Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

AlwaysConfused

Hello really helpful, wonderful people!:)

I’m about to send my response to Thomson claim refusal and would appreciate any advice\comments.! Please be as brutal as you wish as long as its constructive!

My hope is to get all the information I need before I send out a NBA letter.
!
“Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 9th!April 2012.

I would be most grateful is you could confirm my understanding of the reason you have given for the delay of my flight and why you believe no compensation is due.

My family’s flight was delayed because during the routine maintenance of an aircraft scheduled for a different flight you found an issue with an axle nut on that aircraft.! You experienced a delay in sourcing a replacement nut, and as it was within its ‘lifespan’ it was unavoidable.! You believe this falls under the heading of ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’, and as such no compensation is due.!

Is this correct?

If this is correct then I would like to a response to the following questions.

1.! Is it unreasonable to expect spare parts to be readily and immediately available during routine maintenance?

2.! You said that the axle nut was within its lifespan so the failure during routine maintenance was unforeseeable.! Can please provide me with the age of the axle nut when it failed, how long it had been in use for and the life span specified by the manufacturer.

3.! The routine maintenance and failure all relate to an aircraft scheduled for a flight different to the one my family and I were booked on.! Can you please explain why it delayed my family’s flight?! Your email simple states that ‘the delay was in reaction to a delay to another aircraft caused by an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming”’

I do not believe that a technical issue discovered during routine maintenance on another aircraft counts as ‘extraordinary circumstances’

Yours sincerely

!

Blah blah blah”

Vauban

AlwaysConfused wrote: »

Hello really helpful, wonderful people!:)

I’m about to send my response to Thomson claim refusal and would appreciate any advice\comments.! Please be as brutal as you wish as long as its constructive!

My hope is to get all the information I need before I send out a NBA letter.
!
“Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 9th!April 2012.

I would be most grateful is you could confirm my understanding of the reason you have given for the delay of my flight and why you believe no compensation is due.

My family’s flight was delayed because during the routine maintenance of an aircraft scheduled for a different flight you found an issue with an axle nut on that aircraft.! You experienced a delay in sourcing a replacement nut, and as it was within its ‘lifespan’ it was unavoidable.! You believe this falls under the heading of ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’, and as such no compensation is due.!

Is this correct?

If this is correct then I would like to a response to the following questions.

1.! Is it unreasonable to expect spare parts to be readily and immediately available during routine maintenance?

2.! You said that the axle nut was within its lifespan so the failure during routine maintenance was unforeseeable.! Can please provide me with the age of the axle nut when it failed, how long it had been in use for and the life span specified by the manufacturer.

3.! The routine maintenance and failure all relate to an aircraft scheduled for a flight different to the one my family and I were booked on.! Can you please explain why it delayed my family’s flight?! Your email simple states that ‘the delay was in reaction to a delay to another aircraft caused by an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming”’

I do not believe that a technical issue discovered during routine maintenance on another aircraft counts as ‘extraordinary circumstances’

Yours sincerely

!

Blah blah blah”

I don't think you can reason your way to compensation, unfortunately. Write them a Notice Before Action letter (good templates in the FAQs), which says you will take them to court if they do not pay up or provide a clear justification of "extraordinary circumstances". If that doesn't move them, nothing short of legal action will.

delvey

romanby1 wrote: »

See my post 256.
All correspondence with Thomson Airways should go to their Head Office.
This is also the address that was on the bottom of the papers we have received from the court.

The template is on this site somewhere. I also think there are templates on the Holiday Which page.

There Wigmore house address is there customer service base, I am sure you need to send it to the head office

sjo2015

Please see below for the defence I received from Thomson in respect of my small claim any thoughts we be gratefully received as I am continuing the claim as I believe I have a good case.

Also if anyone can just confirm I'm right in my thinking (first small claim), I've received the Directions Questionaire, at this stage I just return this, and submission of documents etc comes later when I receive directions and specific allocation details????


1. It is strictly denied that the Defendant isliable for compensation under what is assumed to the Denied BoardingRegulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the “Regulation”).

2. It is admitted and averred that the Defendant (“theAirline”) operated Flight Tom076 on the 25th November 2011 fromLondon Gatwick, United Kingdom, to Mombasa, Kenya (“the Flight”).

3. The claimant is required to prove that she andher party travelled on the flight.

4. It will be said by the Airline that the aircraftwhich was scheduled to operate the Claimants’ flight, aircraft registrationG-OOAN, was subject to an unexpected technical fauly, namely damage to one ofthe aircraft’s engine’s fan case.

5. This resulted in a delay of departure of theaircraft from Manchester to London Gatwick, after which it would have thenoperated from London Gatwick to Mombasa, and finally operated the Claimant’sflight.

6. It was therefore necessary to source an alternativeaircraft to operate the Claimant’s flights.

7. It is averred that the matters pleaded in theparagraph 4 above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could nothave been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that,pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied Boarding Regulations, no compensation ispayable in the circumstances. TheDefendant relies on the following:-

a) At all material times, the Defendant operated areasonable system of checks and maintenance to the aircraft concerned.

b) The defect was found during pre-flight checksprior to the aircrafts departure from Manchester.

c) The defect was the result of extraordinarycircumstances outside the Airline’s actual control.

d) The defect did not stem from events inherent inthe normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier.

e) The defendant will rely on Nelson and TUI (Casesc-581/10 and C-629/10), in particular paragraph 39.

8) For the reasons set out above,the claim for compensation of 600 Euros per person pursuant to the DeniedBoarding Regulations is denied.

