Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

jazw

I went to the Dominican in 2007 and I got delayed for over 10 hours.. I have filled in the form and sent off my details to Thomson only for them to come back to say they only take complaints that are under 2 years as advised by UK law. I have now taken the complaint to the CAA who have come back saying they will return the complaint to Thomson and will close the complaint.. What would be my next step if that fails and are Thomson correct??

socrates1882

jazw wrote: »

I went to the Dominican in 2007 and I got delayed for over 10 hours.. I have filled in the form and sent off my details to Thomson only for them to come back to say they only take complaints that are under 2 years as advised by UK law. I have now taken the complaint to the CAA who have come back saying they will return the complaint to Thomson and will close the complaint.. What would be my next step if that fails and are Thomson correct??

Limitation is 6 years in the UK despite what Thomson say - so it depends when in 2007.

You may need to issue court proceedings rather quickly - assuming you still can of course.

Moneyedout

panholio wrote: »

I named TUI on my MCOL form as I had a letter from them confirming "TUI" as the entity to issue proceedings against. I have included this in my court bundle. They mentioned in their allocation questionnaire that they are now Thomson Airways, the address and everything else is identical. I've had no questioning of this from the court or the judge.

I'm in court later this month and I'm not expecting it to be an issue.

Thanks for your reply which has given us a little encouragement to carry on the fight. Did they actually tell you in writing to use TUI or did you, as I did, assume it from their headed paper and telephone conversations? Perhaps, if you succeed, we can quote your case as similar to ours and yet not disputed on the incorrect defendant.
Good luck.

panholio

Moneyedout wrote: »

Thanks for your reply which has given us a little encouragement to carry on the fight. Did they actually tell you in writing to use TUI or did you, as I did, assume it from their headed paper and telephone conversations? Perhaps, if you succeed, we can quote your case as similar to ours and yet not disputed on the incorrect defendant.
Good luck.

I specifically asked them to confirm whom to issue proceedings against. They sent me a letter stating TUI Ltd. and the Luton address. They have since though changed everything to Thomson Airways in their correspondence.

ftd83

Off to court tomorrow in Manchester,

Just been going through Thomsons evidence bundle for the last time with a fine toothcomb, its full of wonders!! Not sure if anyone there ever read my claim or the defence or the evidence before sending it!!

Their 'witnesses' who where in the UK so never actually worked on the aircraft have included pages of logs which helps my case! They have included 'proof' of maintenence which is stamped in 2011, 1 year and 4 months before my flight. They also include a list from the captain of faults on the outgoing sector incluing 'terrain' warnings going off and the weather radar not working at all. The engineer report states 'cannot fix the fault now, report again later'. It gets even better when their operations manager claims that no other aircraft could not be found and that it would have cost £20,000 to charter a plane from another company which is an ' interolerable sacrifice'. In the next sentence he says they paid £63,000 in hotel bills for the 2 day delay!! Then to cap it off in his log printout as evidence it says another Thomson aircraft is 'available at Manchester airport' for both days of our delay/cancellation. He then goes on to say that they are planning to just screw the reverse thruster down and fly back as 'this meets the bare standard' for braking power given that the other one is working. Next page details nicely how the springs and gearbox are loose and 'parts are missing and sheared' from the thruster activator with no signs of external damage (proof then that there was no object hitting it!).

Then there is a nice explanation from an engineer that the 'extraordinary circumstance' part (reverse thrust activator) is an 'on condition part' which requires continual surveillance to detect a fault which they did......wait for it....16 months ago - has even put the certificate there for me!! Best part is they have kept the bit in their defence that Manchester and UK is in Greece on the front page in bold. You couldnt make it up.:rotfl:

The engineers witness statement is not signed and dated either, to be honest I was intially keen to get this kicked out but the stuff he has put in actually helps my case so may not bother with this approach!! I very much doubt that their witnesses will be present in court which I think will leave their barrister pretty exposed to their rubbish, sorry, evidence bundle. 50% of my claim is trying to reclaim the cost of my return flights which they have made no mention of so far in their defence or evidence so not sure how they are going to deny this.

