Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Glenn_Roderick wrote: »

Just left Small Claims Court. Thomson turned up in the form of a barrister who moved for a six month adjournment to review the Huzar case. They intend to fight the ruling through the courts . This may mean a long delay in any compensation claims. The judge adjourned for three months. Will post if any decision made.

Did you not say Jet2 lost yesterday and have been refused leave to appeal? And that you are aware of no petition has yet been made, let only granted, by the Supreme Court to allow an appeal?

Perhaps none of this will in practice get much traction anyway.

How up to speed was the judge with latest developments?

Cupcake77_2

terriandaaron wrote: »

well I got a reply from Thomson today saying there standing by EU REGS and there defence of lightening strike, (even thought it was 3 days prior to our flight)


how likely is the fact it was a flight 3 days before going to impact our claim, I feel this was more than enough time for them to have sorted out something for our flight, or infact given the fact that they knew to have notified us to have saved sitting around for hours waiting.


Is it worth us perusing this...? how will they feel about the lightening strike and delay in court.....do anyone of you think 3 days later is an acceptable delay still in this circumstance?


I already have to address the issue of the downgrade though the courts as they didn't refund the 70% that they were meant to and only a % of the premium fee (not even as much as was originally paid)

Hi

It seems that we may have both been affected by the same "lightening strike". We flew from Gatwick to Sanford on the 25th April 2014 on TOM086. Our planned departure time was 11am. We received a text to inform us it had been delayed until 3pm. Once at the airport, they just kept changing the time without any explanation or compensation vouchers. We eventually took off at about 18:15. We didn't get the Dreamliner as planned as they had to get a replacement aircraft from Manchester.

We have written to Thomson who have stated that our delay was due to a lightening strike on another flight. I have a feeling this was a couple of days prior and what I'm wondering is how long is a reasonable amount of time to rectify this problem as they seem to e using it as an excuse for many flights. Surely they could have arranged an alternative aircraft prior to passengers waiting around at Gatwick?

To top the holiday off we then had a 22 hour delay on our return flight on the TOM743 on 9/5/14. Although I sent two letters at the same time, both recorded delivery Thomson are saying they only received one letter.

The letter we received when we arrived at Gatwick basically says that due to a delay on the outbound flight the crew had exceeded their legal working hours. At Sanford we were told that once again another aircraft had to be flown in due to a technical problem on their newest (4th) Dreamliner so we ended up on the 767 we initially flew out on. The airport staff said that the Dreamliner would probably end up flying back empty. All seems a bit contradicting to me, but it seems with Thomson I am going to have a fight on my hands to receive any type of compensation.

Cupcake77_2

Centipede100 wrote: »

Lightning strikes to other aircraft (rather than the one on which your flight took place and even then it may not be a valid defence) cannot be used as a valid defence by an airline to a claim under 261/2004.

It is the operating carrier's responsibility to provide an airworthy aircraft for your flight.

The fact that the airline are persisting with an invalid defence to your claim for your return flight suggests that you start legal claims yourself now or hand it to a NWNF company to do for you.

I don't believe that either of your claims will reach court in the event you hand it to a reputable NWNF firm as these are straightforward valid claims.

Thank you for replying. It isn't completely clear to me. Their letter states

"With regards to your flight, TOM086, after reviewing our internal flights report I can see that the delay to your flight was due to damage to the aircraft caused by a lightening strike. This damage meant that the aircraft could not operate until the aircraft had received assessment and repair where necessary. As the delay was caused by something outside of our control it is therefore classed as extraordinary circumstances."

A few paragraphs further down it states,

"In the case of your flight, the delay was the result of a delay to another flight due to damage as a result of extreme weather conditions while in flight."

Mark2spark

Glenn_Roderick wrote: »

Just left Small Claims Court. Thomson turned up in the form of a barrister who moved for a six month adjournment to review the Huzar case. They intend to fight the ruling through the courts . This may mean a long delay in any compensation claims. The judge adjourned for three months. Will post if any decision made.

The judge is a disgrace.

Many are, as we've found out before..... :mad:

deb.p123

I contacted Liverpool Court today as jmy case against Thomson was stayed pending the Huzar appeal. I rang to check there was nothing further needed from me. I was advised that they not had anything official yet but when they did the District Judge would set direction and they had no idea of timescales.
The lady also stated she thought it was being taken to the Supreme court next! Can I not press for judgement after 14 days?

Mark2spark

deb.p123 wrote: »

I contacted Liverpool Court today as jmy case against Thomson was stayed pending the Huzar appeal. I rang to check there was nothing further needed from me. I was advised that they not had anything official yet but when they did the District Judge would set direction and they had no idea of timescales.
The lady also stated she thought it was being taken to the Supreme court next! Can I not press for judgement after 14 days?

Until it does get the nod to be heard there, - I should insert *if* really - you'd be better off quoting Bott when they say that the ruling is now established case law and courts have to proceed under the current law as examined and confirmed by the CoA.

legal_magpie

Mark2spark wrote: »

The ruling is now established case law and courts have to proceed under the current law as examined and confirmed by the CoA.

Absolutely. Whereas the decision of HH Judge Platts was merely persuasive (good enough in my case which was a week later) Jet2 have done the passengers a great service in taking it to the Court of Appeal and losing because now the decision is binding on all lower Courts.
So take no nonsense and go for it

Skid_Marks

Glenn_Roderick wrote: »

Just left Small Claims Court. Thomson turned up in the form of a barrister who moved for a six month adjournment to review the Huzar case. They intend to fight the ruling through the courts . This may mean a long delay in any compensation claims. The judge adjourned for three months. Will post if any decision made.

With respect Glenn it looks to me that you weren't equipped to take this on yourself and you would have been better off going down the NWNF route!

Which court was it by the way so that others can be prepared to brief the judge?

justaskin

Hi Karen and white Robbie, I was Mexico ready to zip up the case, when I received a phone call saying we would be delayed by 24hrs. It was obviously your flight.
This is were the story gets interesting, because the week before when we flew to Cancun, we had two slight delays. The first was about 3/4 of an hour, reason fault with air con. Great not to long on our way, so we thought. We pulled away from docking area, moved about 10 foot forward and stopped, then we were told of a fault with a valve that starts engine, back to docking area while engineer checked it out. This time only about 1/2 hour, with captain saying valve ok and it only starts the engine so don't worry, and he started engine in docking area to make sure it worked, we're off.
26 hour delay on way home, and what did captain say was cause of delay, fautly valve that starts engine. He said plane took off from Manchester, but returned because they didn't want to get to Cancun then have to send engineers out from UK. So when they returned to Manchester, cabin crew didn't have enough hours to make the flight back to Cancun.
I sent a letter to Thomson for compensation, and have received the standard fob off letter. But I will not give up, I will write back with all the points I have made above and let them know I'm willing to take them to court. Exceptional circumstances do not happen every week.

Skid_Marks

Don't waste your time going into any detail......just send them an NBA!