Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

stevew48

Hi all,

I was awaiting an allocation at my local court when Thompson sent me offering £500 + court fees to settle. My claim dated from 7th Jan 2011 flight to Barbados delayed by 13.5 hrs. Total cost of claim was 2 x 600 euros + interest and £70 court fee =£1270. I sent email back rejecting their settlement figure. 4 days later I had a phone call from Thompson saying that they were going to ask the court for a stay pending their appeal against Dawson. However, the offer of £500 was still available. I decided to decline their pitiful offer and will take my chance that their appeal fails.

Steve w

grazzzz

MattBarr wrote: »

But let's assume that it was a lightning strike on the incoming plane. Is that classified as exceptional, and also how can I find out the official report on the aircraft delay or repair taken?

As for finding out the actual cause I think you won't be able to force this out of them unless they are served with court action .as for a lightning strike I see this as an inherent part of flying it can and does happen others might disagree the only person that will make the decision is the judge however if you say it was on a previous flight then finnair OYJ V Timy Lassooy should come in to play

magic33

Hi, I've made my claim against Thomson for a 18hr 23 min delay from Tunisia to Edinburgh. I've had the standard letter response with all the legal jargon & I've told them I'm not happy. I've received an email today saying it was "extraordinary circumstances" as the technical fault was found when the plane was away to take off. There are lots of details which I think are lies which Thomson are making up in order to withhold compensation from us, but I would like to know what my next step would be. I contacted the CAA regarding my claim, but they passed it back to Thomson....totally confused now! Do I now threaten legal action?? Thanks

LULU5779

cheshire_mob wrote: »

Have been ploughing through the forum and wonder whether we were on the same flight? Mine was TOM188 from Manchester to Male on 12/05/2010 and was delayed nearly 24 hours due to " unscheduled maintenance". I take it you have a copy of the letter given to us on the next day? I have had my request for compensation rejected on the 2 year rubbish and have been waiting since April for the CAA to come back to me.Where are you upto and have you found anyone else on the above flight- assuming it was the above flight?

Hi I wasn't on this flight but I recently have a court case with Thomson and they sent me all the fleet details for the 11th may to 13th may 2010.

I have looked up your flight and have the following information for you:

G-DBLA departed as the TOM 188 MAN/MLE with a 23h 53m delay, the aircraft required extended maintenance following an engine change.

And

13.00 ops advs that a/c requires extended mx. Flight will be delayed 24 hours. Etd now 1535 13th. Advs AODM and servisair man. Pax will be advs to do go home if they can. Hotel accommodation will be provided for any pax that cannot leave a/p.
15.00 Accommodation is 90 rooms in the premier inn and 45 rooms in bewleys. FDS have provided a coach to do a shuttle service which will hold 49 apx. There is a separate luggage trolley.
17.15 FDS called to advise that pax staying in bewleys will go to raddisson for lunch as bewleys cannot provide.

Pm me your email if you want it scanning over to you.

Best regards

MattBarr

Hi LULU5779

The information you looked up for Cheshire mob - can I ask where did you get that information from? I'm trying to get an idea of what really happened to Flight TOM023 which was meant to depart Cancun 22:10 GMT 4/11/12 and actually departed 23:45 GMT 5/11/12 and if your search gets to that level of info it would be a big help!

Thanks and regards

LULU5779

MattBarr wrote: »

Hi LULU5779

The information you looked up for Cheshire mob - can I ask where did you get that information from? I'm trying to get an idea of what really happened to Flight TOM023 which was meant to depart Cancun 22:10 GMT 4/11/12 and actually departed 23:45 GMT 5/11/12 and if your search gets to that level of info it would be a big help!

Thanks and regards

Thomson sent me all fleet details for 11/05/10 - 13/05/10 in their defence. So I have all the info of any flights covering those dates. A bit silly really they should have just sent my flight but I think they where trying to bamboozle me with pages on pages of info.

LULU5779

jimcbob wrote: »

I don't think this has been posted yet, but the Dawson appeal is listed to be heard on either 12 or 13 May 2014.

You are joking!

The barrister in my case assured the judge it would be heard the end of this year or January 2014 when she granted the stay.

