Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

JeremyBuxton

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

Hi John

Can you find me on twitter and make contact there? I can then speak to you and tell you what to look for. J

JeremyBuxton

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.

The new EU clarification guidelines from April 19th do mention recurring faults. In our case, the valve had failed FOUR times.

Plus it turned out that it had failed on a previous previous flight - so they had plenty of time to sort out standby ops. But didn't - and gave totally different versions of events in the various evidence stages. So double check always!!!

JeremyBuxton

delvey wrote: »

So a plane can fly with a faulty fuel valve? As this is what they claim to be extra ordinary circumstances with me

Yes it can in certain circumstances. You need to check the minimum equipment list to see what type of flight would be allowed (eg empty ferry - or one return to base only - etc). Our Samos flight from August 2010 had been delayed because of this. But it turned out in Thomson's evidence file in court that the fault was discovered in Ibiza on a previous pushback. And they flew it!

kev-insted

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.

Apologies, only just seen this. Here's the response I received:

"Thank you for your email. The UK Supreme Court has never given a judgment on the matter of EC 261/2004 claims. A previous decision taken in the House of Lords in 1996 pertains to a related matter (a claim for damages under the Warsaw Convention, in which the Law Lords found that a time limit of two years applied), but a case relating to the specific type of claim you are envisaging has never reached this court. I am unable to provide any further legal advice, but I hope the above is helpful."

dxc_chappie

graham29a wrote: »

Thomson rejected my claim for a 2010 eleven hour delay due to it being more than two years ago. They quoted a supreme court ruling stating that it needs to be claimed within two years. Will spend next few days researching and then go to the CAA I think.

Any more advice from anyone?

thanks

Yes, read the FAQs on page 1 of this thread taking note of text in big red letters. The FAQs have all the information you require. And if you take the time to read this forum you will find out how useful the CAA are.

panholio

Anyone got any thoughts on mediation? Not really seen it discussed much. I am inclined to say I am prepared to do it, if only to show the judge I am interested in a resolution.

I now have my defence from Thomson (it is laughable if you are reading Thomson ;-)) I'm not that inclined to post it on here but if anyone who has succesfully defended a technical fault claim would be interested in giving me a hand or even just reviewing my notes I'd be really grateful..... I'm off to read this thread through again! Some great advice.

coupsta

I got the standard 2 years letter for a 9 hour delay back in Oct 2006 from Thomson. I fly quite a lot and this instance in 2006 was the worst I've ever experienced. It was the last flight of the year funnily enough on their timetable. I would appreciate if anyone thinks this is worth pursing through legal cover as small claims court wont hear this as its over 6 years

Vauban

coupsta wrote: »

I got the standard 2 years letter for a 9 hour delay back in Oct 2006 from Thomson. I fly quite a lot and this instance in 2006 was the worst I've ever experienced. It was the last flight of the year funnily enough on their timetable. I would appreciate if anyone thinks this is worth pursing through legal cover as small claims court wont hear this as its over 6 years

If a court won't hear you claim because of the statute of limitation, I'm not clear what assistance "legal cover" would offer. You are simply out of time, I'm afraid.

matt2baker

JeremyBuxton wrote: »

The thing to ask the airline for is the Minimum Equipment List - MEL - when it's a tech fault. And double check everything they tell you. In our case, they told us multiple versions of the "truth". It was their own evidence file which exposed their "truth" to be otherwise.

Hi Jeremy, thanks for the reply - I have requested further details on my EC tech fault, but so far Thomson are quite adamant that it's policy not to expand on the fault - why indeed should I disbelieve them that it was an EC? If need be, I'll ask for the MEL, but whether it'll help, whether they'll oblige, and whether flying pigs arrive on time without an EC, I'm yet to be convinced I'll be as lucky as you and get that list!

Vauban

Can I interject a note of caution here?

First off though let me stress that a) I am not a lawyer and b) I don't pretend to have a monopoly of wisdom on court tactics.

But with those caveats, I would be wary about trying to engage the airlines in detail on technical points such as whether the aircraft could fly without a certain piece of kit. This is because a) unless you are an aeronautical engineer (or your Dad is a pilot) you can't second guess the airline; b) in a technical dispute between you and the airline, I'm willing to bet most judges would attached credibility to the engineer as a witness; and c) most importantly, it distracts from the key points that you should be making (which revolve around Wallentin's rules on technical failures and their definition of what constitutes reasonable measures to get you on your way).

Be wary, my friends, in getting lost down the wrong rabbit hole!