Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

glentoran99

tell them to put it straight into your bank and never mind a cheque

lavster

glentoran99 wrote: »

tell them to put it straight into your bank and never mind a cheque

Is this an option??

glentoran99

lavster wrote: »

Is this an option??

I dont see why not, When monarch eventually pay me mine (which they have eventually agreed) will be going into my bank account

RAZZ_2

glentoran99 wrote: »

I dont see why not, When monarch eventually pay me mine (which they have eventually agreed) will be going into my bank account

Just to say that Thomson paid me directly into my bank account - and didn't even bother to inform me that they'd done so.

sallysaver

RAZZ wrote: »

Just to say that Thomson paid me directly into my bank account - and didn't even bother to inform me that they'd done so.

Hi,
Could you give me some indication of when your claim was first submitted please as my claim hasn't even been acknowledged yet? Thank you

WinnyWoo

Hurrah! Cheque received from Thomson today for just over £900 (3 x €400) for flight delay from 2010.

This was in response to an adapted MSE template letter sent 3 weeks ago.
I had no physical documentation, and was not asked for any, but I had previously contacted Thomson in 2011 about the delay, and was politely refused (before all the court cases and appeals).

Our delay was 27 hours and was technical, which they claimed in 2011 was not extraordinary, but it was worth a second shot now, and their position has obviously changed.

RAZZ_2

sallysaver wrote: »

Hi,
Could you give me some indication of when your claim was first submitted please as my claim hasn't even been acknowledged yet? Thank you

I had an outstanding MCOL against them and was waiting for a date at court when we finally agreed a settlement. It then took them eight weeks to eventually pay me after I sent further Emails saying that the settlement was now null and void.

graeme235

Hey Everyone!
I sent a letter to Thomson 2 years ago for a Glasgow to Punta Cana flight on the 25/6/2011 that was delayed 11hrs. I got the standard umpteen page reply saying I wasn't getting any. I actually forgot all about until a few weeks ago. I resent the email and today I received a cheque for £901.32 based on two people! That'll do nicely! I used a form from MSE but I did add my own bits by saying I had no boarding pass to send them, I had photos of inside the aircraft before us being taken off with the time in the screen, the aircraft with the engine cover pulled back and a few other things. Innocent photos that I think all helped cut down the responses and stalling of the payout. (I did actually have these photos lol) Again manyThanks to everyone for their contributions and it does seem (thankfully) it is getting at least a little easier to get the compensation back! :-)

andresykes

Hi. I've got a court hearing with Thomson on Monday. They still refuse my claim on the grounds of an EC caused by bad weather to a flight 2 before ours i.e. a knock on delay. I've got EC261/2004 but wondered whether anyone had a copy of the Jager v Easyjet case that was won by Bott & Co in Macclesfield? Thanks in advance...

glentoran99

andresykes wrote: »

Hi. I've got a court hearing with Thomson on Monday. They still refuse my claim on the grounds of an EC caused by bad weather to a flight 2 before ours i.e. a knock on delay. I've got EC261/2004 but wondered whether anyone had a copy of the Jager v Easyjet case that was won by Bott & Co in Macclesfield? Thanks in advance...

that case doesnt set a precedent, what you need to quote is

Point 37. Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy Case C-22/11

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0022:EN:HTML



excellent post here to help you out

Mark2spark wrote: »

The question of whether a fault with the previous flight (knock on effect) is a good enough reason for an airline to claim that an Extraordinary Circumstance exists, has arisen more than once, so I'll attempt to explain it as I see it.
Firstly, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my take on it.

You won't find in any of the EU rulings a line that says 'knock on effects are ok / not ok'. You have to read different parts of different regs and rules to arrive at the conclusion.

In the EU 261/2004 ruling, at points 14 & 15, you will read that;
"(EC's exist)...in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."
and:
"Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation..."
So, there are two mentions of situations where circumstances exist which could be claimed as EC's, but ONLY in relation to the flight concerned, on a particular day.

So, leaving aside the separate argument of whether a 'tech issue' is indeed an EC or not, the 'tech issue' offered by the airline, as an EC, to absolve them from compensation payouts, has to pertain to the flight concerned, ie YOUR FLIGHT, and not a previous flight, for it to be covered within the wording of the EU261 Regulation.
The separate argument is of course whether this said 'tech issue' stems from an event, - an EC - that is beyond the control of the airline. Like whether the weather caused the problem, or whether a terrorist attack started it off.
An unexpected issue like a flat tyre is not something that is not inherent in the normal exercise of the running of an airline on a day to day basis.

A further judgement, referred to as Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy Case C-22/11, at point 37, states that;
" In addition, it is apparent from recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may relate only to ‘a particular aircraft on a particular day’, which cannot apply to a passenger denied boarding because of the rescheduling of flights as a result of extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight. The concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is intended to limit the obligations of an air carrier – or even exempt it from those obligations – when the event in question could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. "
So further evidence of knock on effects not counting as EC's (from a previous day/flight) exists.