Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

laticsforlife

LULU5779 wrote: »

Thomson have ticked no to mediation service :-) there goes settling before court.

Don't be too sure about that - if your defence is robust then once they've read it I would expect a phone call from Mr Moran attempting to settle with you sometime just before the 7 days prior to the 25th September (so they can avoid paying your Court fee which can be refunded up to that point).

That seems to have happened to several people on this thread, so it's not a guarantee that you end up in Court.

rl8762

after reading these recent posts am I right in saying that thomsons can claim EC on the original flight that the pilot became ill on but not on the "knock on effect flights" even though they claim they minimised the disruption to the best of their ability by sourcing another plane and crew in the uk albeit 10 hours later. I want to send an NBA but want to be reasonably conversant with the rules before I commit.

Vauban

rl8762 wrote: »

after reading these recent posts am I right in saying that thomsons can claim EC on the original flight that the pilot became ill on but not on the "knock on effect flights" even though they claim they minimised the disruption to the best of their ability by sourcing another plane and crew in the uk albeit 10 hours later. I want to send an NBA but want to be reasonably conversant with the rules before I commit.

No. I would say that they cannot claim EC on the original flight due to pilot illness (a not uncommon occurrence inherent in the business of running an airline) but that it the illness really was extraordinary then the knock on could be argued as extraordinary too (if it was the same plane on the same day).

romanby1

rl8762 wrote: »

after reading these recent posts am I right in saying that thomsons can claim EC on the original flight that the pilot became ill on but not on the "knock on effect flights" even though they claim they minimised the disruption to the best of their ability by sourcing another plane and crew in the uk albeit 10 hours later. I want to send an NBA but want to be reasonably conversant with the rules before I commit.

The same happened to us, our delay was 6 hours but I have a strong suspicion that Thomsons knew 12 -18 hours previously they had a problem.
They settled out of court.

rl8762

I would be very interested in the details of your delay if you have the time because I know they were aware at least 5 1/2 hours before the flight was due to take off from the UK to pick us up in Kos.In answer to Vauban clarification on EC in 261/2004 from July this year gives approx. 30 different scenarios one of which is "serious illness or death of a crew member or passenger on your flight" nothing about subsequent flights. Im hopeful on that score

scrubber01

Help!!!! thanks to MSE i used your template for compo. we had a 32 hour delay in 2008 returning from india with First choice (now Thomson) they have replied with the 2 year ruling. we dont know what to do next! i looked at threads didnt quite understand it! pls help. much appreciated (at wits end) with computer stuff!!!!

darkwarrior

NewtAbbo wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. It was actually a lightning strike on a previous flight (presumably the previous day as we had an early flight), not a bad weather grounding. I think that makes it a bit of a difficult one, as some seem to think that lightning is a difficult one to argue whatever the timing.

Thanks.

They're claiming lightning strike with me too. But I would think a lightning strike would be both a common occurrence with planes and something they are especially prepared for so the plane doesn't explode in mid air.

matt2baker

scrubber01 wrote: »

Help!!!! thanks to MSE i used your template for compo. we had a 32 hour delay in 2008 returning from india with First choice (now Thomson) they have replied with the 2 year ruling. we dont know what to do next! i looked at threads didnt quite understand it! pls help. much appreciated (at wits end) with computer stuff!!!!

unfortunately you are going to have to do some homework on this - I suggest you go back at least 10 - 20 pages and see what posts have been written on the 2 year rule that Thomsons are referring to. Then you'll have to work out from Page One what you need to do. It's not simple, but it's not impossible either. Advice is good on here, but you'll need to put the effort in too I'm afraid!

chezza2524

Hi All,

Just a quick question, I have submitted my MCOL and Thomson's defense should be filed at latest tomorrow (haha), now my sister and her partner were on the same flight and have also gone through the process of a complaint although Thomson have never told me the reason for the delay apart from Tech Fault, whereas they have sent my sister a letter saying
'In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was due to a delay to another aircraft, due to "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" arising from the discovery of a technical defect that doesn't fall into the category of something that was or ought to have been discovered during routine maintenance.'

If it goes to court can I use this letter or my sister as a witness, as we all know knock on effects are not EC's?

Thank you

rl8762

chezza2524 wrote: »

Hi All,

Just a quick question, I have submitted my MCOL and Thomson's defense should be filed at latest tomorrow (haha), now my sister and her partner were on the same flight and have also gone through the process of a complaint although Thomson have never told me the reason for the delay apart from Tech Fault, whereas they have sent my sister a letter saying
'In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was due to a delay to another aircraft, due to "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" arising from the discovery of a technical defect that doesn't fall into the category of something that was or ought to have been discovered during routine maintenance.'

If it goes to court can I use this letter or my sister as a witness, as we all know knock on effects are not EC's?

Thank you

Do we know knock on effects are not EC?