Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Mark2spark

Culraven wrote: »

Following the recent ruling we attempted to apply for compensation in November last year after waiting 59 days we received the compensation form. We were told the reason for the delay was that they were investigating our claim, and we would either get a letter saying we were not entitled or a compensation form, this was confirmed by several members of staff, although Thomson refuse to check if any of these calls are recorded. We initially complained to the store upon returning from our Holiday, and were told that we did not fit the criteria to claim compensation, we also checked the brochure which confirmed what we had been told in store.

After almost 4 months we have now been informed that we are not entitled because we should have claimed within 2 years, but as they advised we were not entitled to compensation, and certainly did not inform us of the ongoing legal battle at the time this does not seem ethical?

I've spoken again with them and they actually advised me to take them to court, do I still need to put them on notice as they have advised me to take this course of action?

There is a link in the FAQ's to this post:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59667671&postcount=215
The wording of the link is:
"Explanation of the legal process of NBA, 14 days notice before court claim."

So, like Centipede has stated elsewhere, I will now no longer answer any questions where the answer can easily be found in the FAQ's.
Please don't take this reply personally culraven.
If people are going to be taking airlines to court, then they need to wise up a bit, and read and learn for themselves, hence why the FAQ's have been created, in the spirit of MSE.

hopeitflys

I emailed my MP last week re 2 year letter and received a reply today asking for all documents to be sent to him and he will draft a letter to Thomson asking for an explanation. He agrees that the time limit is 6 years. For anyone not wishing to go the extra step and take Court action the more people who contact their MP the more pressure will be put on Thomson. I will let you know if he gets a reply but I doubt it.

Mark2spark

I don't dispute that telling MP's about Thomson's behaviour can only be good.
But don't take your eye off the end game, ie receiving your rightful compensation. All the letters in the world to MP's etc won't achieve that.

blondmark

Culraven wrote: »

Following the recent ruling we attempted to apply for compensation in November last year after waiting 59 days we received the compensation form. We were told the reason for the delay was that they were investigating our claim, and we would either get a letter saying we were not entitled or a compensation form, this was confirmed by several members of staff, although Thomson refuse to check if any of these calls are recorded. We initially complained to the store upon returning from our Holiday, and were told that we did not fit the criteria to claim compensation, we also checked the brochure which confirmed what we had been told in store.

After almost 4 months we have now been informed that we are not entitled because we should have claimed within 2 years, but as they advised we were not entitled to compensation, and certainly did not inform us of the ongoing legal battle at the time this does not seem ethical?

I've spoken again with them and they actually advised me to take them to court, do I still need to put them on notice as they have advised me to take this course of action?

In your case, no. The sole purpose of a few weeks' notice is to allow the defendant an opportunity to provide a substantive defence to your claim and thereby avoid litigation. Much of the CPR is about minimising unnecessary conflict. However if the airline tells you that they have already reached their final position and have even invited you to sue, or if your negotiations reach deadlock, then the notice period serves no function and therefore no further notice is required.

hopeitflys

I don't hold out much hope that Thomson will pay out just by getting a letter from your MP but I am in the favourable position that solicitors through an insurance policy are dealing with the Court side of my case leaving me time to explore other options. Don't know how many MP's it takes to get the head of Thomson's infront of a committee of MP's to answer questions but there must be enough of us disgruntled customers to get somewhere near if we all write in.

Gorbar

hopeitflys wrote: »

I emailed my MP last week re 2 year letter and received a reply today asking for all documents to be sent to him and he will draft a letter to Thomson asking for an explanation. He agrees that the time limit is 6 years. For anyone not wishing to go the extra step and take Court action the more people who contact their MP the more pressure will be put on Thomson. I will let you know if he gets a reply but I doubt it.

I also contacted our MP. Received a letter this morning asking for all the correspondence, she also informed me that she as contacted our MEP . Lets hope everybody does the same

Cherrycherry

Cubatony2002 wrote: »

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

No, this is the flight from London Gatwick to Punta Cana on the 7th of September 2012

hopeitflys

Received in post this morning a letter from Thomson stating that as I had contacted them in 2008(luckily had kept all letters as had sent copies to trading standards at that time)then they are able to look into the cause of my delay(technical fault with undercarriage)and will contact me asap with full details.Have already sent them case law re knock on effect etc our plane was not at Manchester and replacement had to be sent for so see what they come up with now. So have they now realised the 2 years they previously quoted no longer applies?

hopeitflys wrote: »

I don't hold out much hope that Thomson will pay out just by getting a letter from your MP but I am in the favourable position that solicitors through an insurance policy are dealing with the Court side of my case leaving me time to explore other options. Don't know how many MP's it takes to get the head of Thomson's infront of a committee of MP's to answer questions but there must be enough of us disgruntled customers to get somewhere near if we all write in.

helenm4920

Hi
Today I received my letter from Thomson stating I'm not entitled to compensation.

Can anyone help me please.

I was on a flight to Cancun in January 2011 and was delayed 24 hrs 59 minutes !!! Due to the aircraft due to operate my flight being late inbound from its previous rotation.

Thomson have said the flight was delayed due to the capacity limitations within the Thomson long haul fleet. The root cause of the delay, and your flight was a reactionary delay due to previous scheduled flight experiencing a technical issue prior to take off. This was a hydraulic leak which could not have been foreseen and was not caused due to poor maintenance. Therefore this is classified as extraordinary circumstances.

They then quote the judgement on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, British Airways, Easyjet and IATA v United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority.

They said " in the case of your flight, the cause of the delay was an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising from a 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."

They also quote "Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia in relation to a fundamental misunderstanding around whether technical problems can constitute extraordinary circumstances.

Please can someone advise as to what I should do next and if I have a valid claim ( I think I do and they are just fobbing me off. This problem was on the previous rotation not my flight.)

Thanks

blondmark

helenm4920 wrote: »

Hi
Today I received my letter from Thomson stating I'm not entitled to compensation.

Can anyone help me please.

I was on a flight to Cancun in January 2011 and was delayed 24 hrs 59 minutes !!! Due to the aircraft due to operate my flight being late inbound from its previous rotation.

Thomson have said the flight was delayed due to the capacity limitations within the Thomson long haul fleet. The root cause of the delay, and your flight was a reactionary delay due to previous scheduled flight experiencing a technical issue prior to take off. This was a hydraulic leak which could not have been foreseen and was not caused due to poor maintenance. Therefore this is classified as extraordinary circumstances.

They then quote the judgement on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, British Airways, Easyjet and IATA v United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority.

They said " in the case of your flight, the cause of the delay was an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising from a 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."

They also quote "Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia in relation to a fundamental misunderstanding around whether technical problems can constitute extraordinary circumstances.

Please can someone advise as to what I should do next and if I have a valid claim ( I think I do and they are just fobbing me off. This problem was on the previous rotation not my flight.)

Thanks

Your hunch that you do have a valid clam and the airline is just fobbing you off is spot on. It is quite bizarre that they should cite those particular cases because all they prove is that the original rulings (of an important case called Sturgeon) that the airlines attempted to overturn stand, and their challenge failed.

Cases that are relevant to your claim are Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) and also Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia, but the "fundamental misunderstanding" they refer to is actually theirs, not yours.

You should give the airline 14 days' notice of the issue of proceedings, and demand that they evidence with full particularity the precise nature of the alleged "unexpected flight safety shortcoming".

They are unlikely to cooperate with you, so you should issue proceedings after the 14 days expires.