Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

bripar

LULU5779 wrote: »

This is great news, I am too facing ash cloud defence even though the air space opened 21st April and our flight 12 may was delayed almost 24 hours due to crew going out of hours they are claiming this was through ash cloud rescue trips. Some more information on the evidence you used would be great.

If you see my post of 6th Aug you will see what I used and on the same day a post by "blondmark" seems to agree this is useful. However there have been a few comments against using this. I would say though that if knock on effects from an EC was a form of defence Thomson would not have backed down and paid.

Alfiesmum52

My friend and I and 300 other passengers were delayed for 19 hours 50 minutes. The reason we were given was that the plane we were due to fly home on had not arrived from the UK as the pilot had fallen ill mid flight and had had to divert to Lisbon.

It seems to me that Thomson had failed to provide appropriate sick cover and that the length of the delay was unacceptable.

I have had replies from the CAA and the Spanish AA, both supporting this view, but as readers of this site will know, speaking to Thomson is getting me know-where!

I have had the basic standard letters. They won't reply to me unless I send Recorded Delivery. Via telephone calls, the call centre staff have been rude, have lied about dates on their letters and basically sent me letters that make no sense at all. I would like to know if anyone else has claimed under these circumstances, ie. pilot illness and what my next step should be.

This has become a matter of principle now, but I am beginning to think that making an individual claim is just not taken seriously.

111KAB

I regard pilot sickness in this instance as an extraordinary circumstance (flight safety shortcoming) HOWEVER a near 20 hour delay is not acceptable and indeed it was on a previous flight. Your CAA and NEB 'support' carry little if no standing in a UK Court and your 'no sense' letters will assist should you decide to go to Court.
Other posts on this forum indicate that pilot sickness with the resultant lack of back up result in a judgement in favour of the litigant however these judgements were not made in respect of a previous flight and when the aircraft was mid air.
My own feeling is you stand a good chance due to the excessive delay and lack of replacement plane/crew however I would be interested to hear what others have to say.

davidbrian55

karl60 wrote: »

How many of you claimed, and did you all claim or did one person claim for everyone?[/Q

i claimed as one person but included wife in it. Judge allowed it (remember that judges have enormous discretion in county court) and didn't need proof of on flight either (thomson not denying that we were on the flight and that's enough!).

keep going, thomson surely will be losing everything and giving up soon.

davidbrian55

Mark2spark wrote: »

So has a judge actually ruled that Thomson's claim to 2 years under MC is bunkum, and that it's the statue of limitations (ie 6 years England) that applies david?

yes, pretty much. there's a difference between damages and compensation and the judgement in european court relating to this issue is compensation. Make sure your claim details the law and don't let thomson argue damages and compensation are the same.

I'll private message the arguement I used (cobbled together from various posts on here).

davidbrian55

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

As I've said before Mark, that's pretty lame on the basis that you can't prove a negative, and the emphasis is very much on the claimant to prove the basis of their claim in all respects. Being on the flight is about as fundamental to the claim as it gets.

In the absence of boarding passes, passport stamps or receipts / credit card transactions at both ends of the journey, the only way forward is a Data Protection SAR.

acually not the case. Put the claim in and go to court. My judge clearly put to thomson 'you're not denying that the claimant wasn't on the flight are you?' I didn't have any evidence that we were on the flight, but putting a claim in, going to all that expense and time, should be enough. And it was.

Mark2spark

111KAB wrote: »

I regard pilot sickness in this instance as an extraordinary circumstance (flight safety shortcoming) HOWEVER a near 20 hour delay is not acceptable and indeed it was on a previous flight. Your CAA and NEB 'support' carry little if no standing in a UK Court and your 'no sense' letters will assist should you decide to go to Court.
Other posts on this forum indicate that pilot sickness with the resultant lack of back up result in a judgement in favour of the litigant however these judgements were not made in respect of a previous flight and when the aircraft was mid air.
My own feeling is you stand a good chance due to the excessive delay and lack of replacement plane/crew however I would be interested to hear what others have to say.

I agree with this.
Whilst the first test could indeed be EC's, the resultant length of delay fails the reasonable measures test. Or at least ought to if presented to a judge correctly.

copbab

hi
wrote to Thomson regarding our delay and after 3 months got a 3 page letter saying that their flight reports show that my delay was due to a technical defect on the previous scheduled flight and that this comes under Extraordinary Circumstances, as the technical issue was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could have been forseen. So they are saying that im not due any compo. can anyone tell me if this is true or are they fobbing me off? cheers for your help.

Vauban

copbab wrote: »

hi
wrote to Thomson regarding our delay and after 3 months got a 3 page letter saying that their flight reports show that my delay was due to a technical defect on the previous scheduled flight and that this comes under Extraordinary Circumstances, as the technical issue was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could have been forseen. So they are saying that im not due any compo. can anyone tell me if this is true or are they fobbing me off? cheers for your help.

They are fobbing you off.

panholio

I submitted a claim against Thomson via MCOL on the 11th July.

The claim was issued on the 12th July

Thomson issued an acknowledgement of service on the 17th July.

To date I have heard nothing. It is 31 days since my claim.

Can I go ahead and request a judgement?