Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

JeremyBuxton

We've had success in court!

In August 2010, my family took a Thomson holiday to the Greek Island of Samos. Flight TOM2437 from Samos (SMI) to Manchester (MAN) scheduled for 1220GMT on 5 August 2010 was delayed by twenty hours and fifty seven minutes due to a fault with the plane. The family had kept the actual paperwork handed out by Thomson to passengers on arrival at Manchester on 6 August 2010, which clearly explained the circumstances behind the delay and the fact that the fault was discovered at Manchester.


However, Thomson's statement submitted to the court dated 9/4/2013 stated otherwise. The company wrongly claimed that the fault was discovered in Samos, a possible deceitful attempt to maliciously try and avoid paying compensation as this fault did not occur on this flight TOM2437 but a previous deployment of the aircraft. The airline also stated on the court statement submitted on 9/4/2013 that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel guage. I had evidence submitted from a trained Boeing pilot (my father who flew for Britannia/Thomson until retirement) which explained that even if the faulty fuel gauge had been discovered in Samos on flight TOM2437, it would still have been perfectly possible to fly the plane back to Manchester by using the manual dipstick system for checking fuel levels. A faulty fuel gauge would not have been sufficient reason to cause this length of delay.


When we got to court on 13/8/2013, Thomson's witness statements stated that the fault with the plane was in fact discovered in Manchester (NOT Samos - which we knew all along), and that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel VALVE (not guage as they initially submitted). Clearly I stressed to the District Judge that it was odd that this fault had changed in nature and location between their legal submission dated 9/4/2013 and now, and that it rendered my evidence pointless. However, it would prove useful to have a 737 pilot in the courtroom as my father was able to clarify operational queries raised.


Thomson's defence in this case rested on this faulty fuel VALVE (not gauge!) being an "extraordinary circumstance". EU regulation 261/2004 states "As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". I stressed that an airline should have a reasonable expectation that things can and do go wrong on an aircraft, and therefore should have adequate contingency plans in place. The standby plane was in Cardiff, and Thomson chose to fly that plane to Manchester first rather than direct to Samos. This then meant that the crew were out of their legal flying hours and could not possibly operate flight TOM2437. Nor did Thomson bother to include an extra crew on the flight into Samos to then operate the flight. This was entirely within the airline's operational capacity, should have been pre-empted under contingency plans, and therefore cannot be considered as an extraordinary circumstance. The airline had a duty of care to its fee-paying passengers to reduce the delay as much as possible - and it chose not to do so.


The judge was not initially swayed by this argument, and it seemed as though we were not going to win the case.



Thomson also claimed that they had no choice but make the plane stay overnight in Samos and fly back on the following day (6 August 2010) because the airport closed at 1730hrs. However, there were flights into the evening - and we were able to show that there was an Air Berlin flight that very night to Dusseldorf at 2025! Thomson were being economical with the truth.


We also pointed out that throughout Thomson's witness statements/evidence, there were three different time zones used - GMT, BST and Samos local time - whereas all air travel uses the standard GMT. They were manipulating the timings to cause maximum confusion.




Thomson's barrister also tried to show that the fault was out of their control, as the plane had been regularly serviced and the faulty part only replaced in May 2010. However, they said it was the fourth time it had been done. I suggested to the judge that if his car had a part fail four times, he would surely be contacting the manufacturer? Thomson said it was not happening across the Boeing 737-800 fleet, therefore wasn't a known issue. However, I told the judge that it was likely to be a possible dodgy batch which Thomson had continued to use when alarm bells should have been ringing on the fourth occasion.


The true breakthrough moment came when we highlighted that Thomson's evidence submitted to the court included the pilot report from when the fault was first discovered - on an earlier flight from Ibiza to Manchester that day (5/8/2010) and not at Manchester as they had claimed (after previously stating it was discovered in Samos!). This meant that the airline was actually able to fly the plane, as it was discovered on pushback at Ibiza and they continued to fly to Manchester. But most important was that it had given Thomson operations managers an extra 2.5/3 hours' notice of the problem, during which time they could have ordered the necessary repair parts and also arranged for the standby crew/plane to come from elsewhere. I argued that effectively Thomson Airways had failed to keep the delays to a minimum, and had therefore definitely failed us as paying customers.


In summing up, the judge agreed with this and decided that Thomson had not successfully defended the case as their own evidence had failed them. He would not rule on whether it was an extraordinary circumstance, as he deemed it unnecessary in the case due to the evidence failings. I also believe he wanted to avoid having to decide that, as it is such a sensitive, grey area.


