Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

blue500

Hi has anyone claimed for a delay on a return flight from Pahos on the 9th june 2010

Sstaggy1

I have received my court hearing date for October and now need to pout together my court bundle.

My claim is for a delay of 18 hours 40, caused by a technical fault on the outbound flight of the plane we were due to travel home on, and the crew being out of hours. Although Thomson are claiming exceptional circumstances I am clear that the technical problem created a knock on effect that caused our delay, and this is not the particular flight on the particular day.

Do I need to find out more details about the technical problem ( with the Instrument Vertical Speed Indicator Unit) or just rely on the knock on effect not being EC

Star9272

TOM2243
16/07/2013
16 hour delay for oil leak

Just received their first reply to our claim for compensation
4 page email explaining EC in length
"Not poor maintenance
Nelson v Lufthansa
EC
261/2004
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia"
Think they've thrown everything in this reply

Vauban

Sstaggy1 wrote: »

I have received my court hearing date for October and now need to pout together my court bundle.

My claim is for a delay of 18 hours 40, caused by a technical fault on the outbound flight of the plane we were due to travel home on, and the crew being out of hours. Although Thomson are claiming exceptional circumstances I am clear that the technical problem created a knock on effect that caused our delay, and this is not the particular flight on the particular day.

Do I need to find out more details about the technical problem ( with the Instrument Vertical Speed Indicator Unit) or just rely on the knock on effect not being EC

Staggy, my strong advice is not to get into the details of the technical defect. Because a) you cannot be more credible on this than the witness the airline will produce and b) victory lies in the principle of the law, rather than the detail of the technical defect.

The key questions your argument must address are:

a) was the failure inherent in the normal operation of the airline (yes)
b) was it in their control to minimise the delay? (yes)
c) did they use "all their resources" - the Wallentin "third question" - to prevent the delay (spare aircraft, lease another, or put you on another flight). (no)

Sstaggy1

Vauban

Many thanks for your advice, it is so much appreciated. This is where the nerves start to kick in.:o

delvey

pymers wrote: »

were you on the same flight as me ?

no, seems to be a common problem by the looks of it

joolywooly

Vauban wrote: »

Staggy, my strong advice is not to get into the details of the technical defect. Because a) you cannot be more credible on this than the witness the airline will produce and b) victory lies in the principle of the law, rather than the detail of the technical defect.

The key questions your argument must address are:

a) was the failure inherent in the normal operation of the airline (yes)
b) was it in their control to minimise the delay? (yes)
c) did they use "all their resources" - the Wallentin "third question" - to prevent the delay (spare aircraft, lease another, or put you on another flight). (no)

A great succinct to-the-point reply - thank you! I am putting together all these little nuggets to prepare for my day in court!

joolywooly

111KAB wrote: »

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.

Yes, everyone's help on here is very much appreciated, particularly the odd pilot! Just because I have some (understandable) worries about an imminent court case only means I'm human - not that I have any intention of backing down. So if you're reading this Thomson - :wave: See you in court!

pymers

pymers wrote: »

hi all
first can I ask if anyone else has tried to claim from Thomson concerning flight TOM076 from Gatwick to Mombasa on the 25th nov 2011 and if you have what was the response you got from them ?
well I received my letter back from them I sent them an NBA as I was not satisfied with the response I got from them
1st letter this is part of the reply I got from them
-v• T


In the case of your flight TOM076. the root cause of the delay was found to be a

technical defect. in the form of damaged C ducts. which was discovered prior to

departure. This grounded the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight which led to the


crew going out of hours. and subsequently required the flight to night-stop. an

alternative aircraft was sourced tooperate your flightwhich departed the following day

at the earliest opportunity. sincethe technical

defect in question arose outside of routine maintenance checks, and could nothave

been foreseen or prepared for. the delay has been attributed to '"extraordinary circumstances
I asked them to tell me what checks were made and this is what them replied with

Thank you for your correspondence following the response you received from us. We

are sorry to hear that you are unhappy with our recent correspondence about your delayed flight TOM076 to Mombasa


















Thomson always gives careful consideration to every correspondence received, and we

are always prepared to consider again if our customers are not satisfied with the

response given. Following the receipt of your letter, I have attempted to answer your

queries where possible, but I apologise that I have not been able to disclose in full the

information you seek.

To reiterate, the delay you experienced was due to the aircraft scheduled to operate

your flight being grounded due to a technical defect, in the form of damaged C-ducts.

Due to the sensitive nature of the information contained within our internal flight

reports, we are not obliged to disclose information specifically relating to the pre-flight

checks.

In response to your second query, it is evident that, in an attempt to minimise the

delay, initially spares were sourced in order to rectify the defect. Following this, an

alternative aircraft was sourced to operate your flight, in a further attempt to minimise

the delay. Your flight was then operated once the crew had taken minimum rest. Where

possible, efforts will be made to source a standby crew, but in cases where unforeseen

issues arise, it is not always possible to facilitate this immediately, given the

unanticipated nature of the circumstances.

Once again, I would like to offer our sincere apologies for the disruption caused. I

appreciate this must have been a disappointing start to your holiday. Thomson cares a





I'm sorry
you feel that this is not the case. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping

for and if you remain unhappy with the outcome, you may consult a third party at your

discretion.

Thank you again for your correspondence.

Yours sincerely,






Chivonne Koranteng

Flight Claims Advisor

After Travel Customer Support
sorry the way this letter has gone on the forum but had to scan it
so next step is court what do you think
I have never had to deal with a court before and it is a bit daunting as checked on here and you have to do a defence statement and I would not know how to go about starting that
any advise would be appreciated
thank you

what do you think my chances would be in court with what I have got back from Thomson
thank you

111KAB

pymers wrote: »

what do you think my chances would be in court with what I have got back from Thomson
thank you

Good but you have to read through whole of Thomson thread and understand 261/2004 and why your claim against Thomson should be a success. If you do not understand both the ruling (Wallentin), the procedure and the need for tenacity/patience your chances of 'winning' are reduced. Whilst others (including myself) may say your chances are good it really depends on how good you are at fighting your corner.