Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

smartly

Thomson forum

But well done.

RachelL1986

Wonder if any one has had a similar experience to this?
My boyfriend and I travelled from Palma Mallorca on 9/07/13 TOM3219 to Durham Tees Valley. The flight landed back in the UK four hours after it was scheduled to arrive. The reason for the delay was, at first, because 'we had missed our slot'. When we eventually taxied for take off the message came that 'a back light was out'. Thomson have rejected our claim blaming the missed slot on the extraordinary circumstance of air traffic control problems in the UK, although at the time we were specifically told we had missed our slot. Even if this is extraordinary the back light being out, I understand, would be considered to be routine maintenance and indeed it is this issue that delayed us to ultimately the extent that we were. Thomson did not comment on the technical fault. I realise it is the Spanish CAA I now need to go to in order to progress the claim, my question is evenif the first reason for the delay is classed as extraordinary (whether Thomson have told the truth about this I will dispute) does the second un-extraordinary reason mean we do have a claim? Any comments would be much appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Rachel

LauraLL2015

Hi, just interested to see if you got anywhere with Thomson and did you fly to Gatwick? We were delayed 11.5 hours at Gatwick going to Lapland on Dec 19th and wonder if your flight was connected to this? Would love to hear if you've been successful as I haven't as they keep saying it's 'beyond their control' as it was due to the snow.

Tyzap

RachelL1986 wrote: »

Wonder if any one has had a similar experience to this?
My boyfriend and I travelled from Palma Mallorca on 9/07/13 TOM3219 to Durham Tees Valley. The flight landed back in the UK four hours after it was scheduled to arrive. The reason for the delay was, at first, because 'we had missed our slot'. When we eventually taxied for take off the message came that 'a back light was out'. Thomson have rejected our claim blaming the missed slot on the extraordinary circumstance of air traffic control problems in the UK, although at the time we were specifically told we had missed our slot. Even if this is extraordinary the back light being out, I understand, would be considered to be routine maintenance and indeed it is this issue that delayed us to ultimately the extent that we were. Thomson did not comment on the technical fault. I realise it is the Spanish CAA I now need to go to in order to progress the claim, my question is evenif the first reason for the delay is classed as extraordinary (whether Thomson have told the truth about this I will dispute) does the second un-extraordinary reason mean we do have a claim? Any comments would be much appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Rachel

Hi Rachel,

It sounds like they are just grovelling around trying to find a reason not to pay you the compensation you are due.

If there was a problem with a light, that would cause you to miss your flight departure slot, nothing extraordinary about that.

Have a read of Vaubans great guide and then issue an NBA if you fancy the DIY route.

Good luck.

ps Don't bother with the Spanish CAA, it will just delay you and their findings are not legally enforceable.

Justice13075

Laura You flight was TOM4696 19/12/2015 Bott & Co indicate you are due 400euro each. Read Vaubans guide you can do this yourself or use a no win no fee solicitor. There will be plenty of help here for you. If after reading you want to go a head send them a Letter before Action give them 14 days if no reply or rejection you will need to start court proceedings.

Bolly8

Hello, I wonder if anyone could advise me on this: My grandson & friends had flight delays,with Thomson ( Feb 2011 & Feb 2012)
They have contacted Thomson,for flight delay compensation, who state that to proceed,they need a booking reference. ( although they have all other details,they have neither booking reference nor boarding passes.
My grandson has requested a Subject Access Data request. Thomson has said they simply do not have this,therefore a request would be futile.
So,could this be the case & is my grandson,therefore,unable to proceed any further.
I would be greatful for any advice

legal_magpie

While having a booking reference is helpful to establish that you were on the flight in question, it is not a legal requirement to produce one. See Vauban's guide

Bolly8

Thank you so much for your prompt reply.I will certainly check out Vauban's Guide.
I only wonder if we can get past this reply,from Thomson! ( shown below.)

"That is the difficulty that we have, we are not restricting or in any way impeding the information that we are supplying to you, quite simply we do not have it. Hence why we are requesting it from you.

If you were to do a Subject Access Date request which you are entitles to, we will only return the same information to you.

Unfortunately without some form of evidence/booking confirmation we will not be able to proceed with this claim any further."

David_e

RachelL1986 wrote: »

Wonder if any one has had a similar experience to this?
My boyfriend and I travelled from Palma Mallorca on 9/07/13 TOM3219 to Durham Tees Valley. The flight landed back in the UK four hours after it was scheduled to arrive. The reason for the delay was, at first, because 'we had missed our slot'. When we eventually taxied for take off the message came that 'a back light was out'. Thomson have rejected our claim blaming the missed slot on the extraordinary circumstance of air traffic control problems in the UK, although at the time we were specifically told we had missed our slot. Even if this is extraordinary the back light being out, I understand, would be considered to be routine maintenance and indeed it is this issue that delayed us to ultimately the extent that we were. Thomson did not comment on the technical fault. I realise it is the Spanish CAA I now need to go to in order to progress the claim, my question is evenif the first reason for the delay is classed as extraordinary (whether Thomson have told the truth about this I will dispute) does the second un-extraordinary reason mean we do have a claim? Any comments would be much appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Rachel

Looks like there were ATC Issues on that day:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/09/flights-south-england-air-traffic-control

I'm a bit rusty with the details but read Vauban's comprehensive guide that you will see referred to on here. That should give you a good idea. Don't even think about bothering with the Spanish authorities.

legal_magpie

Bolly8 wrote: »

Thank you so much for your prompt reply.I will certainly check out Vauban's Guide.
I only wonder if we can get past this reply,from Thomson! ( shown below.)

"Unfortunately without some form of evidence/booking confirmation we will not be able to proceed with this claim any further."

This is not unreasonable. The legal maxim that applies here is "He who asserts must prove". But I would still serve your subject access request as its not than long ago.