Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

kevster74

Sorry, found the same reply on another Thomas Cook Thread.

But still need guidence on way forward.

Thanks

Poppie68

Could someone please give me an idiots guide of how to start a claim against Thomsons, i have no understanding of court procedures whatsoever.
I have had the 2 year rejection letter and contacted the CAA who have said they are investigating. Do i leave it with them or start a claim ?
Thanks in advance from a simple idiot!

blondmark

Poppie68 wrote: »

Could someone please give me an idiots guide of how to start a claim against Thomsons, i have no understanding of court procedures whatsoever.
I have had the 2 year rejection letter and contacted the CAA who have said they are investigating. Do i leave it with them or start a claim ?
Thanks in advance from a simple idiot!

If law isn't your thang, ask one of those no-win-no-fee co's to claim it for you ... one of them is called 'euclaim'.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Has anyone here now got a hearing date for a trial with Thomson?

Has anyone here actually attended a hearing and won yet?

Mark2spark

I've not seen a court case heard and won yet (with Thomson).

I suspect it will make the national press when it happens.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Mark2spark wrote: »

I've not seen a court case heard and won yet (with Thomson).

I suspect it will make the national press when it happens.

So far I have seen people state they have filed a MCOL. I have seen people report that Thomson have filed an Acknowledgement of Service and intend to defend all the claim.

I think Blondemark has had a defence from Thomson in his claim but so fare no reports of a scheduled hearing date.

It can't be long before the first Thomson case will be heard.

talljojo

I'm trying to claim on my parent's behalf. We had the standard "2 year" response, which I know is invalid and that we have 6 years to claim.

My question is, these delays were in November 2006, which is now just over 6 years ago, but our first letter to Thomson was 9 days BEFORE the 6 years were up.

Is it worth us proceeding on the basis that contact was made with Thomson before the 6 year limit, or does the claim have to be actually submitted to the court within 6 years, meaning we are now too late?

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Thanks.

Cubatony2002

Cherrycherry wrote: »

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?

Is this flight TOM162 from Manchester to Punta Cana on the 16th August 2012?

Bonters

It becomes ever more abundantly apparent that Thomson are not going to pay out anyone and are testing to see who will risk their own money by filing a claim in the Court. I look forward to their response to mine because our aircraft was on stand for the whole of the 9 hour delay, clearly visible from the Departure Lounge, and with no work being carried out whatsoever. The only reason we were given for the delay was 'Technical - crewing' and so I assume no crew was available to operate the flight. It does seem more and more suspicious that Thomson rely on almost the identical same letter for every given claim, relating to differing flights. It is so transparent that it almost beggars belief. I do wonder if there is scope somewhere here for a grouping of claims relating to different flights, to show that their response is more or less the same to all? Just a thought.

davidbrian55

still trying to find details of the flight out of norwich 31.7.07. to corfu. Flight stats. doesn't have details of any flights out of norwich on that day (it flew the next) or the next day. Have done the standard letter to dear old thompson and had the standard response. Have told them court action starts 28 days (will file april 1st) but would like flight number etc. to put on the claim form when I file the N1. Any suggestions other than flightstat. please, or anyone on that flight!

And thanks to everyone that's been posting good advice on this thread, and why is it that people don't read before posting the same old question again and again?