Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Cubatony2002

Cubatony2002 wrote: »

Thanks Vauban,

Just out of interest, I have read on another forum that the technical problem on the original aircraft (we ended up making the journey on a substitute aircraft) was supposedly fixed the day before. Am I within my rights/able to request a copy of the aircraft maintenance log?

Sorry, just bumping this back as it might have been lost in last nights greeneyedlad discussion.

rob_j1976

delvey wrote: »

A few questions
Firstly, in my letter from Thomson originally, the claim that the reason my flight was delayed 'due to damage caused by a third party baggage agent'. Now in there defense they claim it is due to a 'faulty fuel surge valve'. I presume I can use this in court?
And what further reading would people recommend e.g previous cases.
I have until the 30th September to pay my hearing fee. Does this mean I have to send off all documentation by then?

Hi Delvey, this seems to be a common theme with Thomson, thus far I've had 4 different resons behind my delay. For my part I'm keeping a log of the various explainations given, with the aim of presenting these when I get to court.

As for the other questions, I really have no experience.

Vauban

Cubatony2002 wrote: »

Sorry, just bumping this back as it might have been lost in last nights greeneyedlad discussion.

I believe that you can formally require the production of documents as part of CPR 18, but not once the case has been allocated to the small claims track.

There is not harm in asking for the document, and the other side's failure to produce it will likely weigh against them in court.

jimcbob

Vauban wrote: »

I believe that you can formally require the production of documents as part of CPR 18, but not once the case has been allocated to the small claims track.

There is not harm in asking for the document, and the other side's failure to produce it will likely weigh against them in court.

CPR Part 18 has nothing to do with production of documents (which is governed by CPR Part 31). Just ask for an order that they produce a copy of the aircraft technical logs on your allocation questionnaire: the court can give any special directions it likes upon allocation under CPR r. 27.4(1)(b).

jenn1ewest1

Dan-123 wrote: »

Success...

My first post here, and I would like to use it to say thank you to everyone on here who has created the FAQ's and additional advice.

I had a 4 and a bit hour delay on my honeymoon (long haul flight) back in November 2010.

I sent a letter to Thomson in May this year and got the standard 2 year reply back.

I followed this up with a NBA letter which was replied with the 'QC advice' that 2 years is correct and they would not consider my claim.

I then used MCOL to claim via small claims track.

Thomsons response was the standard, we will defend all claims and are not interested in mediation. It was at this point that i found out that the plane had taken some damage on a previous flight and my scheduled flight was affected by the knock on effect.

A couple of weeks ago, the claim was moved to my local court and up until yesterday, i was sitting waiting for a date to be set.

Yesterday i received a call from Thomson Legal offering me 50% settlement plus the court costs I had paid out. (Plus 8% interest from when they received the first letter from me)

Although I fancied my chances in court, I decided to accept the settlement offered, as i always told myself from day one that I would be more than happy with 50%. (I claimed for 600 Euros each for myself and my wife, so will be getting just over £500)

As far as i am concerned, this has been a good result.

Without these forums, i would never have had the confidence to take Thomson to court... and in turn would have not have received a penny.

I hope others will read this, and take further confidence that Thomson will do the right thing... but only if you threaten court action on them.

Its a shame that we have to do this, but i can kind of see why they use these delay tactic to avoid paying people out. (Some banks use the same trick to avoid PPI replayments)

Thomsons only yesterday told the court mediator that they would be defending my claim as it was over two years old and today they call some one to offer compensation with the same criteria think I am going to make a log to put in my bundle whilst it may not be admissible in court it might make intersting reading for the Judge

KMD7

Can someone please advise, Thomson have given final position of no comp!! Do I now just complete forms for court or must I present more info at this time? What timescale do I have to file papers? Thanks again

JPears

KMD7 wrote: »

Can someone please advise, Thomson have given final position of no comp!! Do I now just complete forms for court or must I present more info at this time? What timescale do I have to file papers? Thanks again

FTLoG :mad:, read the FAQ, read the other stickies, read the handily titled "Taking the Airlines to court thread" then proceed

Bonters

Thomson are still denying my claim, which is in the hands of Bott & Co. Their defence is (a) 2 Year rule (naturally), and (b) In the alternative, knock-on effects of bad weather conditions with other flights/airports.
However, there is now a case reported here, from Cheshire, where the judge ruled in favour of the applicant, and against Easyjet, in identical circumstances.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424672/500-payout-flight-caught-weather-chaos-Landmark-court-case-opens-door-millions-pounds-compensation-claims-dating-years.html
Gives me even more hope!

rob_j1976

Bonters wrote: »

Thomson are still denying my claim, which is in the hands of Bott & Co. Their defence is (a) 2 Year rule (naturally), and (b) In the alternative, knock-on effects of bad weather conditions with other flights/airports.
However, there is now a case reported here, from Cheshire, where the judge ruled in favour of the applicant, and against Easyjet, in identical circumstances.

[link removed]

Gives me even more hope!

An interesting article, and would hopefully serves to strengthen your claim.

Interesting to read the full range of Daily Mail readers outrage and indigation in the comments section though. Obviously members of the put up or shut up mob, "you can't expect a company to do what they're required by law to do, it'll cost too much", "it's EU medalling gone too far" or "why do some people insist on suing someone when something doesn't go their way, we're becoming like the America".......:(

DTDfanBoy

Bonters wrote: »

Thomson are still denying my claim, which is in the hands of Bott & Co. Their defence is (a) 2 Year rule (naturally), and (b) In the alternative, knock-on effects of bad weather conditions with other flights/airports.
However, there is now a case reported here, from Cheshire, where the judge ruled in favour of the applicant, and against Easyjet, in identical circumstances.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424672/500-payout-flight-caught-weather-chaos-Landmark-court-case-opens-door-millions-pounds-compensation-claims-dating-years.html
Gives me even more hope!

Typical shoddy reporting from The Daily Mail

Although this allowed them to deny payments to passengers on flights hit by bad weather, it also meant no compensation for passengers on subsequent flights that suffer delays as a knock-on effect.
However, a court in Cheshire has ruled that those on these later flights are entitled to compensation. The case centred on a claim brought by customers of easyJet, however the outcome will apply to all other UK airlines and can be backdated by six years.

This is nothing new, it has always been the case, and obviously this decision won't be binding on other courts