Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

00helen

Thank you....I think that was my point -why are people still being encouraged to claim if the time limits are wrong? The advice is still on the main MSE website as you can claim back to 2005...

111KAB

00helen wrote: »

Thank you....I think that was my point -why are people still being encouraged to claim if the time limits are wrong? The advice is still on the main MSE website as you can claim back to 2005...

YOU CAN CLAIM but putting in a claim does not mean it will be paid out. I have seen nowhere where people are ENCOURAGED to claim back to 2005 but go on, claim. You may be the first where Thomson or indeed any airline have paid out over the 6 year threshold.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Considering Thomson seem to be using every excuse under the sun including the making up of a two year limit I would be inclined wager my house and all its contents that they would not pay a claim from 2005!

jessica_bluebell

Thank you for your correspondence.

Here at Thomson Airways, we are committed to on-time performance across our flying programme. Doing everything we reasonably can to get our aircraft to their destinations, and you on holiday, safely and on time is really important to us.

We invest significantly in operational initiatives, engineering excellence and having a modern fleet; they all help to keep the frequency and duration of delays to a bare minimum. As a result, for the past few years, Thomson Airways has been one of the best performing airlines in the UK and has been able to keep the title of most on-time charter airline.

Very occasionally, though, and despite our very best efforts to prevent delays, they can occur and we are truly sorry that your flight was delayed in the way that you have described.

Delays are always a disappointment for us, not only in respect of the effect that they have on passenger enjoyment and comfort, but also as there is a real financial cost to us in circumstances which are almost always not our fault. That cost makes offering the best value fares and holidays much more of a challenge.

In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union ("the Regulation") now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival.

The European Court of Justice has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long passengers have to bring their claims, we need to look at our national law. The Supreme Court in the UK has said that all claims to do with "international carriage by air" are subject to the framework of the Montreal Convention which provides that claims need to be brought within two years. We, therefore, can't consider claims for flights that were delayed more than two years ago.

Keeping an eye on the purpose and spirit of the Regulation and doing that while continuing to deliver real value to our customers is a challenge that can only be met by applying the law robustly and not making payments where there is no entitlement. If we didn't apply the rules in this way, prices would need to rise for you and all other customers.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. And rest assured that we are doing all we reasonably can to ensure that your future flights with Thomson Airways arrive on-time.

Yours sincerely,

WHAT SHOULD I DO NEXT?!!!

dxc_chappie

00helen wrote: »

Thank you....I think that was my point -why are people still being encouraged to claim if the time limits are wrong? The advice is still on the main MSE website as you can claim back to 2005...

The time limits are not wrong. The Sturgeon ruling means Regulation EC 261/2004, which came into force in 2005, can also cover delays over 3 hours. So anyone who was delayed after the regulation came into force could apply for compensation.

But since the regulation itself doesn't say what the time limitations are airlines have been using the 2 year limit in the Montreal Convention. However, another ECJ ruling (More case) confirmed two things: i) The Montreal Convention is not applicable for compensation under EC261, and ii) the rules of limitation for member states shall be used for determining time limits.

The regulation is a European wide regulation so rules are different from country to country. In England section 9 of the Limiations act 1980 means claims are limited to 6 years.

Unfortunately Thomson and other airlines seem to ignore the part of the More ruling where it states the 2 yr limit in the Montreal Convention shall not be considered for EC 261 claims and instead rely on a case law from a 1997 ruling (Sidhu v BA) which basically states no exceptions to the Montreal Convention are possible for any claims related to international carriage by air. The FAQs and other threads have discussed this ad nauseum.

nquire76

Unfortunately CPR Rule 31 is not applicable to the Small Claims track and Rule 18 is subject to a Court Order. Hence Thomson's completely deaf ear to requests for the provision of the technical information behind a LTO Claim refusal before the Claim gets to Court.

NickyPower

I have just received the standard letter from Thomson and am willing to take this all the way. Our flight was delayed because our plane was sent elsewhere to carry some other passengers and we had to wait over 4 hours for a replacement - this came straight out of the pilots mouth. Could you explain the Wallentin, Sturgeon case to me so that I can understand this better - I find all the legal jargon a little overbearing. Many thanks and congratulations on your success:j

mistersneezy wrote: »

