Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

JPears

Thesiteagent wrote: »

Jackoonline, it sounds as though you have the best Judge in the country and at a guess I would say he/she is on your side!!!

it could also be that the judge is already aware of claims for this flight and they maybe grouped, as is happening with a Monarch case? But it does look as though the judge is putting some effort in in advance of the hearing

David_e

JPears wrote: »

But it does look as though the judge is putting some effort in in advance of the hearing

That is good. I thought I had read that the judges see nothing before the day of the hearing.

Only issue I have is what the answer to C) [on how many occasions in the 24 months immediately preceeding this flight ...] demonstrates. I thought that (in teh Wallentin case) frequency was determined to not be an issue?

"Para 37 ... the frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ .... "

happychap7

jackoonline wrote: »

Hi, just a bit of advice needed. 10.5 hrs delayed LBA - PALMA, 25 May 2013. I'm going through the process and my last transaction was completing the allocation and it has been transferred to my local court, Leeds. So I was just waiting for a date in court.

Received letter today from court:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Defendant shall clarify its defence by 4pm 28 days from today by filing at court and serving on the Claimant a statement setting out:

A) whether there have been any other claims in respect of this flight;

in the event that there have, provided the:
i) details of the case number and court in which the matter is proceeding
ii) the results if know of the case.

C) on how many occasions in the 24 months immediately preceeding this flight have any of the Defendant's aircraft suffered damaged spoiler problems.

D) In the event that the Defendant fails to comply with this direction then the defence shall stand stuck out and judgment shall be entered for the damages claimed costs and interest upon the application of the Claimant.

2. Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within 7 days of service of this order.

---

So it is para 2 that has confused me - not sure what I should be doing next. Any help gratefully received.

I want your judge too!

jackoonline

Vauban wrote: »

I dont think you should be doing anything. You are the claimant, and these are instructions for the defendant.

Can I have your judge, please?

District Judge Neaves - Leeds County Court.

MattBarr

Just found out a bit more information about my TOM023 flight delay claim that's being stonewalled by Thomson. On another forum a traveller is asking about the preceding flight TOM022 which had a 24 hour delay for the same reasons they gave us : lightning strike, replacement aircraft had faulty door then crew went over hours hence 24+ hours in getting the plane to Cancun so we could fly home in it.

My understanding is that delay claims can only apply to MY flight and the preceding flight can have no bearing on it: as Thomson seem to be blaming the preceding TOM022 flight for the 24h delay in TOM023 being available can they do that, and does this make my case stronger?

Thanks,

Matt

MattBarr

MattBarr wrote: »

Just found out a bit more information about my TOM023 flight delay claim that's being stonewalled by Thomson. On another forum a traveller is asking about the preceding flight TOM022 which had a 24 hour delay for the same reasons they gave us : lightning strike, replacement aircraft had faulty door then crew went over hours hence 24+ hours in getting the plane to Cancun so we could fly home in it.

My understanding is that delay claims can only apply to MY flight and the preceding flight can have no bearing on it: as Thomson seem to be blaming the preceding TOM022 flight for the 24h delay in TOM023 being available can they do that, and does this make my case stronger?

Thanks,

Matt

Just found out that MAGNAMAN won his case against Thomson for the preceding flight TOM022 and the windscreen / door & slide fault: as this was the flight that was due to come to Cancun and take us home then I hope this reinforces my case I intend to bring against them! I'm going to write a final stern letter first, any suggestions as to how I proceed wording this?

MattBarr

MAGNAMAN - is there a case reference you could give me for your case so I can quote that in my letter to them as evidence it was my preceding flight and not my actual one that caused the delay, and they can't use that as a defence?

Mark2spark

MattBarr wrote: »

Just found out a bit more information about my TOM023 flight delay claim that's being stonewalled by Thomson. On another forum a traveller is asking about the preceding flight TOM022 which had a 24 hour delay for the same reasons they gave us : lightning strike, replacement aircraft had faulty door then crew went over hours hence 24+ hours in getting the plane to Cancun so we could fly home in it.

My understanding is that delay claims can only apply to MY flight and the preceding flight can have no bearing on it: as Thomson seem to be blaming the preceding TOM022 flight for the 24h delay in TOM023 being available can they do that, and does this make my case stronger?

Thanks,

Matt

My reading of the EU261 Regulation is that meteorological conditions are only EC's, to the flight concerned.
IMO a lightning strike is a meteorological condition.

andytricks

i have a court hearing on wednesday with thomson.

mine was a delayed flight TOM2742 to malaga on 19th feb 2012.

they are saying the flight was delayed to an exceptional circumstance, which was a problem the airplane's flight management system.

basically the main point will be me arguing that this does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance and that a fault with the aircraft should surely be their responsibilty.

ive just been looking through the posts here and saw that quite a large number have won their cases. has anyone on here lost a case where the airline argue that a fault with their plane was an exceptional circumstance?

Bonters

MattBarr wrote: »

Just found out that MAGNAMAN won his case against Thomson for the preceding flight TOM022 and the windscreen / door & slide fault: as this was the flight that was due to come to Cancun and take us home then I hope this reinforces my case I intend to bring against them! I'm going to write a final stern letter first, any suggestions as to how I proceed wording this?

You won't have to read very much at all on here to know that no matter how stern your letter to them is, it will be a total waste of time. They do NOT respond favourably to letters........................ever. It will only waste some more time. Either you start Court proceedings (or get a NWNF Company to do it for you), or you quit. Those are the only realistic options. I'd forget the final 'stern letter' and fire an NBA at them instead, recorded delivery. Good luck, whatever you decide