Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Basingstoke_Betty

happychap7 wrote: »

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.

OH man, that is just awfully unlucky - I don't have any legal advice to offer on this but just want to offer sympathy - stick with it - if you firmly believe you have a good case you'll get your money back.
BB

Bonters

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

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

Beware trying to make use of anything in the other poster's case, as the Judge skilfully avoided a ruling that the valve did/did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. BUT I fail to see how 24 hours can ever be a reasonable delay. It is interesting that Thomson are choosing to actually fight some of these cases in court, rather than just cough up at the eleventh hour! They may still cave in on yours of course. Best of luck.

Vauban

Bonters wrote: »

Beware trying to make use of anything in the other poster's case, as the Judge skilfully avoided a ruling that the valve did/did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. BUT I fail to see how 24 hours can ever be a reasonable delay. It is interesting that Thomson are choosing to actually fight some of these cases in court, rather than just cough up at the eleventh hour! They may still cave in on yours of course. Best of luck.

I struggle to understand how a 24 hour delay caused by technical failure could ever be reasonable if it occured in a UK hub airport. Especially when the legal obligation on airlines is to use all their financial resources short of an intolerable sacrifice to try to prevent a long delay.

bazaar_2

Vauban wrote: »

I struggle to understand how a 24 hour delay caused by technical failure could ever be reasonable if it occured in a UK hub airport. Especially when the legal obligation on airlines is to use all their financial resources short of an intolerable sacrifice to try to prevent a long delay.

Also, the EC should be for a particular aircraft on a particular day, I thought 24 hours was a day where I come from , but maybe the airlines know something we dont

tds

ruthiec1972 wrote: »

Hi I'd love for anyone who was unfortunate enough to be on the flights from hell to get in touch, want to see if Thomson are telling us all the same story or telling everyone something different to get out of paying compensation. We were told fault was discovered in flight when the pilot told us before we'd even taken off originally that the toilet wasn't working so how they can say it was inflight is beyond me. Also I'd say a faulty toilet is not a “unexpected flight safety shortcoming”as they told me, infact the pilot said we could carry on but it would be better to have all toilets working. Just starting so trying to get as much info together as I can and if we can help each other all the better. Ruthie

Hi Ruth
I was in Sharm waiting for this flight to arrive to take us back to Edinburgh. We were also told that the flight was going to be delayed before it took off from Edinburgh therefore the problem was already present before taking off. We were eventually delayed for over 21 hours. We have written to Thomson on 2 occasions and it has taken 6 weeks for them to reply with a three page letter stating that we are not entitled to compensation due to a variety of factors. Some of which have already been quoted on here ie Wallentin-Hermann etc etc. After having read some of the other post which I have to say is very time consuming, I have spend the whole day reading posts and comparing them to my situation etc. I have decided to put in a complaint to the CAA and sent my paperwork to them today. I think that Thomson are sending out these lengthy 3 page letters full of legal jargon in the hope that passengers will just give up on their right to compensation. I am going to take my case as far as possible. I think that the airlines forget that if they had no passengers they would go out of business. However they continue to treat us terribly when things go wrong. I will post again when I have a response from the CAA regarding my case. J :mad:

Star9272

tds wrote: »

Hi Ruth
I was in Sharm waiting for this flight to arrive to take us back to Edinburgh.:

From my experience (waiting in Portugal, fault found in Manchester) the CAA will advise you to write to the equivalent of the CAA in Sharm. If they do help you please let me know ?

Vauban

Star9272 wrote: »

From my experience (waiting in Portugal, fault found in Manchester) the CAA will advise you to write to the equivalent of the CAA in Sharm. If they do help you please let me know ?

I was also delayed in Sharm in a separate incident. I wrote to the CAA in January. They have still not been able to offer me a substantive reply.

(I started court action in February, and have a hearing in October. Otherwise I would be no further on than eight months ago.)

nquire76

Has anyone had any experience of the Defence, lack of ground power ? Although a full technical explanation with confirmatory evidence has been requested several times I have now reached the point where a Directions Questionnaire has been issued but no explanation given.

RBEssex

Got almost word for word the same reply to my claim for delay in 2008. Have asked for details of the uk supreme court ruling. Thought I saw elsewhere that supreme court does not specify 2 years. Thomson really seem to be using every trick in the book to get out of paying up! No doubt they will ask for boarding cards which not many people keep for 5 years!

bazaar_2

nquire76 wrote: »

Has anyone had any experience of the Defence, lack of ground power ? Although a full technical explanation with confirmatory evidence has been requested several times I have now reached the point where a Directions Questionnaire has been issued but no explanation given.

They will ignore you, unless you take control of your case. You have the option of using CPR rules to extract the info you need, by carefully worded legal requests. ( CPR 18 or 31 ). Read the rules, then decide what would work for you.