Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

111KAB

Should be on Thomson thread.

Justice13075

Just searched on historical flight details

Stephterry75

After several emails to Thomson, 4 months later they confirmed approval had been given for my flight delay - I filled in no forms! After being told they sent the cheque to my previous address (they hadn't confirmed approval or communicated with me until I chased them so didn't get a chance to update my address beforehand), I then had to wait another 28 working days for them to stop the cheque and another 28 working days for the re-issue. The deadline they gave themselves is now up and they are still giving excuses "it will be with you shortly". I'm not stupid and know damn well that they never issued a cheque. I chased them again last week but they have not responded. As I have confirmation on emails that they will be compensating me, I'm considering taking them to court as they obviously have no intention on actually issuing a cheque. Does anyone know who to address court papers to and where to send them? I asked Thomson this but they have not responded! They are an absolute bunch of muppets. Thanks.

JPears

Read Vauban's guide for your answers

gillyflower44

hi quick question my son and his mates were delayed over 5 hours on Thomson flight last sept flying back from paphos to east mids. I have put in a claim and Thompson turned it down saying it was out of their control as there was damage to runway at Rhodes airport on previous day. what I need to know is this Thomson wriggling out of paying or is that a real reason for them not paying up. what puzzles me is the runway damage wasn't at paphos or east mids so wan't at either airport of arrival or departure and happened on previous day so surely they should have put in extra planes to make up the delay for the people flying the next day. hope this makes sense should I keep up the pressure thanks gill

Justice13075

Yes they are due compensation of 400 euro per person. Read Vaubans guide and send off the letter before action.

This should be on the Thomson thread

zzx

BUt In preamble 15 it says: "


Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

I lost this point in court that knock effects are extraordinary circumstances based on particular aircraft on a particular day. Preamble 14 and 15 are contradictory.

Hppily I won the case base on Easyjet not deploying all its resources to prevent the extraordinary circumstance leading to cncellation of the flight.

But we need clarity here.

JPears

zzx wrote: »

BUt In preamble 15 it says: "


Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

I lost this point in court that knock effects are extraordinary circumstances based on particular aircraft on a particular day. Preamble 14 and 15 are contradictory.

Hppily I won the case base on Easyjet not deploying all its resources to prevent the extraordinary circumstance leading to cncellation of the flight.

But we need clarity here.

They are contradictory in the sense of the flight /plane but they deal with different things - weather and ATC. However, why should there be a difference? Known ATC strikes are easier to deal with and workaround than random weather events!
Thats good that you won on the 2nd hurdle. Not many cases, that I am aware of, have suceeded on this important point.

Tyzap

Had the wording had been slightly different, eg 'particular aircraft on a particular flight' it would have been much clearer.

I believe court cases have swung both ways on this point.

As JP says tho, it is a double hurdle that the airlines need to cross to avoid paying compensation. But it's very rare that they are willing to look beyond their own resources to resolve a problem. So much so that in many cases it is a more winnable point, which is often forgotten.

I honestly cannot say that I have ever read of a case where an airline has actually pulled out all the stops, to get passengers caught up in extraordinary circumstances, to their destination asap.

zzx

But the airline argued successfully that preamble 15 applied because atc decision to close airport was caused by bad weather. So the particular aircraft was delayed by atc decision caused by bad weather. Judge was persuaded , so where does that leave knock one?