Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

gemlou2018

Wonder if anyone can help?

Recent my family and I had a delayed flight to Dominican Republic so I made a claim within days of returning home, exactly a month after the claim was made through Resolver I had an email to say “ thanks for your claim yes it was our fault your compensation is £££ and the cheque will be with you within 28 days”.

Great, a response with a resolution which I was happy about, however it has now exceeded 28days from this email stating I should expect the cheque and I haven’t received a single penny!

I have made several attempts to contact TUI but I keep getting fobbed off as they tell me it’s a legal case and even though it has exceeded 60days they do not put a time on these cases!

What can I do next? I was told I am entitled to compensation so surely it doesn’t take that long to write a cheque and sent it :mad

Tyzap

You can send them a LBA as a precursor to initiating legal action via MCOL. That should get their attention. See Vaubans guide for details and a template Letter Before Action.

Good luck.

legal_magpie

Tui ( formerly Thomson) have insufficient staff to deal with the substantial number of claims so they concentrate on those who shout the loudest especially those who issue court proceedings. They will delay for as long as you let them so, yes, get a strongly worded LBA out and if they fail to comply, sue them. In your letter you must point out that they have already admitted your claim and if they don’t pay up you will claim interest

JPears

It may be a good idea to fill in all the MCOL paperwork in advance, less your signature and date, take copies and include them with your LBA. They will then know you are serious and ready for action, rather than an empty threat and the procrastination/letter tennis phase is well and truly over.

Ian_Langley

I was on flight TOM172 to cancun from Manchester June 14th delayed over 6 hours. I put a claim in to Thomson and had the initial following reply:
In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union (“the Regulation”) now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival. In light of the Supreme Court ruling on 31st October 2014 we have investigated the claim for flight TOM172 which operated between Manchester to Cancun, our delay handling logs show that the flight was delayed due Meteorological conditions.
So as to help both customers and airlines, the European Commission has recently published draft guidelines as to what amounts to extraordinary circumstances. This list was prepared with the assistance of the various national bodies responsible for regulating the aviation industry across Europe.
In this draft, the Commission has intimated that the following would be considered extraordinary circumstances:
13. Damage to the aircraft which could affect the safety of the flight or the integrity of the aircraft and requires immediate assessment and/or repair and caused by other meteorological events (for example: lightning strikes, hailstones, thunderstorms, severe turbulence etc).
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.
This was followed by later after said I was not happy with there response:
Thank you for your further correspondence regarding your flight delay.
I am sorry to hear that you are unhappy with our response and having reinvestigated into your claim I can confirm that our position stands in regards to your flight. If you wish, you can refer your complaint to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) for an independent determination to be made. CEDR is an independent dispute resolution provider certified by the Civil Aviation Authority to adjudicate disputes between airlines and their passengers that have not been resolved through the airline’s own complaints procedure.
You can find out how to refer your complaint to CEDR by visiting their website: (link removed
I believe they are stretching the truth
Has any else who was on this flight claimed and what was the result

JPears

What was the reason for the delay that you know of or given at the time? You haven't said.
Bott online indicates you might be eligable for a claim.
Time to go to CEDR.

sdaviso2

I'd just like to share to anyone that was on this flight, I initially complained to Thomson regarding the 20 hour delay due to smoke in the galley caused by an oven, this flight made an emergency landing in Lisbon. I recieved the reply to say this was extraordinary circumstances and compensation will not be paid to which I went direct to CEDR.

To my delight, CEDR have agreed with me that this was not classed as an extraoridinary circumstance.

Reasons for decision
1. The airline submits that the Flight was delayed by extraordinary circumstances, namely that the
preceding flight had to be diverted due to smoke in the cabin.
2. The test for whether an event is an extraordinary circumstance is that it must be not inherent in the
normal activity of the air carrier, that is it must be outside the operating systems of the aircraft, and
that it must have been outside the airline’s actual control.
3. The airline states that the delay “could not have been foreseen prior to departure and is an
extremely rare event”. Whilst I acknowledge this, I find that the rarity of an event is irrelevant to the
test for extraordinary circumstances.
4. I am satisfied from the evidence that the smoke related to part of the aircraft, likely an oven, and
that it is therefore inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier. Accordingly, it cannot be an
extraordinary circumstance.
5. In view of this, I am not persuaded that the airline has established a defence of extraordinary
circumstances that could not have been avoided by taking reasonable measures. I therefore find
that the passenger is entitled to compensation under Regulation 261 in the sum of €400.00

I do hope this helps and guides anyone wishing to claim for this flight although payment has not been paid as yet.