Eitherway, we were awarded the full 1600 euros (£1238) plus costs. Thanks Martin and the MSE team!

joolywooly

JeremyBuxton wrote: »

We've had success in court!

In August 2010, my family took a Thomson holiday to the Greek Island of Samos. Flight TOM2437 from Samos (SMI) to Manchester (MAN) scheduled for 1220GMT on 5 August 2010 was delayed by twenty hours and fifty seven minutes due to a fault with the plane. The family had kept the actual paperwork handed out by Thomson to passengers on arrival at Manchester on 6 August 2010, which clearly explained the circumstances behind the delay and the fact that the fault was discovered at Manchester.


However, Thomson's statement submitted to the court dated 9/4/2013 stated otherwise. The company wrongly claimed that the fault was discovered in Samos, a possible deceitful attempt to maliciously try and avoid paying compensation as this fault did not occur on this flight TOM2437 but a previous deployment of the aircraft. The airline also stated on the court statement submitted on 9/4/2013 that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel guage. I had evidence submitted from a trained Boeing pilot (my father who flew for Britannia/Thomson until retirement) which explained that even if the faulty fuel gauge had been discovered in Samos on flight TOM2437, it would still have been perfectly possible to fly the plane back to Manchester by using the manual dipstick system for checking fuel levels. A faulty fuel gauge would not have been sufficient reason to cause this length of delay.


When we got to court on 13/8/2013, Thomson's witness statements stated that the fault with the plane was in fact discovered in Manchester (NOT Samos - which we knew all along), and that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel VALVE (not guage as they initially submitted). Clearly I stressed to the District Judge that it was odd that this fault had changed in nature and location between their legal submission dated 9/4/2013 and now, and that it rendered my evidence pointless. However, it would prove useful to have a 737 pilot in the courtroom as my father was able to clarify operational queries raised.


Thomson's defence in this case rested on this faulty fuel VALVE (not gauge!) being an "extraordinary circumstance". EU regulation 261/2004 states "As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". I stressed that an airline should have a reasonable expectation that things can and do go wrong on an aircraft, and therefore should have adequate contingency plans in place. The standby plane was in Cardiff, and Thomson chose to fly that plane to Manchester first rather than direct to Samos. This then meant that the crew were out of their legal flying hours and could not possibly operate flight TOM2437. Nor did Thomson bother to include an extra crew on the flight into Samos to then operate the flight. This was entirely within the airline's operational capacity, should have been pre-empted under contingency plans, and therefore cannot be considered as an extraordinary circumstance. The airline had a duty of care to its fee-paying passengers to reduce the delay as much as possible - and it chose not to do so.


The judge was not initially swayed by this argument, and it seemed as though we were not going to win the case.



Thomson also claimed that they had no choice but make the plane stay overnight in Samos and fly back on the following day (6 August 2010) because the airport closed at 1730hrs. However, there were flights into the evening - and we were able to show that there was an Air Berlin flight that very night to Dusseldorf at 2025! Thomson were being economical with the truth.


We also pointed out that throughout Thomson's witness statements/evidence, there were three different time zones used - GMT, BST and Samos local time - whereas all air travel uses the standard GMT. They were manipulating the timings to cause maximum confusion.




Thomson's barrister also tried to show that the fault was out of their control, as the plane had been regularly serviced and the faulty part only replaced in May 2010. However, they said it was the fourth time it had been done. I suggested to the judge that if his car had a part fail four times, he would surely be contacting the manufacturer? Thomson said it was not happening across the Boeing 737-800 fleet, therefore wasn't a known issue. However, I told the judge that it was likely to be a possible dodgy batch which Thomson had continued to use when alarm bells should have been ringing on the fourth occasion.


The true breakthrough moment came when we highlighted that Thomson's evidence submitted to the court included the pilot report from when the fault was first discovered - on an earlier flight from Ibiza to Manchester that day (5/8/2010) and not at Manchester as they had claimed (after previously stating it was discovered in Samos!). This meant that the airline was actually able to fly the plane, as it was discovered on pushback at Ibiza and they continued to fly to Manchester. But most important was that it had given Thomson operations managers an extra 2.5/3 hours' notice of the problem, during which time they could have ordered the necessary repair parts and also arranged for the standby crew/plane to come from elsewhere. I argued that effectively Thomson Airways had failed to keep the delays to a minimum, and had therefore definitely failed us as paying customers.


