Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

happychap7

matt2baker wrote: »

Hmmm, I was under the impression that "multiple claimants" (families/groups etc) weren't acceptable on the MCOL, but a maximum of two were permitted (as per 111KAB and others on here) - as long as both were named within the same section.

Or maybe not.........??

Hi
Sorry wouldn't like to say one way or the other as I was that annoyed when I was on the phone to them. You may be right.

matt2baker

dreamergirl32 wrote: »

Thomson clearly have lots of technical problems

It may interest you to know that you'll find an ever growing number of claims on here relate to transatlantic delays - and a flight delay you experienced is likely to have been as a result of a previous flight from across the pond..... as I have discovered through some intuitive research of Flightstats.com - (dates/times/routes/inbound+outbound)

Thomson don't volunteer this info (naturally) when they say your aircraft had an EC technical fault,, but its 'quite' straightforward to do a Sherlock Holmes piece of work and see what delays there were prior to your flight, and prior to that etc. eg if your return flight to UK was TOM 123 - the outbound flight before that would be TOM 122. Doesn't work for flights before yours if you're leaving the UK, but Flightstats helps you by giving details of flight numbers of delays incoming to UK, and then it's fairly easy to spot the possibilities............

That EC fault may well have been 1 or 2 flights earlier..............

111KAB

I was told in no uncertain terms by Worcester Court that I would be wasting their time by putting in two individual claims on behalf of the wife and myself for the same delay on the same flight. Accordingly when I submitted my MCOL I completed on behalf of both of us. At the time I did find a directive on the MCOL website to that effect. When my case was transferred to Worcester there was no question raised regarding the joint claim and indeed at both hearings (I had two before 2 different judges) it was just taken as read that this was the correct way to claim.

dreamergirl32

matt2baker wrote: »

It may interest you to know that you'll find an ever growing number of claims on here relate to transatlantic delays - and a flight delay you experienced is likely to have been as a result of a previous flight from across the pond..... as I have discovered through some intuitive research of Flightstats.com - (dates/times/routes/inbound+outbound)

Thomson don't volunteer this info (naturally) when they say your aircraft had an EC technical fault,, but its 'quite' straightforward to do a Sherlock Holmes piece of work and see what delays there were prior to your flight, and prior to that etc. eg if your return flight to UK was TOM 123 - the outbound flight before that would be TOM 122. Doesn't work for flights before yours if you're leaving the UK, but Flightstats helps you by giving details of flight numbers of delays incoming to UK, and then it's fairly easy to spot the possibilities............

That EC fault may well have been 1 or 2 flights earlier..............

Sorry I'm probably being a little dumb, do you mean this is in my favour?!

I have attempted to use flightstats before but found it fairly confusing, will attempt again if it will be of use to my case(s)

Rooonaldo

CobyBenson wrote: »

Wow can't believe they're relying on the Croon journal - it can be very helpful to your case.

The first couple of pages tell the court:-

"...and courts up to now nearly always view technical defects.... as not being an extraordinary circumstance in the sense of the Regulation, because they consider any technical difficulty as inherent to the normal operation of the air carrier."

Unfortunately Croon uses pages 4-6 to say a) tech defects are extraordinary if they're not picked up during routine maintenance (This isn't true by the way).

You're going to have to explain to the Judge that that's not the case and any tech defect is not extraordinary so long as it is inherent in the normal exercise... (which by the way, a hydraulic leak is).

The CAA paper was an early release of their guidance on the definition of extraordinary circs and also misinterprets Wallentin.

Make sure you've thoroughly read Wallentin before you go anywhere near a court room.

Hope I'm doing this correctly.Thanks Corbin that is reassuring.I have read and think I understand Wallentin but obviously I may not know all the various technical issues as well as my opponent.It is also a worry that the Judge may not have sufficient time to understand the defence properly.Do you (or anyone else)have a simple skeleton argument which you would be prepared to let me see?If so I would be very grateful.

Rooonaldo

Rooonaldo wrote: »

Hope I'm doing this correctly.Thanks Corbin that is reassuring.I have read and think I understand Wallentin but obviously I may not know all the various technical issues as well as my opponent.It is also a worry that the Judge may not have sufficient time to understand the defence properly.Do you (or anyone else)have a simple skeleton argument which you would be prepared to let me see?If so I would be very grateful.

Sorry to have misspelt your name Coby.

jlo80

I have sent a letter to Thomsons using the template letter, having not heard a thing, I rang to be told they aren't investigating any claims outside of 2 years! So I need to fill in the form to the national enforcement bodies regulator but they require boarding passes. I no longer have these! Is there any way I can get proof that we boarded the flight and proof that the flight was delayed by 13 hours. Thank you in advance:)

111KAB

Jlo80 wrote: »

I have sent a letter to Thomsons using the template letter, having not heard a thing, I rang to be told they aren't investigating any claims outside of 2 years! So I need to fill in the form to the national enforcement bodies regulator but they require boarding passes. I no longer have these! Is there any way I can get proof that we boarded the flight and proof that the flight was delayed by 13 hours. Thank you in advance:)

Please read through thread before asking questions which have already been answered - numerous times - many thanks

Mark2spark

happychap7 wrote: »

Hi
Check out my previous posts. The Judge struck out my case for non compliance with CPR. This was after I sent an email to MCOL querying whether I was okay with myself as the claimant and my wife/children listed in the particulars of claim section (I picked up on this issue from posts on this site). This query was referred to the Judge for directions. I was then informed that the non compliance was in relation to multiple claimants and that County Court Money Claims Centre should have been used instead of MCOL. I have had to start all over again now with CCMCC. I know most people have been okay with this issue and I told the MCOL helpline staff this but I was then assured it was the right decision/procedure and was told that it was better the case was struck out now and not further down the line when I had paid more money ! Its probably just my luck and everyone else will be okay !

But you don't have any other option that to enter a multiple claim(ents) case, as the children cannot claim themselves?

Mark2spark

AlwaysConfused wrote: »

Finally, finally getting my backside in gear wiht the NBA letter... (in my defence the family has grown by one)

This is what I'm planning to send based on the template found on this wonderful site. Please be as brutal as you like

"I am writing to you to lodge my claim for delayed flight compensation. Our flight (detailed above) was delayed leaving Manchester and we arrived in Rhodes some 4.5hours after the scheduled arrival time.

I am aware that judgement has been handed down in the current ECJ case (C-629/10) on October 23rd 2012, and I wish to proceed with my claim.

Upon finally boarding our plane the Captain advised us the delay was due to Thomson using the aircraft scheduled for flight TOM2658 to cover for another aircraft.

I have since had confirmation that the flight was delayed due to an issue with a wheel nut on an aircraft that was not the one scheduled for the flight detailed above.

Since the issue was with an aircraft that was in no way connected to our flight, and our delay was caused by the ‘knock-on’ effect of a business decision I do not believe that your defence of “unexpected flight safety shortcoming” to be valid against this a compensation claim. Should you be claiming any such defence I should be grateful if such details could be provided to me within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Should you neither settle my claim in full nor provide a full defence to my claim within the above timescale, I reserve the right to issue legal proceedings without giving you further notice in writing.

I look forward to hearing from you."

I would use the terminology "An operational decision".