Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Mark2spark

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.)

"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."

Why on earth do they need a booking reference number from you if it means nothing to them?
I mean, if they don't have it, then *you* supplying them with it, gets them nowhere, as they don't have anything in their records to cross reference it against?

*Some form of evidence* could be a receipt/statement from the method you used to pay for the flights - like a credit card - as evidence.
From an airlines POV, I don't think this is unreasonable, otherwise, I myself, for instance, could also say I was on the flight and claim away.

If you decide to go to court, the stance to adopt is *you* make *them* prove that you *wasn't* on the flight. As in, you aren't on the passenger list.

Mark2spark

:rotfl:
I mean, you could just say, "Oh! You don't have the booking reference? Ok, - it was BugsBunny123. There. Please feel free to prove that it isn't that reference.
So, now that you have the reference, let's proceed with the claim for €*euros* on *date* etc etc "
:rotfl:

legal_magpie

The point is that the Claimant must prove that he was on the flight. If he doesn't have any documents at all, he can still give oral evidence but:
1. As part of their duty of disclosure, the airline must check their records and ascertain if they have anything to show that the claimant was on the flight.
2. If the Claimant was on a package holiday, he may be able to get other documents. EG. if he knows which hotel he stayed at, the hotel may have confirmation of the stay which will include who booked it, so if it was on a Thomson package, this will be corroboration of which the Judge is entitled to take account.

gavstars

Is damage on the runway which resulted in the runway having to close a extraordinary reason for the airline (thompson) not to pay out compensation?

This was their response:

15. Closure of either the airport of arrival or the airport of departure for non-security
and non-meteorological reasons.

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.

111KAB

gavstars wrote: »

Is damage on the runway which resulted in the runway having to close a extraordinary reason for the airline (thompson) not to pay out compensation?

Yes - outside of the control of Thomson BUT are you sure there was runway damage? Have you checked if other airlines/flights departed?

Lillil

Lillil wrote: »

Hi. I've read Vauban's guide but, unless I'm mistaken, it does not refer to medical grounds as extraordinary circumstances.

We were booked on TOM1647 which was due to leave Palma at 03:30 but eventually left at 15:15. The reason for the delay was that there was a medical emergency on the outbound flight (TOM1646) and that flight diverted to Gatwick and the crew then exceeded their legally permitted working hours.

We complained via Resolver the day after we got back and finally received a response from Thomson yesterday (just 172 days then) which refuses our claim on the basis of the draft NEB guidelines from April 2013 which refers to medical grounds as an extraordinary circumstance.

There is a point of dispute here, the letter we were issued regarding our delay only made reference to a "medical emergency', the response from Thomson refers to the fact that "a passenger had become unwell and required medical attention" but we were informed verbally both by Thomson representatives at the time of the delay and by the captain of the eventual flight that it was a crew member who had taken ill.

We had in the meantime referred our claim to AESA (the Spanish aviation authority) but have not heard back from them and are unlikely to until March at the earliest.

We are keen to pursue compensation and will put Vauban's guide to full use but I am not sure we have a valid case? Our argument would be that the extraordinary circumstances did not take place on our flight and that Thomson should have been able to utilise its resources to provide a staffed aircraft for our journey.

I have seen on one of the NFNW sites reference to Smith & Collinsion-v-British Airways, Staines County Court (April 2015) relating to a pilot falling ill whilst on stopover in the Bahamas were the judge ruled that "a) flight-crew sickness is inherent to the business of an airline therefore outside the ambit of the Article 5(3) Extraordinary Circumstances Defence and b) furthermore that even if it did fall within the ambit of Extraordinary Circumstances, the Defence could not be allowed to stand because British Airways had not proved that the 'delay could not be avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken'."

Any examples of similar cases, comments and advice would be appreciated.

We wrote back to Thomson disputing their reason for rejection and have had response via Resolver referring us to CEDR which has started handing flight delay compensation claims from 1 February 2016, but only initially for Thomson. We have submitted a claim to CEDR today and will post a further update if/when we receive any response. CEDR info is via cedr . com / aviation

smartly

If your claim is 100% unsuccesful you will be charged a nominal fee of £25 as a contribution towards the cost of the adjudication process.

just be aware of this new adjudication process.

Vauban

Lillil wrote: »

We wrote back to Thomson disputing their reason for rejection and have had response via Resolver referring us to CEDR which has started handing flight delay compensation claims from 1 February 2016, but only initially for Thomson. We have submitted a claim to CEDR today and will post a further update if/when we receive any response. CEDR info is via cedr . com / aviation

I have no idea how objective CEDR is as a process. Call me a cynic, but if Thomson are promoting it I wouldn't be all that confident. They are not really able to adjudicate on matters of law (which is what this question fundamentally is). Let us know how you get on!

legal_magpie

CEDR were primarily set up as an independent mediation company. The process is voluntary. I had experience of them when I was in practice and I was impressed but their role as mediator was to assist the parties to reach an agreement. This role is very different as they will act as adjudicators similar to the parking appeals adjudicators. The £25 nominal fee is to deter time wasters. It's probably too early to see what happens but it is certainly cheaper than going to court and probably quicker. And if you are aggrieved at the outcome you can still go to Court. Watch out for the 6 year limit though. They will be publishing case studies.

Alan_Bowen

CEDR has run the ABTA arbitration scheme for a number of years, without complaints from customers, operators aren't so happy as they seem very generous to consumers!