Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

111KAB

https://dl.orangedox.com/GdfSa4xUZdZI5GJadr/Vauban's%20Guide%20to%20Claiming%20Flight%20Delay%20Compensation.pdf

ZeeWrath

so I have my default judgement. I've sent a demand for payment to thomson to pay within 14 days

then It looks like the sheriffs, but it will cost me £90 if they are unable to collect.

Vauban

ZeeWrath wrote: »

so I have my default judgement. I've sent a demand for payment to thomson to pay within 14 days

then It looks like the sheriffs, but it will cost me £90 if they are unable to collect.

Don't do the normal baillifs - go for the HCEOs if the debt is higher than £600 (I think).

utigers

Hi there I have read Vaubans guide (thanks) and I am now looking into the initial claim letter. I guess I'm after some reassurance that I'm doing the right thing really. I'm going to use the MSE template letter then get it sent off, but looking further ahead it appears that you will get to NBA or court action stage.

Obviously each case is looked at individually but I wouldnt want to get to NBA/court unless I had a case. So this is the reassurance bit I looking for MSER'S!

A fuel smell was noticed by the cabin crew 10mins after take off so we returned to the airport resulting in a 6 hour delay. No fault was found on the aircraft. Is this one they would class as extraordinary circumstances? Would I be better to find a NWNF solicitor to take it on for me?

Thanks

NoviceAngel

utigers wrote: »

A fuel smell was noticed by the cabin crew 10mins after take off so we returned to the airport resulting in a 6 hour delay. No fault was found on the aircraft. Is this one they would class as extraordinary circumstances? Would I be better to find a NWNF solicitor to take it on for me?

Thanks

I think this one does fall into the 'In flight safety' catagory I would say regrettably no claim, you get get a second opinion by popping your flight details into Botts flight database.....

Sorry,

NoviceAngel

JPears

But surely if no fault was found?
TBH, I can ALWAYS smell kerosene every flight I go on, but maybe that's just me and my nose

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

But surely if no fault was found?
TBH, I can ALWAYS smell kerosene every flight I go on, but maybe that's just me and my nose

You got a big or over sensitive nose then JP? Or perhaps you've just been on too many Jet2 flights ?.....

Tbh, those in flight safety issues do come up and it's probably fair to say I have differing opinions on this issue than others.

Mainly because I'd want the plane down, landed and safe rather than the plane pushed on because of any potential EC261 liability....

Opinion has been mixed, and although I think you would struggle to get a payout it's certainly open to discussion.

EDIT I seem to recall a payout on a similar situation when a plane was flying out of Tenerife and had to turn back, I think I read it somewhere in here, but really would be difficult to find it unless anyone can remember the case?

Vauban

I don't think there is any basis in the law to justify NA's (entirely reasonable) view, except that "flight safety shortcomings" is one of the examples cited in the Regulation of something that might constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

But the evolution of the law has meant that the test now focuses on the origins of the problem. So, for example, is the wing falls off the airplane then this would clearly be an inflight safety issue (indeed a somewhat grave one). But if the wing fell off because of rust, compensation for the inevitable delay to your final destination would clearly be due - despite the technical problem happening mid-flight. Because this would have been caused by poor maintenance.

All of which is to say that I don't think it now matters when the technical problem occurs, but rather why it did so. And if the cause is something inherent in the business of running an airline, like a maintenance error, premature part failure or simple wear and tear, then it's not extraordinary. That, at any rate, is my reading of the Huzar case law.

But I am no lawyer, so could be quite wrong!

denised

wrote to thomsons about delayed flight 14days up how long should I wait before sending NBA letter.just like to say you all brill on these posts giving help and advice.Keep up good work :beer:

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

I don't think there is any basis in the law to justify NA's (entirely reasonable) view, except that "flight safety shortcomings" is one of the examples cited in the Regulation of something that might constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

I think you are absolutely right although 'reasonable' could quite easily be argued as wrong in law...

We often read about passenger illness and how a medical emergency DOES warrant an EC, if we accept that is beyond the airlines direct control, but clearly an aircraft going tech mid flight IS within there control...

.... In the above you could then argue that passenger illness is also 'inherent in running an airline', so again to me it's always down to legal interpretation, and since IANAL then I'll let Bott have a go at answering this one! Lol

It's like the multi hop trip connecting flights, we can and do have great debates and look at both sides of the arguments, then some of us get to see the very same arguments played out for real in the Court room...

So I've changed my advice to utigers, have a go, preferably through a NWNF and then hopefully they'll take it ultimately to the High Court if needed...

It's been slowing down in here, and we could do with another Huzar, Dawson or Allen case to liven things up a little...

Think I'll go shopping I'm bored!!