Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

bettys73

Jojoeile. A different excuse as to why our flight was delayed (they said ours was a knock on effect from a previous flight - different plane) but with exactly the same paragraphs as you've quoted further down our letter.

Obviously part of their standard reply.

We too are progressing to court. Good luck

Lynie_Lou

Received another letter today from Thomson's, story is delayed over 9 hours going out to Kenya and then delayed 26 hours coming home! Basically they had no aircraft for us either way!
So they have now said that looking into it the aircraft had an hydraulic leak and caused a knock on effect and subsequent delay to our flight! Load of rubbish if you ask me, I telephoned the number on the letter and told them to not close the case as I will be taking it further. Would you suggest CAA or court now? This is the second no letter I have received from them.
Many thanks

111KAB

Lynie_Lou wrote: »

. Would you suggest CAA or court now?

Court - enjoy your compensation

matt2baker

lda01 wrote: »

Hi. In June 2012, we had a delay of 4 hours + coming back from Tunisia to Manchester. I sent a letter to Thomson explaining situation, in which they got back to me saying that the cause of the delay was due to the failure of the check-in system at Manchester which delayed the flight immediately prior to ours. They are saying it comes under extraordinary circumstances and are unable to offer compensation. Does anyone know if this is correct please?

A 4 hour delay to issues ticket manually at MAN isn't realistic at all. There are always contingency plans for this as its not an infrequent failure at check-in. Thomson would probably had a say in getting some compo for themselves too as it would have affected crew/loading/food etc etc.

Ignore their 'excuse' and issue an NBA for legal action. As an aside, you may wish to write to MAN airport to determine if that excuse was valid - phone the airport first to determine who you need to write to for written confirmation of the check-in delay.

lorbab

i have sent a letter to Thompson a month ago, got it off Martin Lewis site and filled in the necessary information. I have received no reply what do i do next can anyone advise?

Thanks in advance
Lorbab:)

Mark2spark

andresykes wrote: »

Thanks for that. Great idea, the Monarch thread has dozens of flights listed. Any idea whether a faulty fuel valve is an EC or not?. Cheers

No it's not, taken at face value.

If a terrorist blew it up it would be

Babydust35

Vauban wrote: »

There is no guarantee that a judge will award you interest at 8% - or indeed at all - even if you win. And you run the risk of a unfriendly judge who sides with the airline - despite the apparent strength of your case.

On the other hand, the airline would not make this offer if they thought they had a good chance of defending: so you are likely to be able to call the shots.

I personally like your 4% proposal - but you should get them to throw in some flowers as an apology as well!

Well i proposed my compromise with thomson today - 4% interest and the answer was a big fat no - didn't even get to the flowers part ;-) She told me that i'm entitled to take it to court if I wish .... oh what to do?! I have till the 5th to change my mind and accept the offer ...

Bonters

I think that the Thomson pending appeal against the ruling on the 2 year issue is bad news for everyone over the '2 year limit'. They will surely apply to every Judge to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal? I would if I were them :-(

kevinyork

Had a copy of Thomsons defence through the post. Previously Thomson relied wholly on the two year rule. Now they are reliant on the two year rule plus we have to prove we were on the flight and they say that the outbound flight coming to pick us up suffered an EC due to a fault with its slide delaying that flight from leaving Manchester. They never mentioned any doubt as to us being on the flight nor any technical issue in their previous letters before we lodged the claim, only in their defence papers.

The ultimate delay to our arrival back in Manchester was 5 1/2 hours. Shouldnt they have been expected to have got a replacement aircraft for the previous flight in less time than this?

Having looked through as much of this thread as is reasonably possible, should I go with a CPR 18 to request them to provide more info on the technical fault, when it was discovered, repair times, servicing etc but also to ask for confirmiation that we were on the flight?

We dont have boarding cards but we do have booking confirmations with the cruise line who packaged the flight with the cruise which shows the flight numbers and times etc. We also have copies of our cruise loyalty record showing the points earned after we had travelled on that cruise.

Also, if I do go ahead with the CPR 18, do I return the allocation questionairre as normal or hold fire?

darkwarrior

I have received a letter from my local court now it has been moved that says:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Unless the claimant does by 4pm on 2 October 2013 set out in writing why the Montreal Convention Article 35 does not apply tot his case, which ends rights to compensation after 2 years from the date of arrival at destination, or any other reason why such limitation period should not apply, then the claim will be and is hereby struck.

2. This iorder is made by the court of its own initiative. Any party affected by this order may apply pursuant to CPR 3.5 to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Any such application should be made by application notice in accordance with CPR23 and must be made not more than 7 days after the date on which this order is served.

Dated 12 of mother loving August, so that 7 day thing is probably worthless.

So the Montreal act doesn't apply because it asks for damages doesn't it? And I'm not after damages? What would be a good way to respond here as this judge seems to have already picked a side if its doing this on its own initiative.