Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

dtaylor1983

My wife and I went on our honeymoon to Turkey on 27th sept 2009 for 10days.
We were due to fly back from Dalaman airport to Bristol International on wed 7th Oct 2009. I do not have any of the actual flight details anymore. We arrived at Dalaman airport 2 hours early to check in and on the coach were told due to technical fault with previous plane and waiting for new plane there would be a delay but no one knew how long. We had only been given a food voucher for a small amount but the flight had definitely been delayed for around 4 hours as we had been in the airport for around 6 hours! Is it possible to retrieve the details from somewhere and to put in a claim?
It says on another site that we could possibly be entitled to £350 due to that it was a european airline flying back into a european airport and with the distance being far enough. Would this be for the both of us or are we both able to claim? It was such a horrible end to our honeymoon! Amazing as well no one tells you that you can claim for this! If I had known then we would have kept everything!

lolly81

Hi - just filling out my MCOL and wanted to get your opinion please. I've read a lot of pages on this thread and don't think this has been mentioned, but apologies if I've missed it.

In the details of claim, should I outline how Thomson are refusing the claim because it's more than 2 years old, and then go on to highlight how the More case proves that they're wrong, or should I just keep it really basic - that I'm claiming for flight delay under 216/2004 for x delay to x flight - and wait until court to do all the back and forth around the time limitation?

I'd prefer not to put all my cards on the table, but I don't want the judge to just hear their '2 year' line and throw it out (without knowing any better), which I know has happened to someone.

Also if I outline the More ruling, I don't see what Thomson can actually claim in defence - unless they come up with some EC that they haven't told me about yet?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks.

111KAB

lolly81 wrote: »

Hi - just filling out my MCOL and wanted to get your opinion please. I've read a lot of pages on this thread and don't think this has been mentioned, but apologies if I've missed it.

In the details of claim, should I outline how Thomson are refusing the claim because it's more than 2 years old, and then go on to highlight how the More case proves that they're wrong, or should I just keep it really basic - that I'm claiming for flight delay under 216/2004 for x delay to x flight - and wait until court to do all the back and forth around the time limitation?

I'd prefer not to put all my cards on the table, but I don't want the judge to just hear their '2 year' line and throw it out (without knowing any better), which I know has happened to someone.

Also if I outline the More ruling, I don't see what Thomson can actually claim in defence - unless they come up with some EC that they haven't told me about yet?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks.

There is only enough space on the MCOL form to complete the basic details of your claim ie how much you are claiming, why and the reasons why it should be paid (261/2004). Stick to the basic information.

Vauban

Lolly - for the initial MCOL application you keep it really basic. There is a template form of words at the beginning of the "Taking the Airlines to Court" thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4507307.

111KAB

dtaylor1983 wrote: »

My wife and I went on our honeymoon to Turkey on 27th sept 2009 for 10days.
We were due to fly back from Dalaman airport to Bristol International on wed 7th Oct 2009. I do not have any of the actual flight details anymore. We arrived at Dalaman airport 2 hours early to check in and on the coach were told due to technical fault with previous plane and waiting for new plane there would be a delay but no one knew how long. We had only been given a food voucher for a small amount but the flight had definitely been delayed for around 4 hours as we had been in the airport for around 6 hours! Is it possible to retrieve the details from somewhere and to put in a claim?
It says on another site that we could possibly be entitled to £350 due to that it was a european airline flying back into a european airport and with the distance being far enough. Would this be for the both of us or are we both able to claim? It was such a horrible end to our honeymoon! Amazing as well no one tells you that you can claim for this! If I had known then we would have kept everything!

Yes you can claim but you must research (start of with this thread) yourself. All the answers are here

David_e

lolly81 wrote: »

So far they're responded to the SAR but their records apparently only go back to 2010

It's a careless company that destroys relevant information before the expiry of the 6 year time limit for claims to be brought against them .... I would have thought that the law enforcement authorities might expect airlines to retain passenger information for a few years also. If they are sticking to that line, all you can do is state that when you bring your case.

lolly81 wrote: »

Still waiting on the FOI request..

You'll be waiting a long time! FoI is about information held by public bodies, not commercial ones. Ludicrous that they won't give you details but they'll have to come up with something by way of defence when you make your claim.


These points plus the 2 year trick do not suggest that they are acting in good faith, does it?

matt2baker

lolly81 wrote: »

Also if I outline the More ruling, I don't see what Thomson can actually claim in defence - unless they come up with some EC that they haven't told me about yet?

if you're the gambling type, pop down to the bookies, you could second-guess that Thomson will come up with an EC

Vauban

matt2baker wrote: »

if you're the gambling type, pop down to the bookies, you could second-guess that Thomson will come up with an EC

Mystic Vauban also predicts an extraordinary circumstance ("in the alternative" ...)

matt2baker

Vauban wrote: »

Mystic Vauban also predicts an extraordinary circumstance ("in the alternative" ...)

Touche!!

dreamergirl32

I have just been reading through my piles of documentation for flight claims I have from Thomson...
In the original denying compensation reply they stated the fault was with a different part than they have stated in their defence to my court claim.

Where do I stand on this? Surely they have given wrong information in one of them and to research whether this is part of daily checks I need to know which one.

Just about to complete my allocation questionnaire which states I should contact Thomson to discuss with them. Another pricey phone call for me then!!...