Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

terriandaaron

legal_magpie wrote: »

It depends on the terms on which they have sent you the cheque. If they say that the cheque is sent "in full and final settlement" you must not cash it as you are likely to be held to have accepted their terms. If you intend to pursue the balance you must write back and say that you don't accept it on that basis and ask if it may be treated as a payment on account. If they refuse, you should send it back

If they haven't used the words "in full and final settlement" you are entitled to pay it in and tell them that you have treated it as a payment on account.
JJ

Thanks, it doesn't mention full settlement just that it is a refund for the part of the upgrade cost that wasn't available to me ? (even though its not even half of the cost of the difference)less amount as apparently we still had premium services (really ! lol)


ill write to them before I cash it just to be safe, I have emailed but will put it in writing too.

nquire76

I have finally received a reply from the CAA in respect of my complaint ,originally sent on April 15th 2013 in respect of a Thomson late arrival flight, namely TOM2446 on June 21st 2012.
viz.

"Thank you for your patience with us while we investigated your complaint about the disruption of flight TOM2446 on 21st June 2012. During our investigation we received information from Thomson Airways about the flight concerned, which we have considered in the light of new guidelines clarifying the “extraordinary circumstances” exception of EC 261/2004.

After considering all the information provided to us from the airline, it is our view that the disruption of your flight is of a type which means that the airline does not need to pay compensation. It appears from this information that there was a technical fault which means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption was beyond the control of the airline and could not have been avoided. It is our view therefore that this disruption falls under the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exception of EC261/2004 and as such, we believe that you are not entitled to compensation in this case.

Unfortunately we are unable to take your case any further. Our opinion that, in this case, the disruption was due to extraordinary circumstances is based on the information provided to us. Please be aware that this is not a legally binding opinion and only relates to the flight concerned.

Please note that we will not re-open your case to re-consider any aspect of our opinion. There is no appeal process within the CAA for this issue. We will also not enter into further correspondence on this Complaint

It is, of course, still open to you to issue a claim in the Court but, in our opinion, we believe that the airline has a strong case not to pay compensation. As such, it is entirely up to you to decide whether you wish to pursue this further. You can find information on how to take court action at https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview."

Obviously Thomson's have revealed technical information to the CAA in order for them to reach this decision. Unfortunately I have been trying to elicit this information for almost 18 months but have met with a stonewall. My claim at the Small Claims Court is on 'stay' until the Huzar appeal on May 22nd/23rd.

Can anyone tell me whether the CAA have any obligation to pass on the relevant technical information to me, if I request it, taking into account the above phrase :-

"Please note that we will not re-open your case to re-consider any aspect of our opinion. There is no appeal process within the CAA for this issue. We will also not enter into further correspondence on this Complaint"

Thanks

Vauban

No obligation at all. And indeed they will refuse to do so.

European law says clearly that a technical failure is unlikely to be an extraordinary circumstance. The CAA’s guidelines, however, include most technical problems as "extraordinary". You can draw your own conclusions.

You have damaged your legal case, IMO, as you have gifted the airline a useful document to defend the claim against. But if Huzar is upheld, you will be okay.

If anyone is in any doubt, let me say it again:

DO NOT GO TO THE CAA!

Vauban

No obligation at all. And indeed they will refuse to do so.

European law says clearly that a technical failure is unlikely to be an extraordinary circumstance. The CAA’s guidelines, however, include most technical problems as "extraordinary". You can draw your own conclusions.

You have damaged your legal case, IMO, as you have gifted the airline a useful document to defend the claim against. But if Huzar is upheld, you will be okay.

If anyone is in any doubt, let me say it again:

DO NOT GO TO THE CAA!

David_e

nquire76 wrote: »

It appears from this information that there was a technical fault which means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption was beyond the control of the airline and could not have been avoided. It is our view therefore that this disruption falls under the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exception of EC261/2004 and as such, we believe that you are not entitled to compensation in this case.

That is quite shocking; clearly at odds with the law.

