Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

Quite clear to me also. If the settlement is outside of court action, the exchange rate is the one on date of he delay. The regulation is quite clear in that compnesatin is payable immediately.

legal_magpie wrote: »

Sorry to challenge such an eminent authority but I beg to disagree. The compensation under the regulations is stated in Euros. So if you send a letter of claim and the airline accepts it and they send you Euros in the form of cash, they've done what they have to do.

It's our Yorkshire way of writing things legal magpie...

What JP is pointing out, is that compensation under the regs is payable, yes in Euros but immediately so had the compensation been paid in Euros at the time it would ( because of the exchange rate ) be worth more back then....

That's my take on it, we Yorkshire in bred folk understand ty other!

R9Hac

This is the email response from Thomsons any one disagree with it and why !!
Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your flight delay claim.

In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union ("the Regulation") now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling on 31st October 2014 we have investigated the claim for flight TOM165 Montego Bay to Manchester and our delay handling logs show that the flight was delayed due to a reactionary to an anti-icing valve fault

So as to help both customers and airlines, the European Commission has recently published draft guidelines as to what amounts to extraordinary circumstances. This list was prepared with the assistance of the various national bodies responsible for regulating the aviation industry across Europe.

In this draft, the Commission has intimated that the following would be considered extraordinary circumstances:

18. Discovery of a hidden manufacturing defect by the air carrier (this is
often noted by unusual failure of the same aircraft part).

An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The circumstances surrounding the delay to your flight are classified as extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union. Therefore we reject your claim for compensation under this regulation.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us:money:

NoviceAngel

R9Hac wrote: »

This is the email response from Thomsons any one disagree with it and why !!

Yes, I do!!

Total hogwash, sounds like you have a claim, read Vaubans excellent guide, issue NBA, settle out of Court which they will and enjoy your compensation.

It's not a hidden manufacturing defect, it was a technical fault with the aircraft and as such you are due compensation. If you get stuck after doing a bit of research, just re-post and we'll guide you through the process.

ohh start by searching this forum for the word 'wishlist'

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie

And if you do commence proceedings against them and they run the same defence ask the Court to direct them to produce (as well as their other documents) all correspondence they have had with the manufacturers concerning their claim against them because if what they say is true, they would have a claim against them.

SimonAddison

R9Hac wrote: »

This is the email response from Thomsons any one disagree with it and why !!
Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your flight delay claim.

In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union ("the Regulation") now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling on 31st October 2014 we have investigated the claim for flight TOM165 Montego Bay to Manchester and our delay handling logs show that the flight was delayed due to a reactionary to an anti-icing valve fault

So as to help both customers and airlines, the European Commission has recently published draft guidelines as to what amounts to extraordinary circumstances. This list was prepared with the assistance of the various national bodies responsible for regulating the aviation industry across Europe.

In this draft, the Commission has intimated that the following would be considered extraordinary circumstances:

18. Discovery of a hidden manufacturing defect by the air carrier (this is
often noted by unusual failure of the same aircraft part).

An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The circumstances surrounding the delay to your flight are classified as extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union. Therefore we reject your claim for compensation under this regulation.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us:money:

This is almost a carbon copy of a letter I received from Thomson, relating to a different delay to a different flight!

I agree with the others; ask to see evidence of this manufacturing defect, and when they ignore you/don't reply, continue with an NBA followed by MCOL application.

NoviceAngel

SimonAddison wrote: »

This is almost a carbon copy of a letter I received from Thomson, relating to a different delay to a different flight!

I agree with the others; ask to see evidence of this manufacturing defect, and when they ignore you/don't reply, continue with an NBA followed by MCOL application.

Of course, that's assuming you were travelling alone, use form N1 if there is more than one claimant, it's all in PtLV's guide anyway

Mark2spark

I'm already getting sick of reading this letter from Thomson, hidden manufacturing defect.
It's a bit like the hundreds of times people would post the Thomas Cook letter explaining how aeroplanes were just like your car breaking down :cool:

NoviceAngel

Mark2spark wrote: »

I'm already getting sick of reading this letter from Thomson, hidden manufacturing defect.
It's a bit like the hundreds of times people would post the Thomas Cook letter explaining how aeroplanes were just like your car breaking down :cool:

Hmmmm, Jet2 should have tried that one

Smudge's_Lot

I think the word to focus on is "reactionary"
If the plane is over 3 hours late arriving at one place,due to whatever fault,then subsequent flights may also be over 3 hours late arriving but obviously not due to the fault but trying to "catch up" the original delay,hence reactionary. Does the EU ruling class subsequent delays such as this as at fault?
Not sure that Thomson can make the planes fly even faster than Concorde or shorten the distance between destinations!

NoviceAngel

Smudge's_Lot wrote: »

I think the word to focus on is "reactionary"
If the plane is over 3 hours late arriving at one place,due to whatever fault,then subsequent flights may also be over 3 hours late arriving but obviously not due to the fault but trying to "catch up" the original delay,hence reactionary. Does the EU ruling class subsequent delays such as this as at fault?
Not sure that Thomson can make the planes fly even faster than Concorde or shorten the distance between destinations!

The regulations are quite clear, the delay and the reason for the delay has to effect your flight....

This has been covered loads of times, seach the forum for 'knock on' or 'knock-on'

Cheers,

NoviceAngel