Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

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

Whisper it quietly, but actually the Regulation really isn't that clear on this point. Unfortunately. And even subsequent European case law doesn't definitively nail it either.

A pie and pint for anyone who can point me to a clear legal authority that rules out "knock on" delays. I don't think there is one.

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

Whisper it quietly, but actually the Regulation really isn't that clear on this point. Unfortunately. And even subsequent European case law doesn't definitively nail it either.

A pie and pint for anyone who can point me to a clear legal authority that rules out "knock on" delays. I don't think there is one.

Glad you whispered that!

The only reference I can quickly think of is this http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59429463&postcount=580

I'd go along with that, so to me the regs are clear, although I accept the airlines will take the opposing view.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Scruffywuffy

Hi

Some great advice here. Can anyone tell me if I have a valid claim against Thomson?

On 10 December 2014 our flight to the Dominican Republic on a Dreamliner plane was delayed for 9 hours and 10 minutes. We were on the plane when we were told that the captain had spotted something on his final walk from the plane and all turfed off it.

We were told this was due to a technical fault and they were flying a plane down from Manchester. A few hours later we were told that this plane had also developed a technical fault and they were sourcing a third plane. We were told the crew were out of hours, they had had to find a different crew.

I wrote to Thomson who rejected my claim as from their delay handling logs the plane had suffered a bird strike on a previous rotation and that this was an extraordinary circumstance, quoting point 17 which says

"Bird-strikes to the aircraft during a flight which might cause damage which requires immediate compulsory checks and repair".

I have written back pointing out that the 2nd plane also suffered a technical fault and the flight was further delayed by the crew being out of hours but have yet to hear back. I have something in writing from Thomson saying

"The aircraft operating your flight suffered a technical fault prior to departure. We then arranged to operate on a different aircraft which also suffered a technical problem before the new departure time. The crew then exceeded their legally permitted working hours resulting in a new crew being sourced to operate your flight".

I am prepared to take them to court if necessary, but would appreciate advice as to whether I have a valid claim.

Thanks.

razorsedge

Vauban wrote: »

Whisper it quietly, but actually the Regulation really isn't that clear on this point. Unfortunately. And even subsequent European case law doesn't definitively nail it either.

A pie and pint for anyone who can point me to a clear legal authority that rules out "knock on" delays. I don't think there is one.

Similar to this has been posted before but I cannot find where so to paraphrase:
'The NEB Wishlist in many cases refers only to the specific flight and thus rules out knock on delays' - Was that by you Vauban?

Anyway, if the NEB Wishlist says so, then what more of a clear legal authority do you need?;)

PS I am hungry and desperate to win the pie.

sandramay

Having had my claim rejected due to Manufacturing defect, wondering how many people have gone on and pursued their claim through court or a claims firm.
It seems now Thomson are using this excuse for all technical issues with their equipment stating exceptional circumstances, I thought the ruling by he Supreme Court was supposed to put a stop to the short comings

Tyzap

sandramay wrote: »

Having had my claim rejected due to Manufacturing defect, wondering how many people have gone on and pursued their claim through court or a claims firm.
It seems now Thomson are using this excuse for all technical issues with their equipment stating exceptional circumstances, I thought the ruling by he Supreme Court was supposed to put a stop to the short comings

Well thats what Thomson and others would have you believe so it's up to people like you to prove them wrong.

With the backing of the SC and the experts on this forum you cannot go wrong.

Good luck and have a little confidence!

Surfhopper

Been pursuing Thomsons for a five and a half hour delay on Tom 156 from East Midlands to Bridgetown. Just had Judgment Issued from mcol and waiting to see what happens next. They used the excuse delay caused by knock on effect from previous flight for not paying. I decided to pursue the claim because of the shoddy way in which we were treated at the airport. No staff, no information, a £5 food voucher, and passengers of all ages sitting on hard chairs from 8am (three hours before the flight was due to take off) until 5pm when it finally took off. We got to Bridgetown at 1-15am UK time and were re-united with our luggage at 4am UK time because the baggage handlers had gone home.

Wibblewobble

Just got this after 2 months of back and forth e-mails following Vauban excellent guide including the submission of a Notice before Action:


[FONT=&quot]"In light of the Supreme Court ruling on 31st October 2014 we have investigated the claim for flight TOM2605 Innsbruck to Manchester and our delay handling logs show that the flight was delayed due to the removal of an unruly passenger from the aircraft.

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:

9.Removal of an unruly passenger from the aircraft for security reasons -
thereby causing either a flight delay or diversion.

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.

Yours sincerely"[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is not what the pilot told us and have just instructed Bottonline to persue my claim. I would do it myself but I get too frustrated and angry to persue the case professionally so best let others fight the good fight.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If Bottonline win on my behalf I will let people on this forum know. Good luck to everyone and a huge thanks to all who have [/FONT]posted offering advice and their Thomson experiences.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Tash14_2

!Success thomson paid up in full

We had with Thomson a 5 hour delay from Gatwick to Montego bay in June 2012. I put in a claim in January 2013 and this was eventually rejected bt Thomson.!

I made an online complaint to the CAA and Thomson again rejected my claim. I had forgotten all about this, until I received an email from the CAA advising me to re submit my claim again. I did so and 3 months later, last weekend I received a letter with a cheque for £975.00. I was shocked as I didn't think anything would come from claiming a third time. Thank you MSE antd the CAA..:rotfl::T

!!!!

Surfhopper

Thanks to everyone on Thomson only forum! Just got a cheque for £961 after using mcol and getting a judgement issued.:j:money: