Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

nm88

Flight from Glasgow to Ibiza in September 2008 delayed around 14 hours. So far I have:

Sent the template letter to Thomson on 13/02/2013
Received the standard reply (not paying, outwith 2 years) on 07/03/2013
Just sent the template letter to CAA this morning

I've been reading through this thread which is a big help, but I'm still not sure what's next after the CAA respond to my complaint? Will Thomson change their stance and pay out? MCOL??

hopeitflys

Just looked on text on tv and brief details of new EU rulings re technical delay outlined.States technical problems do not count as exceptional circumstances. Just trying to find whole rulings on internet, but looking good for our claims up to now.

blondmark

As a side note, for the guidance of those of us up against the Thomson Tricksters in a county court, I would point out that Sidhu v British Airways Plc [1997] AC 430 is still authority for the proposition that passengers seeking damages for death or bodily injury sustained on a flight only have remedies under the Montreal Convention.

However this is not to be confused with passenger claims for delayed or cancelled flights within Europe for which the applicable law is now Regulation 261/2004, the ECJ having ruled in More v KLM that the Montreal Convention has no application to these claims.

hopeitflys

Online BBC have an update in their business news section.

blondmark

nm88 wrote: »

Flight from Glasgow to Ibiza in September 2008 delayed around 14 hours. So far I have:

Sent the template letter to Thomson on 13/02/2013
Received the standard reply (not paying, outwith 2 years) on 07/03/2013
Just sent the template letter to CAA this morning

I've been reading through this thread which is a big help, but I'm still not sure what's next after the CAA respond to my complaint? Will Thomson change their stance and pay out? MCOL??

The CAA is a superfluous step, but one that can run concurrently with the issue of proceedings. There is only one language Thomson understand and that is litigation. Give 14 days' notice of the service of proceedings today.

mboo29

Hi all, I have been following this Thomson thread with great interest.

I am trying to get compensation for a delayed flight from April 2008 from Tenerife to Glasgow that was delayed for almost 21 hours.

When I booked my holiday it was with First Choice and the flight had an FCA number, since they have merged, all documentation I have received back is from Thomson.

I sent my original letter in November 2012, finally receiving the claim forms in January 2013, and replied to Thomson days later. I now have also received my '2 years' letter and have sent an NBA letter to Thomson Company Secretary at the Crawley address.

I am now preparing to raise a small claims action.

I live in Scotland, and didn't realise the time limit for raising an action is 5 years here, so thanks Centipede for this info. (my time limit is up next month)

After speaking to a laywer briefly regarding the situation, he advised that I would have to submit my court claim to an address in Scotland as the Scottish court wouldn't have jurisdiction in England. He also advised that I would have to make sure I was raising the action against the correct company, First Choice not Thomson. I told him that all the documentation I had received back regarding the claim was from Thomson.

Is this correct? I'm now a bit confused on how to proceed and don't want to make an error when raising my court action as my time limit is almost up.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

LULU5779

Sorry if this has already been said or answered. Does anyone know if crew going out of hours on the inbound flight causeing a 24 hour delay until they have rested is something they will pay out on. I am in the same position as most people on here received the 2 year letter, served a NLA and reported to CAA. I thought I should check if it was worth it really before the 14 day deadline is up.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Hi! I wanted to let you know that I have a claim in with Thomson. My nephew also does.

I have processed mine under section 75 on my credit card and have been told by the bank HSBC that this should be fine. At the call centre they said they have been processing Section 75 claims for delayed flights. My flight was part of a package holiday with First Choice.

So if you paid by Credit Card perhaps it might be worth getting hold of your bank and getting reimbursed this way. So far, for me, it seems easier than jumping through Thomson's hoops.

My nephew however paid by debit card and cannot do any chargeback and will be suing the small claims court route.

Lozza123

blondmark wrote: »

I was slipping in and out of coma battling through this until this bit jumped off the page at me:

"In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was in reaction to a delay to another aircraft caused by an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising midflight."

So if it's right that your flight didn't have a problem, but the plane intended for you had a problem in its previous flight, we are talking about the knock-on effect of alleged extraordinary circumstances.

So that's C-22/11 Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy - read up on it.

As your negotiations have now reached deadlock you should issue proceedings without further delay.

Thankyou so much for your help in this matter I really appreciate you spending the time looking into this for me. Can I just ask, when submitting my MCOL do I need to quote all of the examples of past cases or will the courts already know this.

Cherrycherry

Hi all,
I have just received my compensation rejection for my delayed flight to Punta Cana this September. The flight was delayed over 5 hours due to technical issue on the previous flight. This is the letter I've got today:
Dear Mr........

Delays are always a real disappointment for us, not only in respect of the effect that they have on passenger enjoyment and comfort, but also there is a real financial cost to us in circumstances which are almost always not our fault. That cost makes offering the best value fares and holidays more of a challenge.
Very occasionally, though, and despite our very best efforts to prevent delays they can occur and we are truly sorry that your flight was delayed in the way that you have described.
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 form, we've looked in detail at the circumstances that surround your experience. So let's look at the specific cause of your delay.
The cause of your delay was as a direct result of a knock-on effect of the aircraft that was scheduled to service your flight. As the previous day this flight experienced a technical issue prior to take off following the aircraft completing its pre-flight checks. Therefore as this was something that was undetectable, this is classified as Extraordinary Circumstances
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, Easy Jet 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 Extraordinary Circumstances not the delay that may have been its effect.
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 an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising midflight from 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 manufactures recommendations.
In the case of the issue that affected your aircraft, the technical problem occurred while the aircraft was in-flight. As the defect in question 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, the failure in-flight was entirely unexpected. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances and compensation is therefore not payable.
Bla bla bla...
Yours sincerely....
I assume they are sending the same response to everyone
Court?