Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

henshan_2

Centipede100 wrote: »

I am starting this thread for those claiming flight delay or cancellation compensation from Thomson.

Any posts regarding any other airline in this thread will be ignored (at least by me).

Hi I am after some advice please. I will try to keep this brief. Myself and my family travelled to Turkey in June 2010. We were given a hotel and a meal. I complained in writing immediately in writing when we returned home to Thomson. My claim for compensation was rejected. I have since asked for the complaint to be reopened, this has also been rejected. Thomson claim they are "subject to the framework of the Montreal Convention which provides that claims need to be brought with two years"

Is this correct as I thought it was 6 years. Does the initial letter I wrote to them not count as within 2 years.

Could do with some advice please.
Thanks

Sstaggy1

henshan wrote: »

Hi I am after some advice please. I will try to keep this brief. Myself and my family travelled to Turkey in June 2010. We were given a hotel and a meal. I complained in writing immediately in writing when we returned home to Thomson. My claim for compensation was rejected. I have since asked for the complaint to be reopened, this has also been rejected. Thomson claim they are "subject to the framework of the Montreal Convention which provides that claims need to be brought with two years"

Is this correct as I thought it was 6 years. Does the initial letter I wrote to them not count as within 2 years.

Could do with some advice please.
Thanks

This is their standard approach. I would start a new, with a claim under the EU regulations. I assume your original claim in 2010 would not have referred to this. The regulations back up the 6 year time limit for the UK (its different for each member state). I've just won my case from 2009, and from my experience I would issue the template letters on this forum (pg1) and dont waste your time with the CAA.

dxc_chappie

Kew73 wrote: »

Have now received Thomson defence for 18hr+ delay on 25/10/09 Mcr to Pathos (TOM 2730); usual stuff about having to prove we were on the flight, 6 points outlining 2year rubbish and then we get to point 11 - 'The delay to the Claimant's flight was caused by a delay to the departure time of the aircraft caused by an unexpected technical fault with the engine which required test runs. The delay caused led to a decision being made to move the flight to a replacement aircraft. However a delay in the replacement aircraft being catered led to the crew running out of flying hours to operate the Claimant's flight'.
Haven't heard the 'test runs' point before and wonder if the experts on here think it's significant?
Although it could be construed that they did attempt to recover the situation, I still think it fails the 'reasonableness' test but would welcome any other views. Thanks

Test runs would be performed to verify the engine fault was fixed and it is serviceable. But they are irrelevant - the cause of delay was a technical fault with the engine (as was the fault in the Wallentin case). What is relevant is whether or not it was a fault inherent with the normal operation of the airline, and the steps they took to avoid delay.

Since they've admitted they did not organise their resources sufficiently to avoid further delay you can use Eglitis & Ratnieks case C-294/10 in addition to Wallentin to support your claim.

Moneyedout

Please Help.
We were forced into taking out a small claim regarding a delayed flight from Paphos to Exeter airport back in September 2007 as we were nearing the six year time limit. We had had all the usual excuses and replies about the two years etc but at no time did they deny responsibility for the delay. Our flight was with First Choice and we ascertained that it is now owned and operated by TUI UK Ltd and a member of the TUI Travel Group of companies.

We named TUI Travel PLC as the defendant which they are disputing.
They claim that they did not provide us with a flight.
"That they are not the correct party and that the obligations rest with the operating carrier who performed or intends to perform the flight."
All our correspondence was sent to TUI After Travel as instructed by one of their customer care people and we have replies headed TUI and another Thomson. Who else should we have named as defendant or are they trying it on. I would be very upset if they can get out of it on such point.

David_e

Moneyedout wrote: »

We named TUI Travel PLC as the defendant which they are disputing.

If they haven't volunteered what the correct company is, I would contact them as a matter of urgency (by phone, rather than email/letter) and try and get them to tell you. If they won't, that does suggest they may be playing silly devils to avoid your claim.

From what you say, it would appear that TUI UK Ltd may be the defendant that you should have named. However, while that may be the current operator, it is possible that 6 years ago, it was another company within the group. Corporate mergers/acquisitions can be fiendishly complicated and there are often reorganisations and restructures carried out as part of the aftermath.

Have you got any of the original documentation relating to the flight and holiday? That might enable you to see which company (ie legal entity) your flight was with and whether that is indeed what is now known as TUI UK Ltd.

