Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Goodlass43

Hello! I am trying to claim compensation for a flight which was delayed from Cuba to Gatwick in 2006. The flight was over 20 hours delayed. I wrote to Thomson and they said as it was over 2 years ago, they wouldn't consider compensation. I thought it was within 6 years. Who is correct? And should I pursue the claim? Many thanks.

richardw

Is 2006 more than 6 years ago?

terryuk73

In the same boat as everyone else.

flight date 5/11/12
TOM039
Total length of delay 12hrs 48mins

On landing back in the UK we were given a notice stating:

"your flight could not operate until the following day due to an operational issue with the crews legally permitted working hours"

Sent out the standard letter, and got no response from them so escalated it to MCOL

They filed an acknowledgement of service last week and today I received the standard letter everyone else has been getting.

The reason I have been given is:

"your flight was delayed due to the aircraft that was scheduled to service your flight being hit by lightning and needing a window replacing and therefore a new aircraft was used to replace it. This caused a knock on effect on your flight which subsequently led to the delay. This would be classed as extraordinary circumstances as this was an unforeseeable incident"

"in the case of your flight the cause of the delay was a reaction to a delay to another aircraft caused by an unexpected flight safety shortcoming"



Now my thoughts on this is firstly they have now changed the reason for the delay. And secondly being that my plane was sitting on the runway for the whole night that I was in the airport they are being somewhat economical with the the truth, and the real reason is the one I was given at the time of landing. Which I am more inclined to believe as the captain had actually made an annoucement before the start of the fight to say that they had been delayed due to a fault on the first plane then on the replacement plane on the flight out.

Would I be right in thinking that Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy
applies and that I should request disclosure of evidence which they intend on relying after they have actually filed a defence statement (which they have not done yet)

blondmark

terryuk73 wrote: »

Would I be right in thinking that Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy
applies and that I should request disclosure of evidence which they intend on relying after they have actually filed a defence statement (which they have not done yet)

Yes and yes. Merely alleging Extraordinary Circumstances cuts no ice with the court. The onus is on the Defendant to prove the existence of ECs. Further, the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct requires them to furnish you with that proof before you sue, and if they failed to do that then the Civil Procedure Rules requires them to furnish it well before the Hearing. Ultimately if they fail to prove the existence of ECs, then they have no defence.

richardw

blondmark wrote: »

... the Civil Procedure Rules requires them to furnish it well before the Hearing....

..and they'll just have more goes at 'bluff' and 'get lost' before they have to do that.

Tenacity is the key.

Gdanegirl

We were delayed 23 3/4 hrs from gatwick to cancun on 4th nov 12 initially due to plane being hit by lighting on way in to airport. Thomson arranged for another plane to be brought over from Birmingham but apparently that had problem with doors. Maintenance was brought in to repair it but by the time it was fixed the crew was unable to fly. We were eventually put up in hotel for the night and flew the next morning - some 23 hrs 46 mins after our initial flight. Added to this was the fact that for 9 hrs our suitcases had been left out on the runway in pouring rain and all our clothes were soaked! I sent off a complaints letter (using a standard template) on 9th dec and received a standard reply on 20 dec asking me to fill in claim form. This I done straight away but only today did I receive a response to my claim refusing compensation claim citing 'extraordinary circumstances'. I don't agree with this - maybe the initial delay could be regarded as such but not the subsequent delay. Where do I stand with this, do I reply to thomson asking them to reconsider or do I take matters further with Caa or small claims?

BlackBess_2

moriarty888 wrote: »

Can you let us know exactly what they said the Extraordinary Circumstance was?

I am fully expecting a similar letter to fall through my letterbox any day now. It looks like it will then be a fight with them about what they think is an extraordinary circumstance is as opposed to a technical issue which is their fault, what I think an extraordinary circumstance/technical issue is and what the courts have already stated/interpretated an extraordinary circumstance/technical issue to be.

They appear to be contradicting themselves quite alot. From what I can glean so far, they are saying that if it is NOT found during routine maintenance then they are not liable. However I am sure I have also seen posts where things HAVE been found during routine maintenance and they have used that as an excuse as well. It will be very interesting to see whether the fault that caused my flight to be delayed was found during routine maintenance or not...

Also, how long ago did you lodge your claim? They are overdue replying to mine, must give them a call

The Extraordinary Circumstances are "flight was delayed due to a hydraulic leak being detected after the flight had passed itd pre-flight safety checks. Therefore this technical issue comes under extraordinary circumstances as it is something that could not be detected during the required checks."

Hmmmm. Seems like it all comes down to whether the hydraulics are checked during "the required checks." Research time.

Our original claim went in last September, then we had to wait whilst Thomson were waiting on the ruling in October. I then filled in Thomson's own claim forms & they received them on 14th January.

Which flight were you on that was delayed?

Linny55

Gdanegirl wrote: »

We were delayed 23 3/4 hrs from gatwick to cancun on 4th nov 12 initially due to plane being hit by lighting on way in to airport. Thomson arranged for another plane to be brought over from Birmingham but apparently that had problem with doors. Maintenance was brought in to repair it but by the time it was fixed the crew was unable to fly. We were eventually put up in hotel for the night and flew the next morning - some 23 hrs 46 mins after our initial flight. Added to this was the fact that for 9 hrs our suitcases had been left out on the runway in pouring rain and all our clothes were soaked! I sent off a complaints letter (using a standard template) on 9th dec and received a standard reply on 20 dec asking me to fill in claim form. This I done straight away but only today did I receive a response to my claim refusing compensation claim citing 'extraordinary circumstances'. I don't agree with this - maybe the initial delay could be regarded as such but not the subsequent delay. Where do I stand with this, do I reply to thomson asking them to reconsider or do I take matters further with Caa or small claims?

We were due to return from Cancun to Gatwick on this plane on the 5th November and were delayed nearly 26 hours. I have also received a reply today citing "extraordinary circumstances" due to having no control over the plane being struck by lightning causing damage to the window. We had been advised by our pilot that the second plane that was located had a problem with the slide, there was no mention of this in their letter.

Is there any point in pursuing this?

Wight_Rabbit

I have downloaded the N1 to serve on Thomson via the court. Not going to use the MCOL as you seem limited to the number of words you can use.

Now I am keen to see this through myself but having never filled one in before I need some pointers. Firstly in the notes it says if the claim is for money to return it to a Salford Address but to put Northampton Court in the court box? I thought this would be local to me on the Isle of Wight - Newport Court not Salford or Northampton.

Do you need to use eloquent legal language on this form. Basically in a nutshell for us - Flight delayed 4 hours back in 2010. Total value due 2 x 400 euros - but is there interest. What values do I put in the claim for as it is in sterling.

So far contact with Thomson has been two letters and my NBA to them. First letter from them tating that it is a two year limit. Second letter in response to my NBA telling me that it is two years on advice from a pre-eminent QC and that the law is complex. Both of these letters are marked Without Prejudice. So from my view I am no further forward - any ideas on wording for the N1 would be valued.

richardw

Wight_Rabbit wrote: »

..Both of these letters are marked Without Prejudice. ...

Wozzatmeanthen?