Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Star9272

According to the answer of Thomson airways, the air carrier denies paying compensation despite the ECJ ruling.
In accordance with the 2009 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Court (CJEU) in the joined cases of Sturgeon V Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Bock v Air France SA – where the court ruled that passengers “may rely on the right to compensation laid down in article 7 of the E.C 261/2004 Regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of 3 hours” – compensation in the amount of 400 Euros per passenger is also payable in this case unless Thomson airways can successfully establish that the delay was the result of extraordinary circumstances which could not be avoided even if all reasonable measures were taken.So it happened.The technical problem of the aircraft included to the list of the extraordinary circumstances which was agreed by 27 National Enforcement Bodies
In any case, that ruling may support your case if you consider taking legal action.

It seems they aren't interested in asking Thomson anything and are using the new guidelines from 23/07/2013

I know I know waste of space.............

mpppen

Aye, Thomson are taking a ridiculous standpoint on this:

We had a delay a couple of years ago and I went due the process with Thomson.

The germane bits from their standard letter back are:

After investigating your claim for compensation, I can see from our internal airline reports that your flight was affected by a delay of 4 hours & 20 Minutes as a result of a late inbound flight.....


The delay to your flight was caused by the inbound aircraft being delayed due to a technical fault which occurred after all pre flight safety checks had been made.....



In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was a delay to another aircraft caused by an “unexpected flight safety shortcoming” arising from the discovery of a technical defect that doesn’t fall into the category of something that was or ought to have been discovered during routine maintenance.....


The technical problem in question was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of the failure of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement that scheme appropriately. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances.





Does this make sense, seems pretty nonsensical to my uninitiated eyes.

Thanks

PEN

Mark2spark

Yeah, it contradicts itself doesn't it mpppen.
But when you go to court they are now going to say it's over 2 years so no claim anyway.

Read up on it.

mpppen

Aye, I read up about the two-year rule.

I'm not sure how watertight that can be. When we returned from the trip (2010). I spoke to them and received a confirmation letter stating the length of delay and the reason thereof.

They also said they wouldn't even enter talks until the EC Compensation court case had been completed. Well that came through three years later so by their method they've just delayed talks only to then cancel them citing the two-year rule.... :mad:

Elvis1977

Hi, can anyone help, my airline says because I didn't claim within 2 years of returning turning, that I can not make a claim for compensation. Is this correct, the Airline is Thompson.

111KAB

Elvis1977 wrote: »

Hi, can anyone help, my airline says because I didn't claim within 2 years of returning turning, that I can not make a claim for compensation. Is this correct, the Airline is Thompson.

There are two posts EXACTLY above your post that answer your question.

matt2baker

If you missed it, try and find it on You Tube or BBC i-Player.....about 37 minutes into the programme.

Shame it only highlighted Thos Cook and Monarch, but the scenarios were the same - shocking treatment of their customers who were entitled to compo but given the below-zero cold-shoulder treatment and fobbed-off big time.

CAA still lifeless and limp and as an old lettuce, believing that the airlines will behave professionally and pay-up when required by law.

Some way to go yet to make sure the airlines do what they are expected to do.....................

Tigger74_2

I sent a subject access request to Thomson who have refused it on the grounds that they only keep booking ref, confirmation for 5 years and so they do not have the information to give me.What next?
I would be grateful for any help.Thanks

jenn1ewest1

I have had a letter from thomsons this week that they have sent to the court for my case to be only partly heard as they have appealed the six year rule,is there any point in me asking for it to be heard in full as they have settled out of court with people on here since having their appeal lodged as it all seems very hypocritical to me that they can pick and choose when and who with they are going to settle

JPears

Tigger74 wrote: »

I sent a subject access request to Thomson who have refused it on the grounds that they only keep booking ref, confirmation for 5 years and so they do not have the information to give me.What next?
I would be grateful for any help.Thanks

Complaint to the information commissioner. Since Statute of Limitations is 6 years in UK, if they only keep records for 5 years then they are leaving themselves wide open to legal action from the individual over claims and from the Information Commissioner for failing to adhere to the data Protection Act.