In summing up, the judge agreed with this and decided that Thomson had not successfully defended the case as their own evidence had failed them. He would not rule on whether it was an extraordinary circumstance, as he deemed it unnecessary in the case due to the evidence failings. I also believe he wanted to avoid having to decide that, as it is such a sensitive, grey area.


Eitherway, we were awarded the full 1600 euros (£1238) plus costs. Thanks Martin and the MSE team!

First of all - congratulations on your success! However, it is examples like this one which cause me great consternation when/if it comes to my case being heard in court. Thomson have cited the usual 2 year get out plus EC - that one of the engines was discovered to be faulty. I have no technical knowledge and sadly no expert witness in the shape of a father who happens to be an ex-pilot!

111KAB

joolywooly wrote: »

However, it is examples like this one which cause me great consternation when/if it comes to my case being heard in court. Thomson have cited the usual 2 year get out plus EC - that one of the engines was discovered to be faulty. I have no technical knowledge and sadly no expert witness in the shape of a father who happens to be an ex-pilot!

Yes but you have 129 pages of help on this Thomson thread alone plus
1) a few people who have been through court
2) posters who are ready to assist
3) Wallentin
4) the odd pilot who pops in to post
5) having consternation will not help particularly when Thomson read these threads.

Basingstoke_Betty

JeremyBuxton wrote: »

We've had success in court!


Well done for being so persistent and well prepared!

georgewn.1

kev-insted wrote: »

Here's a timeline of my dealings with Thomson, my MP, and CAA regarding compensation for a 4 hr delay at Manchester.

30/04/2013: Letter sent to Thomson requesting compensation.

08/07: Letter received from Thomson rejecting my claim, citing 2 year ruling made by Supreme Court.

08/07: Email sent to Supreme Court seeking clarification regarding correspondence from Thomson.

09/07: Response from Supreme Court stating that it has never given a judgement on Regulation 261/2004.

09/07: Complaint sent to CAA and email sent to my MP requesting his input. Also emailed Thomson's aftertravel team asking for clarification regarding the contents of their letter.

12/07: Received form from Thomson asking for more information about our flight.

09/08: Received email from CAA stating that my request for compensation is back with Thomson as it falls under "extraordinary circumstances" and that Thomson must reassess my complaint based on EU guidelines.

15/08: Received letter from my MP, who enclosed a copy of correspondence received from the Managing Director's Office at Thomson. The correspondence contains the exact same statement regarding the Supreme's Court alleged ruling about making "international carriage by air claims within two years".

And that's where I've got so far..........:mad:

If it has not already been published elsewhere on this forum I would like to see the response that you received from the supreme court.
Would it be possible to either scan and post a copy or perhaps even email me a copy.
It is a document that could prove useful to everybody on this forum.

SimonD316

georgewn.1 wrote: »

If it has not already been published elsewhere on this forum I would like to see the response that you received from the supreme court.
Would it be possible to either scan and post a copy or perhaps even email me a copy.
It is a document that could prove useful to everybody on this forum.

That's a good idea, possibly add a copy to the FAQ post?

JeremyBuxton

joolywooly wrote: »

I have no technical knowledge and sadly no expert witness in the shape of a father who happens to be an ex-pilot!

I am sure my Dad would be glad to help you out! He loved the whole experience.

matt2baker

JeremyBuxton wrote: »

I am sure my Dad would be glad to help you out! He loved the whole experience.

You could get end up with a whole lotta mail for your dad to resolve!! I imagine that there are many on here (myself included) who would love to have the ace up a sleeve in the form of an expert on tech faults.

jenn1ewest1

JeremyBuxton wrote: »

We've had success in court!

In August 2010, my family took a Thomson holiday to the Greek Island of Samos. Flight TOM2437 from Samos (SMI) to Manchester (MAN) scheduled for 1220GMT on 5 August 2010 was delayed by twenty hours and fifty seven minutes due to a fault with the plane. The family had kept the actual paperwork handed out by Thomson to passengers on arrival at Manchester on 6 August 2010, which clearly explained the circumstances behind the delay and the fact that the fault was discovered at Manchester.


However, Thomson's statement submitted to the court dated 9/4/2013 stated otherwise. The company wrongly claimed that the fault was discovered in Samos, a possible deceitful attempt to maliciously try and avoid paying compensation as this fault did not occur on this flight TOM2437 but a previous deployment of the aircraft. The airline also stated on the court statement submitted on 9/4/2013 that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel guage. I had evidence submitted from a trained Boeing pilot (my father who flew for Britannia/Thomson until retirement) which explained that even if the faulty fuel gauge had been discovered in Samos on flight TOM2437, it would still have been perfectly possible to fly the plane back to Manchester by using the manual dipstick system for checking fuel levels. A faulty fuel gauge would not have been sufficient reason to cause this length of delay.