Tyzap

Ian_Langley wrote: »

I was on flight TOM172 to cancun from Manchester June 14th delayed over 6 hours.
I believe they are stretching the truth
Has any else who was on this flight claimed and what was the result

Hi Ian, there were no problems with aircraft landing at CUN on 14th June, so this looks like a valid claim.

Interestingly the following flights landed...

BY48/Tom48 LGW-CUN G-TUII Arrived 19.16 UTC
BY536/Tom536 DUB-CUN G-TUIA Arrived 19.25 UTC
MT2842 MAN-CUN G-MDBD Arrived 19.50 UTC
BA2203 LGW-CUN G-VIIO Arrived 20.30 UTC

Many, many other flight landed either side of the above examples and I did not see a single aircraft divert.

Other Thomson flights, from LGW and DUB, don't seen to have been affected and the MT2842 from Manchester also made it in without any problems, so Thomson need to explain an awful lot more or pay you the due compensation.

I'll put my money on this being a 'knock on' from a previous problem that occurred to your aircraft. That does not exempt them tho.

Good luck.

Ian_Langley

Ian_Langley wrote: »

I was on flight TOM172 to cancun from Manchester June 14th delayed over 6 hours. I put a claim in to Thomson and had the initial following reply:
In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union (“the Regulation”) now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival. In light of the Supreme Court ruling on 31st October 2014 we have investigated the claim for flight TOM172 which operated between Manchester to Cancun, our delay handling logs show that the flight was delayed due Meteorological conditions.
So as to help both customers and airlines, the European Commission has recently published draft guidelines as to what amounts to extraordinary circumstances. This list was prepared with the assistance of the various national bodies responsible for regulating the aviation industry across Europe.
In this draft, the Commission has intimated that the following would be considered extraordinary circumstances:
13. Damage to the aircraft which could affect the safety of the flight or the integrity of the aircraft and requires immediate assessment and/or repair and caused by other meteorological events (for example: lightning strikes, hailstones, thunderstorms, severe turbulence etc).
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.
This was followed by later after said I was not happy with there response:
Thank you for your further correspondence regarding your flight delay.
I am sorry to hear that you are unhappy with our response and having reinvestigated into your claim I can confirm that our position stands in regards to your flight. If you wish, you can refer your complaint to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) for an independent determination to be made. CEDR is an independent dispute resolution provider certified by the Civil Aviation Authority to adjudicate disputes between airlines and their passengers that have not been resolved through the airline’s own complaints procedure.
You can find out how to refer your complaint to CEDR by visiting their website: (link removed
I believe they are stretching the truth
Has any else who was on this flight claimed and what was the result

Tyzap wrote: »

Hi Ian, there were no problems with aircraft landing at CUN on 14th June, so this looks like a valid claim.

Interestingly the following flights landed...

BY48/Tom48 LGW-CUN G-TUII Arrived 19.16 UTC
BY536/Tom536 DUB-CUN G-TUIA Arrived 19.25 UTC
MT2842 MAN-CUN G-MDBD Arrived 19.50 UTC
BA2203 LGW-CUN G-VIIO Arrived 20.30 UTC

Many, many other flight landed either side of the above examples and I did not see a single aircraft divert.

Other Thomson flights, from LGW and DUB, don't seen to have been affected and the MT2842 from Manchester also made it in without any problems, so Thomson need to explain an awful lot more or pay you the due compensation.

I'll put my money on this being a 'knock on' from a previous problem that occurred to your aircraft. That does not exempt them tho.

Good luck.[/QUOTE

Thanks for your reply,

The reson for the delay we were told were as follows

We were told at the time (by the Captain on the tannoy) That the original plane was flying from to Cuba when it was struck by lightning. The Plane then few from Cuba to Cancun where it was seen in Cancun that there were holes in the wing, The flight was therefore changed to a different plane, which caused delay on the plane flying out from Cancun to Manchaester. which cascaded on to our flight. Any Thoughts??

Tyzap

Ian_Langley wrote: »

The reson for the delay we were told were as follows

We were told at the time (by the Captain on the tannoy) That the original plane was flying from to Cuba when it was struck by lightning. The Plane then few from Cuba to Cancun where it was seen in Cancun that there were holes in the wing, The flight was therefore changed to a different plane, which caused delay on the plane flying out from Cancun to Manchaester. which cascaded on to our flight. Any Thoughts??

Hi Ian,

Your flight was not directly affected by the earlier problem, which must have happened at least roughly 24 hrs or more before your flight was due to depart MAN. Your flight was departing from their main base, where the most resources are available to them so they should have been able to make alternative arrangements to prevent the original problem also impacting you.

Good luck.