Been through Wallentin and Sturgeon in fine detail today along with 261/2004. Never felt more motivated to nail these people. It is unbelievable how customers can be treated with such distain and so much lies told. I am also going to claim £90 each in witness fees for me and my partner under CPR 27. I want to cause them as much hassle and cost them as much money as I possibly can.

Will update you tomorrow. Fingers crossed it goes OK.

Its war.:)

David_e

ftd83 wrote: »

Off to court tomorrow in Manchester,

Will update you tomorrow. Fingers crossed it goes OK.

Its war.:)

Best of luck - I hope your case actually gets decided on the basis of the law!!

Lewigreg081281

Hi hopefully someone can advise on whether I'm likely to be successful.

Basically on a recent long haul flight for a family wedding all the party were delayed on both the outward and inbound journey.

2hrs delay going and 4hrs coming back.

I've tried writing to Thomson and received a load of gobbledygook (basically we aren't giving you any compensation) back hopefully someone will understand their response. From there I contacted the CAA who have replied and said they have sent the complaint back to Thomson to be reassessed. Do I now have a chance?

Here is Thomson's initial reply to the complaint:


In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union ("the Regulation") now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival.

Now that we've received your complaint, we've looked in detail at the circumstances that surround your experience. So let's look at the specific cause of your delay.

As part of our investigation I have checked our flight reports and can see your flight was delayed due to a technical defect being detected prior to a previous scheduled flight. This then caused a knock on effect to your flight. The aircraft is unable to be legally dispatched with this defect. Therefore the cause of this delay sits under Extraordinary Circumstances, as the technical issue with the aircraft was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could have been foreseen.

As confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") in the judgment on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, British Airways, EasyJet and IATA v United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, the question whether a specific delay triggers an obligation to pay a proscribed amount of compensation pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation requires consideration as to whether the long delay is a result of extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It's important to note that the "all reasonable measures" test applies to the occurrence of the EC not the delay that may have been its effect.

"In the light of the foregoing the answer to question 1 in Case C 629/10 is that Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are entitled to compensation under that regulation where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier."

Plainly speaking, a small number of passengers may be entitled to compensation for a delay that results in those passengers reaching their destination airport in excess of three hours after their ticketed arrival time. However, if the cause of the delay was not the airline's fault (i.e. the result of Extraordinary Circumstances), there is no requirement to pay that compensation.

The definition of what amounts to "Extraordinary Circumstances" is given in paragraph 14 of the preamble of the Regulation, which states:

".obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."

In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was due to a delay to another aircraft due to "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.

To some there is a fundamental misunderstanding around whether technical problems can constitute Extraordinary Circumstances with many believing that no technical problems can fall into that category at all. This is simply not true, as confirmed by the CJEU itself; their decision of Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia provides some clarity.

In that particular case, the passengers were due to travel on a flight between Vienna, Austria and Brindisi, Italy, via Rome. Unfortunately, five minutes before the intended departure time, the customers were told the flight had been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation was that a complex engine defect in the turbine had been discovered the day before during a routine maintenance check.

In determining whether the cause of the "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" could be held as Extraordinary Circumstances, the Court stated in paragraph 24 & 25 the following:


"24. In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity.

25. Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, "extraordinary circumstances? under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004."

It was therefore held that, in the event that a technical fault was found during maintenance, or ought reasonably to have been found during maintenance, the resulting cancellation may not amount to Extraordinary Circumstances.

This approach makes sense as we agree that it may not be right that a passenger ought to bear the burden of the requirement to repair a technical problem that is detected during routine maintenance. But it flows from that conclusion that a problem that arises outside of regular maintenance and which is not the result of poor maintenance can't be inherent in the operation of an air carrier and therefore will be Extraordinary Circumstances.

Maintenance of the Thomson fleet of aircraft is conducted to some of the highest standards in the world. It's another area that we take extremely seriously as it affects safety, cost and on-time performance. Our approach is to have a regime that results in a schedule of assessment, service and part replacement which is significantly better than the manufacturer's recommendations.

In the case of the issue that affected your aircraft, the technical problem was detected just prior to its departure and 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.