Roywad

Just had my day, well moment, in court, Bury County Court that is.
My flight was TOM893 from Bridgetown, Barbados to Manchester on 24 January 2011 which was delayed 52 hours due to an hydraulic leak and then a day later after they had repaired the leak, they found further damage to a wing i.e a missing bolt.
Thomsons put forward the usual defence:
Prove that we were on the plane, Time limited to 2 years and extraordinary circumstances.
Prior to my arrival, Thomson’s representative, a Mr Flynn, had handed the judge a copy of the Dawson and Thomson Airways case and prior to the court hearing he told me that he would be asking the judge for a stay based on the Dawson case. He also informed me that I wouldn’t need to prove that I was on the flight.
We entered the court room and the judge informed me that he had been handed the Dawson case and that he felt that he couldn’t decide whether there was a two year limit or a six year limit. I said that the question had already been decided upon by the European Court of Justice in the More case and that I thought it should be six years.
The judge said that by staying the case, there would be no prejudice against either side ( not to Thomsons and not to me as interest would be accruing on my claimed amount ) and that it would probably hinge upon extraordinary circumstances. He then told us that he was aware of another similar case in a local court where the defendant had claimed extraordinary circumstances and the judge agreed with that particular airline since they shouldn’t be expected to hold spares at every airport.
Anyway he decided that:-
1. The case is stayed pending the appeal to the Court of Appeal in Case no 2QZ57244, James Dawson and Thomson Airways, to be heard on 12 – 14 May 2014.
2. Either party may request that the case is relisted thereafter and
3. If the claim is settled, the parties must notify the court immediately.
So now I have to put it to bed for the winter and get ready for spring next year!

LULU5779

Roywad wrote: »

Just had my day, well moment, in court, Bury County Court that is.
My flight was TOM893 from Bridgetown, Barbados to Manchester on 24 January 2011 which was delayed 52 hours due to an hydraulic leak and then a day later after they had repaired the leak, they found further damage to a wing i.e a missing bolt.
Thomsons put forward the usual defence:
Prove that we were on the plane, Time limited to 2 years and extraordinary circumstances.
Prior to my arrival, Thomson’s representative, a Mr Flynn, had handed the judge a copy of the Dawson and Thomson Airways case and prior to the court hearing he told me that he would be asking the judge for a stay based on the Dawson case. He also informed me that I wouldn’t need to prove that I was on the flight.
We entered the court room and the judge informed me that he had been handed the Dawson case and that he felt that he couldn’t decide whether there was a two year limit or a six year limit. I said that the question had already been decided upon by the European Court of Justice in the More case and that I thought it should be six years.
The judge said that by staying the case, there would be no prejudice against either side ( not to Thomsons and not to me as interest would be accruing on my claimed amount ) and that it would probably hinge upon extraordinary circumstances. He then told us that he was aware of another similar case in a local court where the defendant had claimed extraordinary circumstances and the judge agreed with that particular airline since they shouldn’t be expected to hold spares at every airport.
Anyway he decided that:-
1. The case is stayed pending the appeal to the Court of Appeal in Case no 2QZ57244, James Dawson and Thomson Airways, to be heard on 12 – 14 May 2014.
2. Either party may request that the case is relisted thereafter and
3. If the claim is settled, the parties must notify the court immediately.
So now I have to put it to bed for the winter and get ready for spring next year!

So did he not decide on the EC element?

The judge I had decided it was best to hear the EC argument and make a decision on that not to waste any further court time and costs. Then once the Dawson appeal is heard the case is closed.

If anyone is facing a hearing date coming up where Thomson are claiming the 2 year ruling and requesting a stay. I strongly recommend you ask the judge to hear the rest of the case and decided on that. Judges are keen to save court time and money as stated over and over again but the judge who heard my case. Her main reason for granting the stay was to save court time and costs in the future if Thomson decided to appeal my case as well under the 2 year limit.

Roywad

He didn't want to hear anything else. As my case came up first and the judge was due to hear 9 other cases, I'd overheard someone say that they get rid of the quick cases first and I kind of thought that I wouldn't be in there that long. When the judge mentioned the other local case, I got the impression, perhaps wrongly, that he might agree with the judge in that case that needing spare parts was extraordinary circumstances.
If the case is relisted, will I get the same judge?