Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

razorsedge

Parkranger59

You might want to remove your email address from your post above and ask people to send a Private Message (PM) to you instead.

It helps stop spammers etc.

razorsedge

Parkranger59 wrote: »

We wrote a pretty "informative" letter to Ian Chapman, Director of Overseas Operations at TUI Travel Plc, 10 days ago and and received a reply a couple of days ago but not from him, only a Customer Support Advisor in Thomson Airways' After Travel Customer Support department. As such they are trying to hide behind "extraordinary circumstances" saying that since our delay was due to a third party check in system failure and so in these extraordinary circumstances no compensation is due to us!

Article 13 of EU 261/2004 allows the airline to reclaim from a third party any compensation they have had to pay out if the third party is at fault.

JPears

That depends. Why are they asking for stay? 2 year claptrap or Huzar? Areyou relying on Huzar in your submissions?

xsally83x

Huzar case which i did not include in my submission for this reason.

JPears

xsally83x wrote: »

Huzar case which i did not include in my submission for this reason.

If you are pretty confident you can win without Huzar then I would suggest you write to court objecting to stay on the grounds that you are not uing Huzar so the appeal is irrelevant.

legal_magpie

Agreed. What Huzar has decided is that hardly any technical problems can be an EC. The leading authority is still Wallentin and if you can show that the particular circumsatnces of your case are such that it can't be an EC, you can object. But Huzar removes any doubt there may be. Have they served their witness statements and other documents yet? If not you could suggest that the application for a stay is put off until they have done so
JJ

xsally83x

Yes i have had their bundle and they have quoted all the times wrong then in other documents they have put the correct times, they say that the problem was a flap slat that wasnt due to be replaced for another 7,000 miles failed. they said that once this was fixed the crew were then out of their flying time etc and new crew had to be sourced and brought in??

legal_magpie wrote: »

Agreed. What Huzar has decided is that hardly any technical problems can be an EC. The leading authority is still Wallentin and if you can show that the particular circumsatnces of your case are such that it can't be an EC, you can object. But Huzar removes any doubt there may be. Have they served their witness statements and other documents yet? If not you could suggest that the application for a stay is put off until they have done so
JJ

jayw996

jayw996 wrote: »

So the plot thickens!

Their defence is as follows.

Two main items

It exceeds two years for the claim even though I did claim a week after I returned and was told there was no claims policy with Thomson. They seem to be completely ignoring this. Maybe they have not kept the correspondence from back then......oh dear?

The second is a technical fault due to a hydraulic leak. Then the same same flight had to be diverted into London Stansted as adverse weather conditions at London Gatwick airport prevented the aircraft landing.

They are relying on the Nelson

Any views greatly appreciated.

Thanks

So as far as I can see, from reading the case, they are relying on Nelson as this would give them an argument that a diversion into stanstead, due to poor weather is an EC. Problem is that the inbound flight was already considerably delayed. Had that been on time, it could and would have landed at LGW.
Thoughts anyone?

phil70

Return flight from Cancun to Manchester on 1st Nov 2013 was delayed 20 hours. Thomson eventually (8 hours later) transferred approximately 600 plus passengers from 3 x Thomson flights to a hotel in Cancun for an extra night. Informed by reps in airport that flight information hadn't been received by the American Authorities and therefore all Thomson flights were delayed until the following day. After sending a letter to Thomson requesting compensation as per this web site, i received yesterday a letter from Thomson stating that the French company (SITA) who process flight information failed to forward the correct details onto the American Authorities, therefore we were denied access in US Airspace. To this end Thomson have said that this falls into the Extraordinary Circumstances and therefore have rejected our claim for compensation. They have however sent a cheque for £100 per passenger as way of goodwill. Can anyone on this forum offer advice in respect of our options and next course of action?

xsally83x

Dont cash the cheque!! Have you read the FAQ's on page one as this gives you everything you need to know

phil70 wrote: »

Return flight from Cancun to Manchester on 1st Nov 2013 was delayed 20 hours. Thomson eventually (8 hours later) transferred approximately 600 plus passengers from 3 x Thomson flights to a hotel in Cancun for an extra night. Informed by reps in airport that flight information hadn't been received by the American Authorities and therefore all Thomson flights were delayed until the following day. After sending a letter to Thomson requesting compensation as per this web site, i received yesterday a letter from Thomson stating that the French company (SITA) who process flight information failed to forward the correct details onto the American Authorities, therefore we were denied access in US Airspace. To this end Thomson have said that this falls into the Extraordinary Circumstances and therefore have rejected our claim for compensation. They have however sent a cheque for £100 per passenger as way of goodwill. Can anyone on this forum offer advice in respect of our options and next course of action?