These are my thoughts:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...postcount=4238

nquire76

'Do Not Go To The CAA'

Hindsight, Obi Won Kanobi, is a wonderful thing.
12 months ago the CAA was being promoted everywhere as the Watchdog for the ignorant consumer in their battles with the evil Airline Operators.

Results, however, now speak for themselves and their true colours have been shown through their replies to Complaints which have been revealed in posts made to Forums such as this.

Many thanks are due to yourself, Vauban, and other contributors exposing the whole sorry story of EU Regulation 261/2004 and for promulgating scenarios of reply and action to the often spurious claim refusals of the operators, specifically, in the case of this Forum, Thomson Airways.

These Posts have vastly increased the knowledge of readers, leading to new avenues of information, and consequently encouraging them to individually seek justice.

From my point of view it has been a very interesting two years of education and enlightenment, resulting in one rapid successful claim, and encouraging me to pursue my other claim, post Huzar, to wherever it takes me, and hopefully to a successful conclusion.

Vauban

nquire76 wrote: »

'Do Not Go To The CAA'

Hindsight, Obi Won Kanobi, is a wonderful thing.
12 months ago the CAA was being promoted everywhere as the Watchdog for the ignorant consumer in their battles with the evil Airline Operators.

Results, however, now speak for themselves and their true colours have been shown through their replies to Complaints which have been revealed in posts made to Forums such as this.

Many thanks are due to yourself, Vauban, and other contributors exposing the whole sorry story of EU Regulation 261/2004 and for promulgating scenarios of reply and action to the often spurious claim refusals of the operators, specifically, in the case of this Forum, Thomson Airways.

These Posts have vastly increased the knowledge of readers, leading to new avenues of information, and consequently encouraging them to individually seek justice.

From my point of view it has been a very interesting two years of education and enlightenment, resulting in one rapid successful claim, and encouraging me to pursue my other claim, post Huzar, to wherever it takes me, and hopefully to a successful conclusion.

It is a good question actually: at what point did it become clear that the CAA were working against the interests of the passenger, rather than in their favour? Since the resumption of claims following the Nelson judgment in October 2012 they showed themselves to be generally useless - unable to deal with claimants' concerns, and generally out of their depth. But for me, it was when they produced this "draft" list of extraordinary circumstances - that has no basis in law whatsoever - that it became clear the CAA were not just incompetent, but actually helping airlines to deprive passengers of their legal rights. Let us hope that Huzar fixes this, one way or another.

gloriatabby

I too got the same email as MGOR from the CAA last week, just as I was finishing my court bundle. I would advise everyone not to wait for a response from them because I have been emailing them for the past year and now they have finally come off the fence Thomson are still refusing to pay.
Thomson are defending on two counts 1: that failing to bring a court action within two years is an "abuse of the court's process" and 2: that the technical fault was an extraordinary circumstance. AUC (pre- CAA) advice at the time was to wait until after the "stay" pending Tui and other's appeal. Who knew it would take two years? I told Thomson then that I would restart my claim and did straight after the decision.
I had to have my reply to the defence in by 8th May but haven't got a hearing date yet. How long does it usually take? My court were no help when I asked what to provide so I have been grateful for advice on here.

If anyone else was on TOM6342 Exeter to Rhodes on 22/09/10 I would be interested to hear from them because we were appallingly treated during our 17.5 hour delay so I think we also have a case for "failure of duty of care" (check in floor all night because departurtures shut - couldn't even get a drink of water, no information given regarding our rights)

gloriatabby

PS Two more things I have learned (apart from straight to court next time). 1.Be wary of taking an evening flight from a very small airport with no facilities unless you live nearby. 2. In situations where it looks as if you will need to claim compensation exchange email addresses with as many fellow passengers as possible.

gloriatabby

I would contact CAA again because in my email last week saying that they have told Thomson they should pay me they said it was in the light of updated info re tech faults and extraordinary circs. I don't see how they can just close the subject. Mind you Thomson still won't pay but it would be backing for your case (unless it is a rare instance of a technical fault thought to be outside the airline's control).