Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

GM1965: You gave my sympathies. All you can do is to bring it to court and expose the nonsense.

bigmama1

jimcbob wrote: »

I am in the same position. 14 days expired yesterday, but no payment. I have emailed them today to say that I will issue a request for a writ of execution unless they pay by the end of the week.

Contact the Sheriffs. They act for the courts and ALWAYS get the money back, with interest!

megmilly

my flight was delayed by 10 hours in 2010 , and by the time i became aware of flight delay claims , i had destroyed all paperwork to prove i had ever booked the flight etc. I booked this holiday at my local Thomson branch. I asked them in store if they could pull my booking up for me , which they did , flight number , ref number etc . I have taken Thomson to small claim court , they have replied and are contesting it , they have asked for boarding passes of which i do not have , but am confident i have enough proof now if needed

LULU5779

Centipede100 wrote: »

I have no doubt that the Dawson appeal will be overturned by the CoA eventually so you should get some spending money in time for next summer.

QUOTE]


Thank you centipede, I do so hope the appeal gets overturned, I dont have a legal mind to assess this but the barrister seemed very convinced that they where right.

I know thats what they are suppose to done but i even asked him afterwards if he truely believed in the 2 year rule is correct and he said yes he has read the cases and believes its not six years.

I have all the appeals paperwork from dawson and if anyone wants me to scan it over to them.

LULU5779

bigmama1 wrote: »

Contact the Sheriffs. They act for the courts and ALWAYS get the money back, with interest!

i guessing this was a court win? did the 2 year rule come in to it? they might be appealing thats why they are not paying out.

markavo1

Well I have had my half day in Court this morning.

My flight was TOM167 from Dominican Republic to Manchester on 6th December 2011. We were delayed 7 1/2 hours as a result of a technical defect being found prior to our aircraft departing Manchester on its outbound trip to the Dominican. The defect quoted by Thomson was a fault with the electronic engine control, and claimed that this part had only been replaced 2 weeks before our flight. They claimed the part normally has a life expectancy of 9500 hours and therefore a failure of the part just two weeks into its life, was extraordinary and could not have been forseen. They included a document from the CAA on how they view extraordinary circumstances and a paper by Mr Croon, defence council for Transavia Airlines.

We arrived at Newcastle County Court this morning, and met Thomson's barrister, a Mr Pacey of Trinity Chambers. Thomson had requested me to prove I was on the flight, and that I suffered a loss. Mr Pacey informed me that they would not be arguing these points, and was accepting I was on the flight and that there was no requirement for me to prove I suffered any loss. He told me that he was just going to concentrate on the elements of extraordinary circumstances, and that the part was only 2 weeks old when it failed. Thomsons had included two witness statements, one from the programme deliver manager, and one from the engineering manager. Mr Pacey confirmed that neither witness would be present for the hearing

Into court we went, and Mr Pacey opened by telling the district judge that he agreed with all elements of my statement and that I was on the flight, and asked the judge if we could just deal directly with the issues of extraordinary circumstances. The judge asked me whether I agreed with the elements of Thomson's witness statements. This is where it started getting interesting. Thomson's statements were riddled with errors. They included 2 exhibits, one was an operational report for the day in question, one of was a printout from the fault system showing the sequence of events for the fault being discovered. One showed that the fault had been found on the flight to operate TOM112 MAN to MBJ. The other showed the fault was discovered on TOM188 MAN to MLE. The statement of the programme delivery manager said the fault was discovered on TOM166, the outbond flight to Dominican. I pointed out to the court that all the evidence was contradictory, and could not show with any certainty that the fault was found on the outbound flight to the Domincan. She agreed, and gave Mr Pacey 15 minutes to phone Thomson's to clarify the issues.

He came back and tried to explain the errors, some of which the judge did seemed to understand and allow. So we pressed ahead with the case. I claimed that the fault was not extraordinary due to all the reasons included in Wallentin, and that even if extraordinary, Thomson had not provided any evidence to the Court of what they had done to try and avoid the circumstances leading to the long delay of the flight. Mr Pacey's case centred around the fact that part was so new, it could only be a hidden manufacturing defect that caused the defect, and used the caviot in the Regulation to show that it should be extraordinary.

Unfortunately for Thomson, in the paperwork from the CAA which they had included in their bundle, there was graph which was meant to illustrate the likelihood of a part failing measured against the age of that part. That graph showed that it is just as likely that a part would fail in the early stages of use, as it would at the end of its natural life. I therefore argued that this meant a failure of a part during the early stages of its life is far from extraordinary.

This clinched it for me. The judged summed up that she had concerns over the quality of the evidence offered by Thomson, and the fact that the witnesses had not turned up and could not be cross examined, meant she could rely even less on it. She stated that Thomson had failed to prove extraordinary circumstances, as in the graph from the CAA that they included in their own bundle, shows that Thomson's should be aware of the risk of early failure of a part. She would not rule on whether Thomson had done all they could do avoid the delay, because she stated that Thomson had not proved extraordinary circumstances, and thus awared €600 for both myself and my wife, together with court costs and interest.

On the way out of Court, Mr Pacey shook my hand and told me that he was almost embarrassed at the evidence provided by Thomson, that he was supposed to fight a case on

lostintransition

Newbie here, been reading the thread & FAQ since it started but hit a head wind for Thomson

My flight from Greece was delayed as we had to pick up passengers from another airport which is not extreme circumstances

But now they say that a baggage issue caused the delay in the first place at our departure airport which related to security

Can I argue anything back or do I bend over. and take it?

Vauban

lostintransition wrote: »

Newbie here, been reading the thread & FAQ since it started but hit a head wind for Thomson

My flight from Greece was delayed as we had to pick up passengers from another airport which is not extreme circumstances

But now they say that a baggage issue caused the delay in the first place at our departure airport which related to security

Can I argue anything back or do I bend over. and take it?

Details please. When? What route? Did you leave on time or not? If so, there can have been no delay at your departure airport, surely?

lostintransition

Vauban wrote: »

Details please. When? What route? Did you leave on time or not? If so, there can have been no delay at your departure airport, surely?

I've read that Thomson read so I don't want to jeopardise myself too much. It was 3years ago we left the airport later maybe half to one hour on the way home & then the total delay was over 4 hours as a result of fetching other passengers. The latter is not extreme circumstance but what about the unaccounted? baggage thing at the start which they claim doesn't count as extreme circumstance making my whole thing invalid? My next step was mcol but don't know now.

JPears

markavo1 wrote: »

Well I have had my half day in Court this morning.



On the way out of Court, Mr Pacey shook my hand and told me that he was almost embarrassed at the evidence provided by Thomson, that he was supposed to fight a case on

Many congratulations on your win - another chalked up.:beer:
The sad thing is these barristers go into court totally unprepared. Surely anybody worth their salt would have checked the evidence made sense?
It would appear that they are so much up their own a***s and don't give a S**t cos the fees are still in the bank as far as they are concerned.
Somebody should let airline's shareholders know how much money they are throwing away at these cases....