I'm not sure what all the legal issues are regarding a change of defendant. This is a posting on the subject:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63372385&postcount=3868

If you can establish the correct company defendant, it appears you can ask the court to add them in certain circumstances. Subject to what the correspondence you have had actually says (about what you were told by TUI, etc.), the court may be sympathetic.

If all else fails, you could fill in the N244 adding TUI UK Ltd and make it clear why there may still be uncertainty. If the airline is not co-operating, that ought to be in your favour. However, this is the law we are talking about so it may not work.

Just my thoughts.

Kew73

dxc_chappie wrote: »

Test runs would be performed to verify the engine fault was fixed and it is serviceable. But they are irrelevant - the cause of delay was a technical fault with the engine (as was the fault in the Wallentin case). What is relevant is whether or not it was a fault inherent with the normal operation of the airline, and the steps they took to avoid delay.

Since they've admitted they did not organise their resources sufficiently to avoid further delay you can use Eglitis & Ratnieks case C-294/10 in addition to Wallentin to support your claim.

Thanks for the reassurance. In earlier correspondence, they even said that the wind was blowing in an unfavourable direction for the test runs (thus contributing to the length of delay)!

Unfortunately they've never actually said what the original tech fault was (other than an EC).

Have received their Allocation Questionnaire today which says they're bringing 2 witnesses. I must say, they are now pushing the paperwork though v quickly...odd given that they've also requested for the case to be stayed until their appeal

baronsdale

Does a punchered tyre on the plane count ? i have wriiten to thomson and after numerous letters have now come back with UK law over rides EU law , is this write

DTDfanBoy

David_e wrote: »

If they haven't volunteered what the correct company is, I would contact them as a matter of urgency (by phone, rather than email/letter) and try and get them to tell you. If they won't, that does suggest they may be playing silly devils to avoid your claim.

From what you say, it would appear that TUI UK Ltd may be the defendant that you should have named. However, while that may be the current operator, it is possible that 6 years ago, it was another company within the group. Corporate mergers/acquisitions can be fiendishly complicated and there are often reorganisations and restructures carried out as part of the aftermath.

Have you got any of the original documentation relating to the flight and holiday? That might enable you to see which company (ie legal entity) your flight was with and whether that is indeed what is now known as TUI UK Ltd.

I'm not sure what all the legal issues are regarding a change of defendant. This is a posting on the subject:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63372385&postcount=3868

If you can establish the correct company defendant, it appears you can ask the court to add them in certain circumstances. Subject to what the correspondence you have had actually says (about what you were told by TUI, etc.), the court may be sympathetic.

If all else fails, you could fill in the N244 adding TUI UK Ltd and make it clear why there may still be uncertainty. If the airline is not co-operating, that ought to be in your favour. However, this is the law we are talking about so it may not work.

Just my thoughts.

The claim is against the operating Airline, if that was First Choice Airways Ltd, you should direct your claim to either First Choice Airways Ltd which still exists as a legal entity, although it is no longer trading, or Thomson Airways Ltd who now own First Choice Airways Ltd

Do not name TUI UK Ltd, as it had no direct relationship to either of those airlines

Moneyedout

Many thanks for your thoughts which are most helpful.
Have just tried to ring TUI Travel Plc Legal Dept.and surprise surprise they are having trouble with their phone lines, according to the prerecorded voice? Will try again on Monday.
I do have a copy of our online booking and our flight was a First Choice Flight No 7363. Having read various sites on the history of First Choice I thought we had worked it out but obviously not.
If all else fails we will try to add Thomson Airway Ltd as defendant if you are sure that is who we should name. Fingers crossed.

jenn1ewest1

Moneyedout wrote: »

Many thanks for your thoughts which are most helpful.
Have just tried to ring TUI Travel Plc Legal Dept.and surprise surprise they are having trouble with their phone lines, according to the prerecorded voice? Will try again on Monday.
I do have a copy of our online booking and our flight was a First Choice Flight No 7363. Having read various sites on the history of First Choice I thought we had worked it out but obviously not.
If all else fails we will try to add Thomson Airway Ltd as defendant if you are sure that is who we should name. Fingers crossed.

Hi I too had a first choice flight back before the full merger and my claim has been made with thomson airways and has never been questioned I am due in court end of November hope this helps
JH