At Thomson Airways we really value our ability to meet customer expectations. We already invest significantly in operational initiatives, engineering excellence and having a modern fleet; they all help to keep the frequency and duration of delays to an absolute minimum.

Observing the purpose and spirit of the Regulation and doing so while continuing to deliver real value to our customers is a challenge that can only be met by applying the rules robustly and not making payments where the delay is not our fault. Were we not to apply the rules in the way that we must, prices would need to rise for you and all other customers.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. We sincerely hope, and are doing all we reasonably can to ensure, that your future flights with Thomson Airways arrive on-time.

Yours sincerely,

It's really annoying to say we didn't get offered any food vouchers or refreshments for the 4hr delay in particular on the way back. Our party had spent a lot of money with Thomson as i'm sure many of the passengers did

I have today received a reply from the CAA:

Dear passenger,

We are writing to update you on your claim for compensation for a disrupted flight. Please accept our apologies if you have received this email previously. A number of passengers may not have received our earlier update and this email reconfirms the current status of your claim. As you may be aware, compensation for disrupted flights is subject to whether the reason for the disruption was beyond the airline’s control, known as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and whether the airline undertook reasonable measures to avoid the consequences of the disruption.

The Civil Aviation Authority has been working with other National Enforcement Bodies across Europe to help understand what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are in relation to flight disruptions, in light of Regulation EC 261/2004 and European case law. The results of that work have been published on the European Commission’s website:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

You can read more about the CAA’s role for resolving disputes about disrupted flights here:

https://www.caa.co.uk/extraordinarycircumstances


We have asked airlines to reassess complaints that have been received by the CAA in light of this new guidance. We have now sent your complaint back to the airline for their reassessment and they will respond to you directly within the next eight weeks.

We have closed your complaint and are unable to enter into further correspondence on this issue as your complaint is with the airline for a reassessment. Please note that at this stage, we have not made an assessment as to whether compensation may be due on your specific claim under the Regulation.

Thanks

matt2baker

Lewigreg081281 wrote: »

Hi hopefully someone can advise on whether I'm likely to be successful.

I'm afraid no-one can 100% say yes you'll be successful - all you need to do now is start at page 1 on this thread..........and read on. You have plenty to catch up on I'm afraid.

It also depends whether your delay (not the 2 hour one, it's not claimable, but the 4 hour one) was within the last 6 years (or 2 years if you want to believe Thomson who ignore the law).

by the way, I cannot understand why you bothered to involve the CAA - this thread is littered with reasons not to!

JPears

ftd83 wrote: »

Off to court tomorrow in Manchester,

Just been going through Thomsons evidence bundle for the last time with a fine toothcomb, its full of wonders!! Not sure if anyone there ever read my claim or the defence or the evidence before sending it!!



Will update you tomorrow. Fingers crossed it goes OK.

Its war.:)

Would love to be fly on the wall.

laticsforlife

Lewigreg081281 wrote: »

Hi hopefully someone can advise on whether I'm likely to be successful.

Basically on a recent long haul flight for a family wedding all the party were delayed on both the outward and inbound journey.

OK, so one good thing is we are presumably talking about within the last two years so no issue with timing arguments.

You do have a case but as the previous pages will attest, Thomson like to fill your postbox and inbox with as much baffling and legal mumbo-jumbo as they can to put you off.

You now need to write them a LBA/NBA(Letter/Notice Before Action), and you can find this on page 1 of this thread.

Whilst that is out with Thomson, read the 88 pages of posts (change your settings to display 40 posts per page) it makes 88 seem less than 176 with 20 per page, LOL!!

Theres a whole lot of repetition, but you can pull out useful posts and tips as to what you are in for, how long it takes, and the likely result based on your facts.

As its a knock-on flight effect you already have one plus point, although I know Thomson are trying to argue that if the root cause is an EC and it causes a knock-on delay then so-be-it (I'm not agreeing with that, just they are trying to bamboozle judges into seeing it that way, ignoring the intolerable sacrifice line of the regulation, and the judgements of Wallentin and others). NB you will of course be arguing that its not an EC anyway, and just a regular technical issue.