Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

spaceaarvark

Wight_Rabbit wrote: »

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.

Interest is at a standard 8% pa.

Even if you don't want to submit your claim via MCOL there may be some benefit in registering for MCOL and then filling in the forms online - you can cancel your claim without submitting it, but it will lead you through the process (such as adding the interest).

I used MCOL and found it very straightforward.

Bonters

It might be useful for folk to try and imagine the position of the other party in all this. Imagine you are in charge at Thomson and naturally trying to avoid making huge payments to passengers, thereby jeopordising the stability of the business, the jobs of employees etc. What would you do? They have the option of the 'Extraordinary Circumstances' get-out clause. And so they will claim everything as EC's. Why wouldn't they? It's a grey area and can only be established by different Court hearings, each based upon the individual circumstances. Thomson have been also a bit 'cute' in seeking to employ the 2 year restriction, which applies to claims under the Montreal Convention, but (we believe) not to this EU Regulation. Why wouldn't they? The only thing which will cause them to fold is the issue of process, I have no doubt about that. I suspect they will not want most of these cases actually heard in Court, for fear of the floodgates being opened and numerous other claims. So, I suspect that they will negotiate to settle out of court, but only towards those who actually put their money where their mouth is and issue process. Many, many others will doubtless shrug their shoulders and think it aint worth the hassle (to be fair, it maybe isn't - it depends on the individual). And so Thomson have done what any company would do, protect their position. All the indignation in the world isn't gonna change that, and complaints to MP's will fall on deaf ears in my opinion. Any MP worth his/her salt will just say they cannot become involved in such disputes, and advise you to submit your case to the British adversarial system and reach a proper determination. Just my opinion.

Ray47

Hi, we were flying from Stansted to Turkey last year and we were told our plane had a fault, the engineers had to order a part in as they did not have the part onsite, after waiting they fitted the part only to find that was not the fault in the end we were told they were sending a plane from Manchester this made our flight 8.30 hours delayed so we decided to make a claim, after filling one of Thompsons delayed flights forms I have received a letter rejecting my claim stating the flight was delayed due to a technical fault which came to light during the previous flight and so rejected our claim is this correct? if you need any more info I will be glad to offer this
Regards Ray

Wight_Rabbit

I am doing a dummy run filling in an N1 using MCOL but not sending it. I will use the manual N1 and go through the non electronic route.

How do I turn 800 euros into sterling. Is there a specific court approved exchange rate somewhere?

Wight_Rabbit

Bonters wrote: »

It might be useful for folk to try and imagine the position of the other party in all this. Imagine you are in charge at Thomson and naturally trying to avoid making huge payments to passengers, thereby jeopordising the stability of the business, the jobs of employees etc. What would you do? They have the option of the 'Extraordinary Circumstances' get-out clause. And so they will claim everything as EC's. Why wouldn't they? It's a grey area and can only be established by different Court hearings, each based upon the individual circumstances. Thomson have been also a bit 'cute' in seeking to employ the 2 year restriction, which applies to claims under the Montreal Convention, but (we believe) not to this EU Regulation. Why wouldn't they? The only thing which will cause them to fold is the issue of process, I have no doubt about that. I suspect they will not want most of these cases actually heard in Court, for fear of the floodgates being opened and numerous other claims. So, I suspect that they will negotiate to settle out of court, but only towards those who actually put their money where their mouth is and issue process. Many, many others will doubtless shrug their shoulders and think it aint worth the hassle (to be fair, it maybe isn't - it depends on the individual). And so Thomson have done what any company would do, protect their position. All the indignation in the world isn't gonna change that, and complaints to MP's will fall on deaf ears in my opinion. Any MP worth his/her salt will just say they cannot become involved in such disputes, and advise you to submit your case to the British adversarial system and reach a proper determination. Just my opinion.

Thomson need to make financial provisions for claims of this nature. To be fair I would NEVER use them again after their attempts to fob me off and their blatant rudeness.

My experience of them now is they are simply a McTravel outfit gleaming with smiles to take your cash for their peddled services and if it all goes wrong they slam the door in your face and come up with a multitude of reasons to shirk liability.