When we got to court on 13/8/2013, Thomson's witness statements stated that the fault with the plane was in fact discovered in Manchester (NOT Samos - which we knew all along), and that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel VALVE (not guage as they initially submitted). Clearly I stressed to the District Judge that it was odd that this fault had changed in nature and location between their legal submission dated 9/4/2013 and now, and that it rendered my evidence pointless. However, it would prove useful to have a 737 pilot in the courtroom as my father was able to clarify operational queries raised.


Thomson's defence in this case rested on this faulty fuel VALVE (not gauge!) being an "extraordinary circumstance". EU regulation 261/2004 states "As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". I stressed that an airline should have a reasonable expectation that things can and do go wrong on an aircraft, and therefore should have adequate contingency plans in place. The standby plane was in Cardiff, and Thomson chose to fly that plane to Manchester first rather than direct to Samos. This then meant that the crew were out of their legal flying hours and could not possibly operate flight TOM2437. Nor did Thomson bother to include an extra crew on the flight into Samos to then operate the flight. This was entirely within the airline's operational capacity, should have been pre-empted under contingency plans, and therefore cannot be considered as an extraordinary circumstance. The airline had a duty of care to its fee-paying passengers to reduce the delay as much as possible - and it chose not to do so.


The judge was not initially swayed by this argument, and it seemed as though we were not going to win the case.



Thomson also claimed that they had no choice but make the plane stay overnight in Samos and fly back on the following day (6 August 2010) because the airport closed at 1730hrs. However, there were flights into the evening - and we were able to show that there was an Air Berlin flight that very night to Dusseldorf at 2025! Thomson were being economical with the truth.


We also pointed out that throughout Thomson's witness statements/evidence, there were three different time zones used - GMT, BST and Samos local time - whereas all air travel uses the standard GMT. They were manipulating the timings to cause maximum confusion.




Thomson's barrister also tried to show that the fault was out of their control, as the plane had been regularly serviced and the faulty part only replaced in May 2010. However, they said it was the fourth time it had been done. I suggested to the judge that if his car had a part fail four times, he would surely be contacting the manufacturer? Thomson said it was not happening across the Boeing 737-800 fleet, therefore wasn't a known issue. However, I told the judge that it was likely to be a possible dodgy batch which Thomson had continued to use when alarm bells should have been ringing on the fourth occasion.


The true breakthrough moment came when we highlighted that Thomson's evidence submitted to the court included the pilot report from when the fault was first discovered - on an earlier flight from Ibiza to Manchester that day (5/8/2010) and not at Manchester as they had claimed (after previously stating it was discovered in Samos!). This meant that the airline was actually able to fly the plane, as it was discovered on pushback at Ibiza and they continued to fly to Manchester. But most important was that it had given Thomson operations managers an extra 2.5/3 hours' notice of the problem, during which time they could have ordered the necessary repair parts and also arranged for the standby crew/plane to come from elsewhere. I argued that effectively Thomson Airways had failed to keep the delays to a minimum, and had therefore definitely failed us as paying customers.


In summing up, the judge agreed with this and decided that Thomson had not successfully defended the case as their own evidence had failed them. He would not rule on whether it was an extraordinary circumstance, as he deemed it unnecessary in the case due to the evidence failings. I also believe he wanted to avoid having to decide that, as it is such a sensitive, grey area.


Eitherway, we were awarded the full 1600 euros (£1238) plus costs. Thanks Martin and the MSE team!

congratulations on your success
Thomson are using the faulty fuel valve as the reason our flight was delayed do you know if a 24 hour delay is reasonable at gatwick due to a faulty fuel valve would really appreciate the advice as my court date is due any day and want as much evidence as possible to go to court with
JH

happychap7

I was really impressed to find a General Directions Order come in the post today telling me that my case had been struck out for non compliance ! I only e mailed MCOL a few weeks ago asking for clarity on the issue as I had put myself as the claimant and my wife/children's details were in the particulars of claims section but they weren't named in the claimants section. I clarified with MCOL on the phone that the case was struck out for this reason. I tried to tell them that mixed messages are being given out but it fell on deaf ears. I've now got to start again with the County Court Money Claims Centre using paper claims or pay £45 to appeal.