Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

sajjed

will do,thanks to all for help. does the MCOL have to be instigated before the date of the scheduled flight or the actual day the flight departed/arrived home.
we were due to depart the 23 March actual departure date was 24th, 19 hour delay to departure/ landing home.

VK1

we have been battling for compensation for a 3hour 55minute delay from Manchester and finally received acknowledgement it was an operational issue and therefore we are entitled to compensation, we received our cheque but it was less the compensation amount for our daughter sighting some garbage about not applicable to infants or free child places. This so called infant celebrated her 14th birthday whilst we were away on that holiday and as for free child places we payed full adult price for her with absolutely no concession of which they are well aware. So despite acknowledging the delay was their fault and paying up they are still trying to cut any corner they can hoping you will be satisfied, well needless to say i don't agree and am currently taking Thomson to task over the outstanding compensation due to my daughter, lets see what happens, if anyone else has had similar treatment and has been successful please let us know

munchie63_2

Hi all

still pursuing a claim for TOM315 Sharm to Gatwick on 3rd Sept 2014 if anyone else is as well. 6hr delay - the first 3hrs due to the aircraft being in Newcastle and having to be flown to Gatwick before the crew there could fly it to Sharm. Then had another 3hr delay as a fault found as we boarded.

I followed Thomson's delay claim procedures....they just ignored me.
Now going through Bott, but like most here am playing a waiting game. It seems the new airline ply is to say its a Manufacturing Defect, so I'm guessing we'll be seeing a test case in court for that one later this summer.

Would like to say Well Done to anyone who's pursued claims themselves, and a big thanks to all like Vauban on here for the advice and templates.

R9Hac

After my initial rejection for the claim I sent the letter below and as you can see Thomsons response again below , any suggestions as those before were most helpful . Thanks in advance

Many Thanks for your reply, due to you not offering me thecompensation requested I would like to you to take this as a Letter BeforeAction. Please pass on this and my previous correspondence to your companychairman.

I totally disagree that the delay falls into ‘extraordinarycircumstances’.

Please submit to myself all correspondence and evidence ofthis manufacturing defect which if trueyou will have claimed compensation from the manufacturer. Please also submityour evidence that you deployed all your resources in a timely manner torectify the fault.

As you are aware it is binding UK law that any technicalfailures are unlikely to represent extraordinary circumstances, unless they arecaused by an event not inherent in the operation of the airline. The failureyou have informed me of does not represent this.

Please settle my claim as out lined in my previouscorrespondence, if further action is needed I will also be claiming for my timeand court expenses.

Regards
Dear
Thank you for taking the time to contact us further. I can see previously that we have responded to you in relation to your claim under EU Regulation 261/2004 and that you remain dissatisfied with our response.

As a company we are not required to provide any internal documentation as you requested. However, I can assure you that following a thorough investigation, the root cause of your delay was the result of a manufacturing defect and in line with EU Regulation 261/2004 we will not be offering you compensation.

I can confirm that this will remain our final position and with that in mind, we're unable to offer any further comments or assistance in relation to your delay. It is with regret that we have been unable to resolve this matter to your satisfaction.

Yours :eek:

Vauban

R9Hac: so your game of letter tennis comes to an end. As these usually do. So you now have three choices: walk away; instruct a NWNF company; or take them to court yourself. This is all covered in my guide. Good luck.

NoviceAngel

IMHO that's an awful response from Thomson, did their employee previously work for Jet2?

If I was on the receiving end of that I'd be putting my card details straight into MCOL (assuming single claimant).

Good look R9Hac, whatever you do don't walk away, we'll all help you here if you go down the DIY route.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

supermac9

NoviceAngel wrote: »

IMHO that's an awful response from Thomson, did their employee previously work for Jet2?

If I was on the receiving end of that I'd be putting my card details straight into MCOL (assuming single claimant).

Good look R9Hac, whatever you do don't walk away, we'll all help you here if you go down the DIY route.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

That is a classic Jet2 response, they must be swapping their staff around.:wall:

sallysaver

I am a bit concerned taking my claim against Thomsons any further. Initially wrote to them in Jan and some 8 weeks later on the 5th March or thereabouts, received the rejection letter due to 'hidden manufacturing defect. Having been advised by my learned friends on here, that I did have a claim and to continue, I did just that, by sending Thomsons the NBA letter giving them the required time to respond. No communication has materialised.
However, I am concerned regarding Post 6487 on here. It appears to have some connection to Bott & Co BUT clearly lists 'hidden manufacturing defect' in their list as a non starter really. Of course, there are lots of posts since this one and I may have missed an update, but does anyone think it is worth my while handing my case over to Botts? Thanks again for all the invaluable info that has been given on this forum. Sally

111KAB

sallysaver - you are reading too much into your situation. You have a valid claim - for hidden manufacturing defects read, for example, Dreamliner batteries - grounded all the Boeing Dreamliners - this is hidden defect where the CAA are informed, Boeing are informed and the planes don't leave the ground.
The fact that some tin pot airline claims your plane had a HMD is a load of bull. Have the tenacity and patience to stick with it - if you haven't got the will then yes give it to a NWNF as Thomsons should be paying out whether to you (100%) or your solicitor (around 70% return).


Read R9Hac post above - if the tin pot airline has constant hidden manufacturing defects it must be on a lot of planes a lot of times! They are now using this wording to frighten you and others off and it appears to be working for them .... don't let it!

Vauban

sallysaver wrote: »

I am a bit concerned taking my claim against Thomsons any further. Initially wrote to them in Jan and some 8 weeks later on the 5th March or thereabouts, received the rejection letter due to 'hidden manufacturing defect. Having been advised by my learned friends on here, that I did have a claim and to continue, I did just that, by sending Thomsons the NBA letter giving them the required time to respond. No communication has materialised.
However, I am concerned regarding Post 6487 on here. It appears to have some connection to Bott & Co BUT clearly lists 'hidden manufacturing defect' in their list as a non starter really. Of course, there are lots of posts since this one and I may have missed an update, but does anyone think it is worth my while handing my case over to Botts? Thanks again for all the invaluable info that has been given on this forum. Sally

Sally,

A "hidden manufacturing defect" would be extraordinary circumstances. But what is a HMD? It is not, as the airlines are pretending, just something which explains why a part broke unexpectedly. Normal unexpected technical failure is not extraordinary. As the CAA says on their website:

"On 11 June 2014 the Court of Appeal issued a judgment in the Jet2 v Huzar case which has provided clarity on what the definition of extraordinary circumstances means in relation to technical problems. The judgment clarified that the key issue is what caused the technical problem. If the cause was not something out of the ordinary, for example the failure of a component or wear and tear, then it would not be an extraordinary circumstance."

A hidden manufacturing defect is something much more serious, and is likely to affect a large number of aircraft because the very piece of equipment - installed across the fleet - is potentially faulty. Think "Boeing Dreamliner battery" or suchlike. The CAA say that a hidden manufacturing defect is likely to be "often noted by unusual failure of the same aircraft part" in the same kinds of aircraft. And the airlines would need to report these as serious incidents. They don't because they are not.

However - and please don't take this the wrong way - the fact that you are asking these questions suggests you haven't got your head around all these issues, and I really wouldn't recommend anyone starting litigation unless they were confident they have a good grip of all the material and arguments. So if you find you don't have the time, for example, to do all the reading up required - and it is an intensive process - think about using a NWNF company instead.

EDIT: I see 111KAB beat me to it - with the same example!