There is at least one lost customer here in myself whereas if they looked to the future, paying claims of this nature without such resistance as they are showing would have kept my faith in them.

They ave the cheek to write in their letter that they hope the experience will not deter me in the future from using them. Who on earth do they get to compose their drivel? I would not use them again if my life depended on it.

Roswell1976

Hey everyone

Ive read a few posts on here about Thomson asking for boarding passes and to fill in a form and send it all back with copies of passport. This i did (minus boarding passes) and i have just had a 4 page letter back which by reading it sounds as if they are trying to blind me with science, ultimately they are saying that it was 'extraordinary circumstances' which i do not beleive for one second.

I appreciate it may have already been posted before but does anyone know what the next step is? Im not prepared to let this drop as im usre many other people would after receiving thier rather baffling letter. Thanks in advance for any help guys

Bonters

Wight_Rabbit wrote: »

Thomson need to make financial provisions for claims of this nature. To be fair I would NEVER use them again after their attempts to fob me off and their blatant rudeness.

My experience of them now is they are simply a McTravel outfit gleaming with smiles to take your cash for their peddled services and if it all goes wrong they slam the door in your face and come up with a multitude of reasons to shirk liability.

There is at least one lost customer here in myself whereas if they looked to the future, paying claims of this nature without such resistance as they are showing would have kept my faith in them.

They ave the cheek to write in their letter that they hope the experience will not deter me in the future from using them. Who on earth do they get to compose their drivel? I would not use them again if my life depended on it.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you entirely. And of course, the ultimate consumer privilege is to abandon them in future. That can be a bit of a problem as they are now very big in the UK travel industry (too big in my opinion), and most everyone else will be much the same with these claims, I'm pretty sure. Also, I will never cut off my nose to spite my face and if Thomson are the best value, or the only ones who have what I'm looking for in a holiday, I'll have to use them. I have a valid claim in with them and have issued NBA to the Company Secretary by registered post. I am awaiting their response to that. BUT none of what is happening surprises me in the least. They may well be insured for such claims, but their premiums are about to rise I guess. :think:
Edit - another rather concerning little snippet! I just played around on a website called flight-delayed.co.uk and when I put in details of my flight, it returned a result which read 'We do not deal with claims arising from flights more than 2 years ago' That is strange, given what we are currently being told?

Mark2spark

Roswell1976 wrote: »

Hey everyone

Ive read a few posts on here about Thomson asking for boarding passes and to fill in a form and send it all back with copies of passport. This i did (minus boarding passes) and i have just had a 4 page letter back which by reading it sounds as if they are trying to blind me with science, ultimately they are saying that it was 'extraordinary circumstances' which i do not beleive for one second.

I appreciate it may have already been posted before but does anyone know what the next step is? I'm not prepared to let this drop as i'm sure many other people would after receiving their rather baffling letter. Thanks in advance for any help guys

Yep. It sure has.
There's a FAQ's which is a sticky.
Next step is NBA.

And that's the very last time that I answer that question (don't take that personally Roswell )

Mark2spark

Anon1969 wrote: »

I originally tried to claim compensation when I finally arrived back in the UK from Cuba after our flight was delayed over 48 hours in 2008 and never got a reply from Thompson. Since this new ruling came out I tried again and have now received a reply telling me that my claim is now too old. They are saying that any international flight over two years ago is not valid! Not sure where to go now??? I tried to ring them and discuss but they were quite rude and not at all helpful.

I think there's 3 threads running on the Thomson 2 year letter.

NBA time.

Wight_Rabbit

There is an interesting piece of news that has come up regarding the two year ruling Thomson are pressing.

A thread above is quite correct that a company called https://www.flight-delayed.co.uk are limiting claims to those under two years. In their FAQs it says:

How long after my flight can I submit a claim to the airline company?

You can submit a claim to the airline company up to two years after the flight date.


Now I am unsure if this is THEIR own terms or whether Thomson are correct in stating two years is a limit????