Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Thesiteagent

sue1611 wrote: »

I am compiling my court bundle but I would appreciate some advice regarding how much detail to include in it. I am using EU261/2004, More, Wallentin, Sturgeon and Eglitis to argue against a delay in 2010 due to a knock on effect from previous flights. Do I need to respond to each point of Thomsons defence in my witness statement or can this be left to the hearing. Any advice please.

I answered all their points in my court bundle and guess what? I never heard from them again, the didn't even turn up to court.

JPears

Thesiteagent wrote: »

I answered all their points in my court bundle and guess what? I never heard from them again, the didn't even turn up to court.

lol :cool:

dxc_chappie

lolly81 wrote: »

I've received Thomson's defence to my claim. Usual stuff - was I on the flight, 2 year limit on claims and EC.

The EC they are claiming were that the aircraft intended to operate my flight experienced a fault with its 'braking system' on the flight prior to mine. It's implied (although not stated) that a replacement plane was therefore sourced. No other details about the nature of the fault to the original plane. This is the first I've heard of this fault in nearly a year of correspondence with Thomson.

I've read through lots of these posts and can't find anyone with the same EC. Any suggestions for where to go for information about brake faults, how common they are, checks that should be carried out etc? Do I have to just take Thomson's word for it that this even happened, or can I request evidence somehow?

My worry is that the judge will just see the seriousness of the term 'brake fault' and consider my claim unreasonable. Any thoughts welcome..

The details of a technical fault are only relevent if they are not inherent in the normal operation of an airline. Airlines persist in trying to use technical faults as EC in the guise of an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" and thereby exempt them from their legal obligation to pay compensation.

Read up on the Wallentin ruling (see FAQs on page 1) where a major engine failure causing cancellation was not deemed to be an EC. The ruling also sets out what measures an airline needs to take to avoid delay.

I'd suggest in your witness statement you do not focus on the details of the fault as without access to specialised technical information it will be very difficult for you to evidence any argument you put forward. Instead focus on Wallentin, the fault inherent with the normal operation of an airline, and measures short of intolerable sacrifice the airline took.

You also have in your favour the fault didn't even occur with your flight! Challenge Thomson in court with these and I'd bet they drop their EC defence and rely soley on the outcome of the 2 year limit in the Dawson appeal.

If you need a solid foundation upon which to base your arguments against technical faults being Extraordinary Circumstances Professor Lord Vauban has posted this in the Monarch thread.

Orange_Smartie

Orange_Smartie wrote: »

Wanted to give an update in my case which settled today for almost £3,000.

Our flight delay went back to December 2010 and occurred travelling from the UK to Dominican Republic.

Thomson initially said no compensation was due as the claim was outside two years. After a couple of further letters in which I pointed out their errors, I was forced to issue a claim in June.

When I received their Defence it made no mention of the two year rubbish nor did it claim EC's. Their Defence was based on blaming another airline, saying they had sub-chartered the flight and that the other airline was therefore the Operating Air Carrier.

As a safeguard, I sent a letter before action to the other airline who responded by saying Thomson were responsible.

A few days ago I received notice of directions with a hearing date for December. I was just about to make a application to add the other airline to the proceedings when this morning a letter arrived from Thomson offering to settle for half the compensation due and court fees.

I sent them an email rejecting the offer and advised that I would only settle for the full amount due plus court fees. I advised that I would be prepared to drop any claim for interest if the matter was settled this morning.

Low and behold, minutes after sending the email, I got a phone call agreeing to settle on my terms and an email followed shortly after confirming this.

From what I have read of late, there have been a few attempts by them to try and pay less than what's being claimed. My advice is hold out.

I'm going to book myself and family a nice little holiday with the money and it will come as no surprise that I won't be using Thomson!!!!!!!!! :beer:

Following on from the above settlement, I am pleased to report that the cheque arrived this morning!!!

hornet_boy

Just a couple of questions for you knowledgeable folk. I've been following the thread from the start, and am happy with the process etc.

I submitted an SAR to Thomson because two flights we were on were delayed, one by over 24 hours (Porlamar to Gatwick), the other was right on the border of 4 hours (Mombasa to Gatwick). My reasons for submitting the SAR were:

1) For the PMV flight, I don't have my booking details (was booked online and email has been deleted), so I don't have any record of the flight number, and according to Flightstats there were two First Choice flights from PMV to LGW arriving on 6/5/08, obviously with different flight numbers FCA031 and FCA187 (I'm pretty sure that there was only one actual flight). One said it landed on time, the other shows status as unknown. I asked Thomson to confirm the flight numbers of all flights I had taken between 2008 and present; I provided them with all dates to make life easier.

If anyone has access to any other sources of information than can shed light on the matter I would be most grateful.

2) The flight from Mombasa, TOM77 on 12/10/10 according to Flightstats was scheduled to depart at 4.20 giving a delay of 3 hours 55 mins, whereas my booking paperwork shows departure time of 4.10, and therefore a delay of 4 hours and 5 mins. I asked Thomson to confirm scheduled and actual flight times.

Again if anyone could clarify this, that would be fantastic.


So what was Thomson's response to my SAR? They provided details of all flights I've taken (about 8 in total, with both First Choice and Thomson), except the two that are due compensation! Apparently, those particular flight details are 'stored in a location that is outside of our control and to retrieve this information there is a cost of £1500 for each flight record, if you wish for us to retrieve this information and are willing to pay this cost, please let me know and we can arrange payment.'! £1500 is not a typo! It is very convenient, (or could that be contrived?!) that they have details of all flights before and after these dates, but not those two!

I was hoping to wait until the outcome of the Dawson appeal before completing the court papers, but this is no longer an option for the Porlamar flight given the date of the appeal hearing, so I am grateful of any help in getting the above details in order prior to sending in the papers.

Thank you for any help, and sorry for the length of the post!

JPears

hornet_boy wrote: »

Just a couple of questions for you knowledgeable folk. I've been following the thread from the start, and am happy with the process etc.

I submitted an SAR to Thomson because two flights we were on were delayed, one by over 24 hours (Porlamar to Gatwick), the other was right on the border of 4 hours (Mombasa to Gatwick). My reasons for submitting the SAR were:

1) For the PMV flight, I don't have my booking details (was booked online and email has been deleted), so I don't have any record of the flight number, and according to Flightstats there were two First Choice flights from PMV to LGW arriving on 6/5/08, obviously with different flight numbers FCA031 and FCA187 (I'm pretty sure that there was only one actual flight). One said it landed on time, the other shows status as unknown. I asked Thomson to confirm the flight numbers of all flights I had taken between 2008 and present; I provided them with all dates to make life easier.

If anyone has access to any other sources of information than can shed light on the matter I would be most grateful.

2) The flight from Mombasa, TOM77 on 12/10/10 according to Flightstats was scheduled to depart at 4.20 giving a delay of 3 hours 55 mins, whereas my booking paperwork shows departure time of 4.10, and therefore a delay of 4 hours and 5 mins. I asked Thomson to confirm scheduled and actual flight times.

Again if anyone could clarify this, that would be fantastic.


So what was Thomson's response to my SAR? They provided details of all flights I've taken (about 8 in total, with both First Choice and Thomson), except the two that are due compensation! Apparently, those particular flight details are 'stored in a location that is outside of our control and to retrieve this information there is a cost of £1500 for each flight record, if you wish for us to retrieve this information and are willing to pay this cost, please let me know and we can arrange payment.'! £1500 is not a typo! It is very convenient, (or could that be contrived?!) that they have details of all flights before and after these dates, but not those two!

I was hoping to wait until the outcome of the Dawson appeal before completing the court papers, but this is no longer an option for the Porlamar flight given the date of the appeal hearing, so I am grateful of any help in getting the above details in order prior to sending in the papers.

Thank you for any help, and sorry for the length of the post!

How convenient the details that you require are "outside of their control"
What lows will this company stoop to?
I think a letter or call to the Information Commissioner is in order
1. If the data is outside of their control, then they are not really complying with the data protection act.
2. I think even the IF would consider a fee of £1500 for each flight details a tad excessive.
Also ensure this obstructive behaviour is given an airing in your evidence to court later on.

andytricks

i have just got back from my court hearing.

Thomson sent a defence representative but not their witnesses who supplied statements about the technical 'extraordinary' problems of the plane.

the judge said that the case could not proceed without their witnesses as I had every right to be able to question their statements in court.

the judge also pointed out that in thomson's witness statements it said a part for the plane that had been ordered for the fault in question had been delayed due to wrong paperwork filing, which she said was down to bad management on thomson's behalf, not an 'extraordinary' circumstance. she stated that if thomson had have done the paperwork for the part correctly the plane would have been able to take off on time.

we were only in courtroom for a few minutes. I didn't really have to say much. the judge didn't seem to think much of Thomson at all.

the representative then offered me £1000 to settle, which I refused saying I wanted the full £1508 that I was claiming (400 euros x 4 plus court costs).

he tried to say that as I had only made the claim in my name and not all four passengers seperatley, I could only claim 400 euros for myself,and that £1000 was a very good offer.

I just said I would do 3 more separate claims for my wife and 2 kids and that I would only accept the full amount. which he then did!

result!

matt2baker

andytricks wrote: »

i have just got back from my court hearing.


result!

Well done to you!!!!!!!! :beer: :money: :j :T etc etc!!

andytricks

matt2baker wrote: »

Well done to you!!!!!!!! :beer: :money: :j :T etc etc!!

thanks.

if anyone was on the same flight and would like any info just pm me.

my flight was tom2742 to Malaga on 19/02/2012

David_e

andytricks wrote: »

the representative then offered me £1000 to settle, which I refused saying I wanted the full £1508 that I was claiming (400 euros x 4 plus court costs).

he tried to say that as I had only made the claim in my name and not all four passengers seperatley, I could only claim 400 euros for myself,and that £1000 was a very good offer.

The cheeky so and so! How come they were still trying to haggle actually in court?!

Well done, by the way!