Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

dpccrc6

Has anyone opted for mediation through the courts yet?

111KAB

dpccrc6 wrote: »

Has anyone opted for mediation through the courts yet?

Yes plenty of reports on the various threads.

Gorbar

dpccrc6 wrote: »

Has anyone opted for mediation through the courts yet?

We optedfor mediation Thomas Cook refused, not got all their evidence together, now waiting for a hearing date. I know this should be on the T Crook page but it was to answer the above question

bluemoon55

My original post (6582 on the general forum) :-

"I was one of a party of 4 on this flight. On arrival at Gatwick we were handed a letter "for insurance purposes" which states :

"The aircraft due to operate your flight suffered a technical problem on arrival into Tenerife and engineers and parts were required from the UK to rectify the fault. As a result the crew exceeded their legally permitted working hours and were required to take rest before operating the flight back to Gatwick. The flight was therefore operated at the earliest opportunity the following day. Total length of delay 23 hours 58 minutes"

This description is at odds with what we were told - an airport announcement that the flight was CANCELLED, as indicated above.

In a call back from Thomson's UK based support team at 15:47 I was told that they had been informed by the duty office that the flight had been cancelled.

The Thomson reps' line on our coach and at the hotel was that they were acting in accordance with "airline welfare".

On collection this morning we were advised that we would each be issued with a 6 euro voucher at check in ( having each being given an 8 euro one the previous afternoon. Before pushback we were told by the flight deck that repairs were completed around 0100. During the flight we were told by a member of the cabin crew that they had remained on the aircraft for five and half hours before being released....which would loosely represent the time before the plane's arrival at TFS from Gatwick and the time the cancellation announcement was made.

So... do we claim from the airline in accordance with EEC regulations or through our travel insurance or both ?"

Finally wrote to Thomson about this a week or so ago. Their reply arrived this morning. No surprise they reject our claim on the basis that the problem was a hydraulic leak being detected prior to departure (I'm sure we were told it was a problem that developed on the inbound flight) and that accordingly the aircraft could not legally be dispatched with this defect, and the cause of the delay therefore sits under ECS, as the technical issue was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could be foreseen.

Their first argument in support of this stance is theCJEU judgement on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, BA, Easyjet and IATA v UK CAA and in a particularthe test of "all reasonable measures" and part of the latter judgement concerning Articles 5 & 7 of 261/2004 whereby if a carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by ECS which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the control of the carrier, no compensation is payable.

Their second argument is based on paragraph 14 of the preamble to the Regulation and their view is that the delay was due to an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming"

Finally they throw in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia and paras 24 & 25 and say that a problem arising outside of regular maintenance and which is not the result of poor maintenance cannot be inherent in the operation of an air carrier and is therefore ECS.

They add the fault was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement it appropriately".

Ergo the fault is ECS.

HELP !!!!!

dxc_chappie

JPears wrote: »

Thomson, as well as filing bundle with court, should out of coutesy send you a copy. I would get in touch with their legal team pointing out that bundle has not been submitted to court or you and that you will be raising this matter at the hearing.
How can you prepare further without a defence?
Laughable.

I don't think sending the claimant a copy of the defence is an act of courtesy, instead it's a direction from the court under CPR 27.4.

But I would agree that their legal team should be shouted out for blatant disregard to court directions and that it should be raised at the hearing. Unfortunately I think it's up to the judge for what action is taken - they may decide to throw out the defence altogether. Or they may decide to adjourn the hearing so you get a chance to examine the bundle, in which case you may have to wait months for another hearing.

dxc_chappie

LULU5779 wrote: »

They have included all the cases I have plus some more.

They have also included a log of all the flights for the airline from the 11th -14th may 2010 and their reasons for the delays. (If any one has delays for these dates I can email them a copy as it includes tec planes.

I'm taking the point of uk air space was clear and so was the Atlantic. Our flight was delayed due to crew hours and knock on effects from other delays. There was no crew to operate our flight back so the inbound flight crew had to rest before returning us. They have only given a log of the planes not the crew. This is not an EC even though the was delays else where and airspace closures in other parts of the world. But as on the basis on my flight only. Is that correct.

Yes that's correct. Knock-on effects and crew hours are not ECs. Concentrate on putting them to strict proof of ECs directly applicable to your flight and what measures short of intolerable sacrifice etc they took to minimise the delay.

dxc_chappie

bluemoon55 wrote: »

My original post (6582 on the general forum) :-

"I was one of a party of 4 on this flight. On arrival at Gatwick we were handed a letter "for insurance purposes" which states :

"The aircraft due to operate your flight suffered a technical problem on arrival into Tenerife and engineers and parts were required from the UK to rectify the fault. As a result the crew exceeded their legally permitted working hours and were required to take rest before operating the flight back to Gatwick. The flight was therefore operated at the earliest opportunity the following day. Total length of delay 23 hours 58 minutes"

This description is at odds with what we were told - an airport announcement that the flight was CANCELLED, as indicated above.

In a call back from Thomson's UK based support team at 15:47 I was told that they had been informed by the duty office that the flight had been cancelled.

The Thomson reps' line on our coach and at the hotel was that they were acting in accordance with "airline welfare".

On collection this morning we were advised that we would each be issued with a 6 euro voucher at check in ( having each being given an 8 euro one the previous afternoon. Before pushback we were told by the flight deck that repairs were completed around 0100. During the flight we were told by a member of the cabin crew that they had remained on the aircraft for five and half hours before being released....which would loosely represent the time before the plane's arrival at TFS from Gatwick and the time the cancellation announcement was made.

So... do we claim from the airline in accordance with EEC regulations or through our travel insurance or both ?"

Finally wrote to Thomson about this a week or so ago. Their reply arrived this morning. No surprise they reject our claim on the basis that the problem was a hydraulic leak being detected prior to departure (I'm sure we were told it was a problem that developed on the inbound flight) and that accordingly the aircraft could not legally be dispatched with this defect, and the cause of the delay therefore sits under ECS, as the technical issue was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could be foreseen.

Their first argument in support of this stance is theCJEU judgement on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, BA, Easyjet and IATA v UK CAA and in a particularthe test of "all reasonable measures" and part of the latter judgement concerning Articles 5 & 7 of 261/2004 whereby if a carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by ECS which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the control of the carrier, no compensation is payable.

Their second argument is based on paragraph 14 of the preamble to the Regulation and their view is that the delay was due to an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming"

Finally they throw in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia and paras 24 & 25 and say that a problem arising outside of regular maintenance and which is not the result of poor maintenance cannot be inherent in the operation of an air carrier and is therefore ECS.

They add the fault was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement it appropriately".

Ergo the fault is ECS.

HELP !!!!!

The help your require is in the FAQs on page 1. Despite what T have said in their reply following the Wallentin ruling technical faults are genrally not ECs. Issue your NBA and start reading these threads in detail. For an excellant detailed argument against a defence of tech faults being ECs I would urge you to read Vauban's posts in the Monarch thread.

NickyPower

Thomson have responded to my NBA stating 'EC' as in their previous response, they have gone into further detail stating 'your flight was delayed due to a technical defect with the nose wheel tyre deflation being detected prior to a previous scheduled flight. This then caused a knock on effect to your flight.'
The have gone on to say that if I am not happy with this to raise the matter with CAA. I have just been on there website to fill on online form and it states that they cannot help due to the flight leaving from IBIZA.
Can I now just apply to the courts?

Thanks:rotfl:

Vauban

Yes You Can!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Thomson seem to be exceptionally slippery with these claims