9) As to the contingent claim forinterest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.

graeme235

stavros42 wrote: »

TOM 743. 25/06/11 Punta Cana to Glasgow,

I have now served papers in my local small claims court in Scotland,just have to wait and see what BS they come up with this time.

Hey! I'm so glad I have just read your thread!! I sent a letter off to Thomson 2 weeks ago about this flight and already told them not to ask for flight tickets stubs etc as after 2 years its totally unjustified to even ask for that stuff. I did remind them that its based on the time that we landed at Punta Cana...not the time we left Glasgow and the 1.5 hr wait or so for change of crew and re-fulling at Manchester. Do you happen to still have the letter that they gave us when we came back into Glasgow? What did Thomson say to your original letter? How much is it to take it to the small claims courts and what court do you think it will be in?

Hope you can get back to me.

Thanks
Graeme Francis

Doodle123

We are trying to claim for a flight delayed 8 hours on 19th January for a flight from gatwick to Sofia

I sent off the letter about a month ago and have received a letter today stating the flight was delayed due to the previous flight. The letter states that the airport baggage truck colliding with the aircraft, and that blame is not down to them, the problem I have is that ALL the Thompson flights were delayed that day not just ours.

We were not told at check in but other passengers on different flights were told of the delays to their flight, also when we went to get our vouchers for food at the flight information desk the gentleman at the desk said the delay was due to the plane being in the wrong place but then said the plane would land soon they then needed to wait for the crew for the flight, so I'm very confused on the problem for the delays on all Thomson flights for that day

It would be very helpful if there were any other forum members who had delays on Saturday 19th January from gatwick flying with Thomson to any destination as they were also delayed could reply with any information they have

Many thanks

terryuk73

Just recieved a defence from thompson.

Same sections 1-4 above
However mine was subject to an unexpected technical fault namely a malfunctioning toilet caused by a blockage which resulted in a delay of departure of the aircraft from london gatwick to cancun

As a result of the delay to the aircraft leaving LGW the crew had utulised their legal hours and were therefore required to take sufficient rest period in order to operate the claimants flight back to london gatwick.

The blockage to the toilet was found upon arrival in London Gatwick
The blockage was a result of extraordinary circumstances outside the Airlines control.


Almost fell off my seat reading this as on the way out from Gatwick we went down to one toilet as a result of a blockage and were told by the captain to refrain from using it unless absolutely necessary!

What are the odds of it happening twice in ten days!!!
Its a shame the previous letter from Thompson is without prejadice otherwise would be asking them to explain why they said the delay was due to a cracked window after being struck by lightning!!!!

Actually looking forward to taking this to court...

I suppose I'm going to need to read the rules on disclosure now, as I'm assuming that they will be relying on statements from the technicians who repaired the fault unless they expect the court to take their word for it that is....

Mark2spark

sjo2015 wrote: »

Please see below for the defence I received from Thomson in respect of my small claim any thoughts we be gratefully received as I am continuing the claim as I believe I have a good case.

Also if anyone can just confirm I'm right in my thinking (first small claim), I've received the Directions Questionaire, at this stage I just return this, and submission of documents etc comes later when I receive directions and specific allocation details????


1. It is strictly denied that the Defendant isliable for compensation under what is assumed to the Denied BoardingRegulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the “Regulation”).

2. It is admitted and averred that the Defendant (“theAirline”) operated Flight Tom076 on the 25th November 2011 fromLondon Gatwick, United Kingdom, to Mombasa, Kenya (“the Flight”).

3. The claimant is required to prove that she andher party travelled on the flight.

4. It will be said by the Airline that the aircraftwhich was scheduled to operate the Claimants’ flight, aircraft registrationG-OOAN, was subject to an unexpected technical fauly, namely damage to one ofthe aircraft’s engine’s fan case.

5. This resulted in a delay of departure of theaircraft from Manchester to London Gatwick, after which it would have thenoperated from London Gatwick to Mombasa, and finally operated the Claimant’sflight.

6. It was therefore necessary to source an alternativeaircraft to operate the Claimant’s flights.

7. It is averred that the matters pleaded in theparagraph 4 above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could nothave been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that,pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied Boarding Regulations, no compensation ispayable in the circumstances. TheDefendant relies on the following:-

a) At all material times, the Defendant operated areasonable system of checks and maintenance to the aircraft concerned.

b) The defect was found during pre-flight checksprior to the aircrafts departure from Manchester.

c) The defect was the result of extraordinarycircumstances outside the Airline’s actual control.

d) The defect did not stem from events inherent inthe normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier.

e) The defendant will rely on Nelson and TUI (Casesc-581/10 and C-629/10), in particular paragraph 39.

8) For the reasons set out above,the claim for compensation of 600 Euros per person pursuant to the DeniedBoarding Regulations is denied.

9) As to the contingent claim forinterest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.

I'm sure Blondmark will dissect this better than me, but at 7) they still haven't said what the EC is?

Quite how 'damage' equates to a 'technical fault' escapes me.

cruiser42

Can anyone tell me if they have tried to claim compensation from Thomson when they were delayed on flight (TOM630) from Stansted to Barbados on 31 Jan 2011. This flight was due to depart at 10.30 and didn't depart until approx 17.30. I can find no trace of it on FlightStats. Any help would be appreciated with this.

Ich_2

sanford flight 30 oct 2008

Check the legislation linked to in the FAQs, there is a restriction if you were travelling on tickets not available to the general public i.e. staff tickets if that was the case

3. This Regulation shall not apply to passengers travelling
free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or
indirectly to the public. However, it shall apply to passengers
having tickets issued under a frequent flyer programme or
other commercial programme by an air carrier or tour
operator.