Although I’m new to this forum, this forum is not new to me. I’ve been following this with great interest since it began and have also read every single post on the other airline forums so as not to miss anything.
I have had an on-going claim with Thomson for the last nine months. Initially I jumped through the many hoops and obstacles Thomson placed in front of me but like many others on here I was then effectively ignored by them in an attempt to make me give up. It soon became apparent that the only language they would listen to was litigation and I began my legal action in April.
Thomson never even replied to my NBA and their ignorance just made me more determined to pursue my claim. My first real correspondence from them was an acknowledgement to my court action - they can’t ignore that. I then received the same letters that you guys have all received fobbing me off and claiming extraordinary circumstances. We have all seen them reproduced many times on this forum. Clearly a ‘copy and paste’ exercise for the office junior. Weeks later I received their official defence as lodged with the court. I had no contact with Thomson from the point that I started my legal action and to be honest would not have given them that courtesy after the months of stonewalling I had endured at their hands. I intended to treat them exactly as they had treated me.
Although no stranger to a confrontation with a bank or utility company, I have never been to court before but was determined that Thomson would not ride roughshod over me. I hate the David and Goliath syndrome. I set about tackling their nine point defence one by one in preparation for my court case. I compiled the evidence I needed - the regulation itself, Wallentin, Sturgeon, etc. Soon I had a bundle together and was quite looking forward to court as I felt I had a very strong case. All I had to do now was sit and wait for my day in court.
Then, approximately one month before my court date, came a letter offering settlement from Mr Moran. Obviously with an impending encounter in court I was nearing the top of his inbox and my file had been passed from the office juniors to ‘The man that can’. The offer was a carrot dangled in front of me to see if I would take the bait. Not for the full amount, but still a reasonable offer. By now though it was a matter of principle - I was in the right and would accept not a penny less. I didn’t feel that the offer warranted a response, so it didn’t get one. After months of being ignored by Thomson it felt nice to do it back to them. I would do my talking in court. Eventually as the court date got closer I received an offer for the full amount, interest included. I had mixed feelings about this as I was quite looking forward to revealing to the courts the non-cooperation and delay tactics I had been subjected to by this company. How will the courts get to hear of the games the airlines are playing if we don’t get to court?
I had to accept the offer as I could not decline it and continue to court for fear of being told I was wasting the court’s time. Even after accepting the offer they didn’t process it when they said they would. It crossed my mind that the offer could have been a ploy to stop me paying my final hearing fee and effectively lose my court date and have to start again from the beginning. To play safe, I paid my court fee and retained my court date. Eventually, after telling Thomson that I had not received their transfer and the court action was still live, it reached my bank. It could have been more Thomson games or perhaps just incompetence. You decide for yourselves.
Incidentally, my letter to the CAA that I wrote back in February has also just been replied to. They pointed me towards their new guidelines and have said that in their view I would not be entitled to compensation due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’. The CAA should be ashamed of themselves. Their new guidelines are the result of cries for help from those that fund the CAA - the airlines. The guidelines look like they have been written by the airlines and they are not legally binding anyway. Don’t waste your time with the CAA.
So now after 9 months my battle is over all but for the 8 weeks the court has said I may have to wait for my hearing fee to be reimbursed. It has taken a long time and more hours of my evenings and weekends than I care to remember but for me it was about a principle. It was a considerable sum of money but I’d have done the same if it was a tenner. I was in the right, they were wrong. For all of you who are considering going through this process and for those of you who are already in it, don’t give up. The advice on this forum is excellent. Second to none. I would particularly like to thank Centipede, Vauban, Mark2spark, 111KAB, and blondmark whose advice has been invaluable. Sorry for not posting earlier but I would imagine that the airline’s litigants will be monitoring this site very carefully and I didn’t want to reveal my hand to them. They certainly should be monitoring it anyway, because if you have a valid claim everything you need to win it is on here.
Good luck everyone, and don’t give up - that’s exactly what they want you to do.
Mistersneezy[/QUO


I have just received the standard letter from Thomson and am willing to take this all the way. Our flight was delayed because our plane was sent elsewhere to carry some other passengers and we had to wait over 4 hours for a replacement - this came straight out of the pilots mouth. Could you explain the Wallentin, Sturgeon case to me so that I can understand this better - I find all the legal jargon a little overbearing. Many thanks and congratulations on your success:j

111KAB

NickyPower wrote: »

Could you explain the Wallentin, Sturgeon case to me so that I can understand this better - I find all the legal jargon a little overbearing. Many thanks and congratulations on your success:j

You must read and understand yourself. If you cannot do this appoint a no win no fee. If you do not understand how can you present your argument in Court?

bazaar_2

nquire76 wrote: »

Unfortunately CPR Rule 31 is not applicable to the Small Claims track and Rule 18 is subject to a Court Order. Hence Thomson's completely deaf ear to requests for the provision of the technical information behind a LTO Claim refusal before the Claim gets to Court.

Incorrect, Ill explain why, there is a small window where the claim is trackless, so rule 18 is certainly valid as is 31.
Rule 18 is indeed subject to court order, however, if youd read up on it, the initiator is required to send the request to the opponent BEFORE any court order is applied for.
have a read and then have another pop

NickyPower

Hi all,
I have literally just got off the phone to Thomsons 'Krys Chamberlain' after receiving the 'Extra Ordinary Circumstances' Letter. We were informed by the pilot on our flight that our plane had been sent elsewhere to some other passengers as their plane had a technical fault. Thomsons refute this and state that our flight was delayed because of a previous flight from Alicante to LGW due to a 'Flat Nose Wheel' and this had a knock on effect to our flight arriving in at IBIZA to take us back to LGW!!. I have contacted CAA who inform me that they cannot be involved with this because the flight left from IBIZA and not the UK. Thomsons refuse to send me any of the flight logs to back up there claims and stated firstly they are not ALLOWED, when I questioned this they changed the wording to not OBLIGED.
Can anyone advise me what I need to do next, can I just go straight for the small claims court or do I need to write again to Thomsons. Any help greatfully received. Flight 29/06/10 IBIZA to LGW TOM4655 delayed 5 hours.