Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

One for a NWNF firm IMO Matt, too difficult for you to prove really. To get the info to prove it in court I mean.

I think this is a very difficult claim to win.

MattB15

Vauban wrote: »

I think this is a very difficult claim to win.

Thanks. I think it looks a bit of a dead end unfortunately. Will push them one last time for more info out of hope rather than expectation.

Saffys_Mum

Centipede100 wrote: »

I am starting this thread for those claiming flight delay or cancellation compensation from Thomson.

Any posts regarding any other airline in this thread will be ignored (at least by me).

My husband and I were delayed by 23 hours 50 minutes on our return flight from Jamaica. The captain told us that he couldn't get the intercom system to work and was not prepared to fly the plane. Today we received a three page letter from Thomsom saying that it was a fault on the aircraft that they could not have foreseen and basically "go away as you won't be getting anything"

Help please!!

111KAB

Saffys_Mum wrote: »

Help please!!

Read thread - you are entitled to compensation - go either DIY or NWNF - start on Page One - enjoy your compensation.

Jerry2014

I've been following this very helpful thread since starting correspondence with Thomson about a 6 1/2 hour delay from Fuerteventura to Gatwick in December 2013.

The incoming aircraft taxied at Gatwick, but then returned to stand with a fault. The passengers and bags were reloaded to a replacement aircraft. The aircraft arrived in Fuerteventura 3 1/2 hours late. This replacement aircraft was parked at the gate in Fuerteventura for a further 4 1/2 hours while a new crew was flown in from around the UK on various flights. Our flight arrived in Gatwick after a 6 1/2 hour delay.

First I got the standard 'exceptional circumstances' response - technical fault which couldn't have been spotted by routine maintenance. When I pointed out the return aircraft was a replacement and the incoming crew was out of hours and couldn't operate the return flight Thomson quoted 'knock-on effect' because of repairs to the aircraft (which wasn't repaired, it was replaced). So clearly these are all standard responses without any real care applied.

The replacement aircraft which arrived in Fuerteventura was on the ground for over 4 1/2 hours. The captain came into the cabin once we boarded and explained we must wait for take-off until the final crew member arrived. I recorded his announcement. We then had to wait an additional 30 minutes for the final crew member's aircraft to land and for them to board the flight.

So I believe I have a good case, and from reading this thread I understand I will have to go to court in order to win the compensation due under the legislation.

It looks to me as if Eglitis and Ratnieks case would be most helpful to me (airlines must expect to recover from Extraordinary Circumstances) Am I correct in relying on that for court, or should I also argue that as the aircraft was replaced there were no exceptional circumstances which caused the delay?

Presumably Thomson will also straighten out the inaccuracies in their case when they are called to provide it as evidence?

Finally should I send Thomson a Notice Before Action and should I re-state my evidence in it?

Guidance will be appreciated, I definitely intend to issue proceedings. I will also claim court costs and interest at 8%.

Saffys_Mum

Thanks for this but what is NWNF?

Vauban

Saffys_Mum wrote: »

Thanks for this but what is NWNF?

No Win No Fee

111KAB

Saffys_Mum wrote: »

Thanks for this but what is NWNF?

Suggest you read Page One but in this case No Win No Fee.

Vauban

Jerry2014 wrote: »

So I believe I have a good case, and from reading this thread I understand I will have to go to court in order to win the compensation due under the legislation.

It looks to me as if Eglitis and Ratnieks case would be most helpful to me (airlines must expect to recover from Extraordinary Circumstances) Am I correct in relying on that for court, or should I also argue that as the aircraft was replaced there were no exceptional circumstances which caused the delay?

Presumably Thomson will also straighten out the inaccuracies in their case when they are called to provide it as evidence?

Finally should I send Thomson a Notice Before Action and should I re-state my evidence in it?

Guidance will be appreciated, I definitely intend to issue proceedings. I will also claim court costs and interest at 8%.

I believe you have a good case too. There are elements of it that are similar to mine (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4573907), though each case is dealt with on its merits of course. The airlines just say "no" instinctively - without any sense of care or strict adherence to the truth.

Eglitis could be helpful, I agree. The great thing about this legal stuff is that you can argue "in the alternative" - so you can say that it wasn't extraordinary (which you should) but "in the alternative" to the court finding it was, Eglitis says they need to make provision (as does Wallentin, actually). I didn't use Eglitis for my own case (you can see my arguments in the links in my post), as I didn't think I needed to.

You will most likely find a series of evolutions in the airline's explanation. This is helpful, as you can show the contradictions to the court. I had a field day with Monarch in this regard.

Yes, start with a NBA letter - and then start legal proceedings without further delay. The NBA letter doesn't need to be persuasive or detailed. They'll only take you seriously when the claim is actually filed, unfortunately.

Good luck and keep us posted.

EDIT: For the best explanation of the "in the alternative", see Blondmark's wonderful post here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62751325&postcount=3007

Jerry2014

Vauban - thank you for the advice. Will keep you posted.

Jerry