Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

arhemm

richart4 wrote: »

I recently instructed Bott Solicitors to claim for compensation on my behalf for a delayed flight to Cancun in 2011 the process has been very quick and within 7 weeks Thomson confirmed they will pay. Thanks for the recommendation for Bott Solicitors as I didn't have time to complete this myself due to other personal commitments.

How much do Bott's take?
I'm helping an elderly couple with a historic claim and fear for them being messed about with Thomson. Initial calls to Thomson led to a refusal to state the delayed times (take off and landing) as the data isn't available on flight stats sites. They tried to get some info from a Thomson travel agent, but were back-heeled there too!
Sad, as one of the couple has cancer and isn't up for a fight. Maybe handing it over and losing a cut is the best option?
Filed a claim online via Thomson and they state they'll reply within 56 days.
Is there a reason for lack of stats as all other and previous flights around the time show stats. The particular flight in question shows data as N/A (not available). The delay was in excess of 9 hours!

Caz3121

arhemm wrote: »

How much do Bott's take?

info should be clear on their website. I think it is 27% + €25

David_e

Caz3121 wrote: »

info should be clear on their website. I think it is 27% + €25

Had a look out of interest:

"We charge 25% + VAT [so 30%] of the total compensation amount plus a £25 per passenger administration fee following payment from the airline"

arhemm

Thanks both, gives an indication of how much they'd lose if Thomson decline their claim.
It would be a travesty though if Thomson decline an elderly couple (one with a major illness) for a legitimate claim, and then pay out because a legal firm pursued the claim!
Is there a Thomson rep present on this site?

smartly

They would lose nothing if Thomson decline their claim, From Bott & Co website:

Award Winning No Win No Fee Legal Representation

So the 27% +£25 per passenger is only paid out of any win.

David_e

smartly wrote: »

They would lose nothing if Thomson decline their claim, From Bott & Co website:

So the 27% +£25 per passenger is only paid out of any win.

Exactly (well 25% + VAT + £25pp).

arhemm

Sorry, my bad!
I meant, if Thomson initially decline their personal claim and they are 'forced' to use a legal firm, then they'd lose out by having to pay around 30%.
30% of something is better than nothing of course, but it would still be a disgrace for Thomson to decline Joe Public and then settle just because a legal firm takes on the case.
In situations like that, it should be Thomson that pay the costs!

Jenno79

Hi there,

I'm looking for a little assistance on the above flight please.

The flight was scheduled to depart from Manchester Airport at 10:40am and was flying to Grantley Adams Airport Barbados. The flight was delayed and did not actually fly out from Manchester until 5:17pm. Landing in Barbados at 9:32pm (a 6 hour delay).

I have written to Thomson who have returned stating that the flight was delayed due to the previous sector being delayed due to to Manchester Airport being closed due to snow and that this is not something we could have prevented and therefore the root cause of this delay sits within extraordinary circumstances.

They then go onto to state 10 and 11 apply of the extraordinary circumstances.

I have looked on Flight Stats and the incoming flight TOM 169 was delayed and only arrived at Manchester at 10:10am on the 17th January 2016, I think it was due to arrive between 6:00 and 6:30 am.

Further I was not aware that the airport was closed the night before of my flight, there was some snow but I cannot find anything in the press stating the airport was shut due to the weather.

I have however found on social media there is mention of the airport being closed in the early hours of the 17th January 2016 due to one of the runways being damaged and that the other runway was being prepared for use but had to be cleared of snow first.

So my question is are Thomson correct to deny the claim if weather affects the earlier incoming flight to Manchester? as my understanding is that the weather has to directly affect my flight for it to be considered an extraordinary circumstance.

Also, as it seems possible, that the earlier incoming flight may have been delayed due to runway damage (although Thomson are not alleging this) would this again not be classed as a knock on effect?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

David_e

Jenno79 wrote: »

So my question is are Thomson correct to deny the claim if weather affects the earlier incoming flight to Manchester? as my understanding is that the weather has to directly affect my flight for it to be considered an extraordinary circumstance.

My understanding also.

Jenno79 wrote: »

Also, as it seems possible, that the earlier incoming flight may have been delayed due to runway damage (although Thomson are not alleging this) would this again not be classed as a knock on effect?

Copied from a replay by DIYBaldyman:

"Download & read Vauban's guide;

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

In particular point 4.6 - knock-on delays & meterological issues & also follow the link to previous court judgements (again, in particular the 2nd ruling of the Finnair judgement.)"

DIYBaldyman

Jenno79 wrote: »

I have written to Thomson who have returned stating that the flight was delayed due to the previous sector being delayed due to to Manchester Airport being closed due to snow and that this is not something we could have prevented and therefore the root cause of this delay sits within extraordinary circumstances.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

It doesn't matter if the earlier flight was delayed due to extraordinary-circumstances - your flight was delayed due to the delay of an earlier flight - that makes if a knock-on delay.

Download & read Vauban's guide, in particular follow the link to the Finnair judgement. This should explain all you need to know.

Write back to Thomson referencing Finnair v Lassooy & state that they can't use a delay to a previous flight to avoid paying compensation on your flight (assuming the airport was back open at the time of your original scheduled departure & would have departed on time had the incoming aircraft not been delayed).

If the airport was still closed at 10:40am then you have no grounds, but if it was back open & operating before then, it was an operational decision made by Thomson to have you wait for the original aircraft & not make alternative arrangements to minimise your delay.