. Are they right and should I take this further? I cannot approach the CA as the flight was outside the UK

David_e

bripar wrote: »

I have a definite answer from my County Court regarding children on the claim. You have to complete a form N235 for each child to apply to be a litigation friend and represent them at the hearing. They are happy for one person to represent other adults.

Thanks. This is very helpful. So as far as the adults are concerned, are you just putting your name and claiming as "lead passenger" (did you actually use that term?) and then added the child with the N235? Presumably the claim refers to teh number of travellers but did you also nakme them in the claim details?

111KAB

Larry1000 wrote: »

.... was delayed due to the discovery of three screw on the ground during pre-flight checks which required investigation because of possible safety issues.

I presume there should be an s on the end of the underlined word rather than an s omitted at the start as 3 crew on the ground would suggest a problem.

You have a valid reason for a claim but you mention cancelled then delayed so ascertain firstly if you are dealing with a cancellation or a delay.

matt2baker

Vauban wrote: »

The details you seek only come after you start legal action, unfortunately. But the fact that the airline won't share them should work in your favour when you bring this to court.

Thanks for that Vauban- I'll be sending my NBA letters as a final inter-communication, just so they are aware. One thing that brings a wry smile to me in their replies is the bit about "if we didn't apply the rules in this way, prices would need to rise for you and all other passengers"......so there's no contingency fund allocated for delay compensation then? Two words spring to mind.....Banks and PPI's

davidbrian55

David_e wrote: »

It's been a long day but surely "extraordinary circumstances" is their only get out (under the 261/2004 Regs.) so, if they don't claim that, they can list what they like but it's not a defence.

Have they actually said "They no longer want to claim extraordinary circs" in so many words, or is it just that they haven't used that phrase (which would seem like a strange set of circumstances given they have provided a weighty bundle)?

Am I missing something?

not missing anything. They say that the engine had a fault!, therefore 'nelson, para 39', and again it refers to extraordinary circs.

13pinewood

My claim for flight delay compensation to Thomson Airways for a flight in January 2011 has been rejected because it is more than 2 years ago. The claim is now in the hands of CAA.