Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

blondmark

Exxy1988 wrote: »

This was a flight booked as part of a package with Thomson, although it tends to be Monarch aircraft that runs on the route. They definately announce it as a Thomson flight and it runs under a Thomson code. I would have though that as I have a contract with Thomson they were liable.

You would be right if you were suing in contract, but you're not. You're suing to recover compensation under a statutory entitlement called Regulation 261/2004 which expressly states that the party liable to you is the party operating your flight. You could sue Thomson on an entirely different basis, but that wouldn't be under the legislation concerning delayed flights.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I have seen a reply saying someone has finally got a hearing date but it is not until 30 April 2013. It is not against Thomson unfortunately.

Do you have a court hearing date yet Blondmark?

I have seen remarks on here where basically Thomson are telling people to take them to court. Surely this is wrong? I thought the whole point of the court system was to avoid court action and court action is a last resort? Thomson should just pay and then that avoid this. I had a similar conversation with their after travel team who basically insinuated that I should take them to court. This attitude should be very much frowned on at a hearing.

blondmark

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I have seen a reply saying someone has finally got a hearing date but it is not until 30 April 2013. It is not against Thomson unfortunately.

Do you have a court hearing date yet Blondmark?

I have seen remarks on here where basically Thomson are telling people to take them to court. Surely this is wrong? I thought the whole point of the court system was to avoid court action and court action is a last resort? Thomson should just pay and then that avoid this. I had a similar conversation with their after travel team who basically insinuated that I should take them to court. This attitude should be very much frowned on at a hearing.

No I don't have a hearing date yet. Where a party is confident that it has a valid defence to a claim, there would be nothing wrong in inviting its opponent to take it to court if the other side wish to continue pursuing their claim. However in Thomson's case they are clearly taking this path, not because they think they have a valid defence, but because experience shows that most consumers, unsure of their ground, will back down, and Thompson can then pocket the compensation they ought to be paying to the consumer.

So yes, it is certainly dishonest.

Mark2spark

I've edited the link in my post
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_046/l_04620040217en00010007.pdf
which is just to the EU261/2004 regulation.

So, in the case above at post # 461, the claim is indeed against Monarch, even though it's a package booked with Thomson, with a Thomson TOM flight code?

Mark2spark

It's quite possible that some unobservant people would not know that they are with a different air carrying company.

chelle_375

Hiya

We were delayed by 23 hours a couple of weeks ago (TOM122 on 26/02/2013) due to technical and crew issues. Not expecting this to be easy at all but can anyone advise if we are better claiming ourselves or claiming off the credit card company?
Also this is probably going to be a long shot (and I feel really greedy!) but this was a 23 hour delay on an outbound package holiday, can we claim for 1/14th of the holiday cost as well (as paid for 14 nights but only had a 13 night holiday as spent the first night in airport hotel at Manchester)?

Thanks

Mark2spark

Claim direct with Thomson airlines for the mandatory flight delay compensation.
A claim against loss of package holiday is an unknown to me, but obviously the claim is against the tour operator.
A claim against the CC co is the last resort.

blondmark

Mark2spark wrote: »

It's quite possible that some unobservant people would not know that they are with a different air carrying company.

Definitely, but of course the airline has a duty under the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct to provide full details of their defence before you sue, including the identity of the party who was the so called 'operating air carrier'. If they refuse to cooperate with this process, you can ask the court to order the defendant to pay your costs, win or lose, even in the small claims track.

If you have to make a £45 Application to amend the defendant because they refused to disclose who it was, you can ask the court to order that they pay it. Admittedly these steps are a nuisance, but it's the nature of claiming against dishonest airlines whose policy it is to treat their passengers with utter contempt.

cymru_am_byth_2

Hi all, very interesting thread.

Flight TOM182 from MAN to CUN 13/12/12 was delayed 24 hours.

I have written to Thomson and have received this response:

"After reviewing our internal flight reports, I can see that your flight was delayed due to a defect with the flap slat on the wings of the aircraft. Whilst it was originally thought that this would be cleared without causing a delay, it became apparent that further investigation and spare parts were needed. Unfortunately, once the delay was taken into account we needed to source a new crew which further impacted your delay. Under the EU regulations, in order to establish the cause of your delay, we have to look at the root cause. In this instance the root cause of your delay was the technical issue with the flap slat and would be classed as extraordinary as the part that rectified the issue was not the part that was initially required"

They then quote Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 and IATA v United Kingdom CAA

“The question whether a specific delay triggers an obligation to pay a proscribed amout onf 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”

It then explains the preamble to the regulation which cites unexpected flight safety shortcomings may be an extraordinary circumstance.

“In the case of your flight, the cause of the delay an “unexpected flight safety shortcoming” arising from the discovery of a technical defect or failure of a part.”

They then mention “Thomson safety regime results in a schedule of assessment, service and part replacement which is significantly better than the manufacturers recommendations.”

“As with any part in a complex machine, aircraft parts have a certain life expectancy, and during this life expectancy, the part is most likely to experience problems when it is first installed and when it is nearing the end of its life. Unfortunately in this case, a part which was not expected to fail was found to have failed during routine maintenance.

It is clear that failure of a part outside of its life expectancy is not inherent in the operation of an air carrier and is actually quite unusual.

As a result of this part failure, repairs had to be made to aircraft before it could leave the hangar (we sat in the plane for 2 hours at the gate!!) and this resulted in an unexpected delay to your flight.

As these circumstances were entirely unexpected and outside of our control, there is no entitlement for compensation for the delay”


I’ve got a feeling they’re trying it on here hoping I’ll go away! Is it worth writing to the CAA to see if the fault is considered to be extraordinary or should I issue an NBA?

P.S the bad grammar is theirs not mine!

Vauban

cymru_am_byth wrote: »

Hi all, very interesting thread.

Flight TOM182 from MAN to CUN 13/12/12 was delayed 24 hours ...

I’ve got a feeling they’re trying it on here hoping I’ll go away! Is it worth writing to the CAA to see if the fault is considered to be extraordinary or should I issue an NBA?

This seems like complete bollox to me: I'm not sure why they are citing those cases, which don't address the points at issue at all (and which any case the airlines lost). The only judgements that matters here are Sturgeon and - on technical difficulties - Wallentin (read paras 23-27 in particular).

I would write a Notice Before Action, citing the relevant provisions of Wallentin and giving the airline 14 days to either settle or provide a clear explanation of the 'extraordinary circumstances' defence, else you will take them to court.

I am not a lawyer, but the airline are trying it on!