Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Cherrycherry wrote: »

But how to find out the exact arrival time? Flight stats is showing unconfirmed time and its just under 2 min of 4 hours delay threshold? What time should I put in my claim to the court if not sure? And what amount should I claim €600 or €300?

The airline will have the correct time. Claim for the full amount, and let them disprove you.

markavo1

Ich wrote: »

Is that not a good reason that the CAA route should not be avoided just to save time?

Even if the CAA do back your claim for compensation, they can't actually force Thomson to pay the compensation. I think when the civil procedure rules talk of unreasonableness, it is in the true meaning of the word. It would not be unreasonable on the claimants behalf if, after giving Thomson numerous opportunities before a final nba to comply with the eu regulation, the claimant instigating civil proceedings.

The CAA do however, have the power to fine Thomson up to £5000 for each non-compliance with the EU regulation. So, I think what will be important, is once people start going to Court and (hopefully) getting successful outcomes, these are all forwarded to the CAA. Hopefully, the CAA will start using its enforcement powers and Thomson will very quickly realise that it will be far quicker and cheaper for them just to pay up in the first place

Bamb0ozle

Is anybody willing to quote on this? I really don't know where to go from here (bar no win no fee) and I would would appreciate a little advice, thanks in advance

Bamb0ozle wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

I am attempting a claim against Thompson for a flight in 2011 from Faro to Gatwick, we had a 4 hour delay while we had to wait for a plane to be sent to us from Cyprus, Thompson have refused our claim on extraordinary circumstances, they are claiming that the plane coming from Gatwick, fully loaded to drop off at Faro had been hit by a refuelling tender and it had to be "passed fit" before taking to the skies, so a plane was brought from Cyprus to pick up these passengers from Gatwick and bring them out to Faro, now I totally understand that being hit by a fuel tender is out of Thompsons hands, but I seem to remember the pilot telling us that the plane had broken down at Gatwick and nothing about being hit by a fuel tender, also at what point does a plane become your official plane for a particular flight, it hadn't left Gatwick and could not have even take on it's passengers yet if it was being refuelled.

So my question is do I still have grounds to chase a claim with Thompson?

Vauban

Bamb0ozle wrote: »

Is anybody willing to quote on this? I really don't know where to go from here (bar no win no fee) and I would would appreciate a little advice, thanks in advance

Read the FAQs on page one - including the "what to do next" link. Do you have a claim? I'd say so: but Thompson don't seem to be paying out, so you will probably have to take them to Court to find out for sure.

Bamb0ozle

Thank you Vauban, I did read the FAQ's before I posted but couldn't see anything that helped, but I will go back and re-read, thank you

markavo1

Bamb0ozle wrote: »

Is anybody willing to quote on this? I really don't know where to go from here (bar no win no fee) and I would would appreciate a little advice, thanks in advance

if you read through the precedant cases already set (on faq's), the question of extraordinary circumstances is split in two. The first question is was the delay caused by extraordinary circumstances? if the answer is yes, then the second question is did the airline then do all that was reasonable and within their control to avoid them extraordinary circumstances causing your flight to be delayed? In your case, I would say that if indeed your plane was hit by a fuel tanker, this would fall into extraordinary circumstances. So then you have to look at whether the resultant 4 hour delay could have been prevented if Thomson had done something differently. Ultimately, given Thomson are not going to pay out without you taking legal action, you ultimately may have to put a case to the judge to convince him/her that Thomson did not do all they could to minimise the delay. I think by arguing about Thomsons contingencies etc, you would still have a case, but in my personal opinion, your case is probably going to be harder than most straightforward delays due to technical defects, because Thomson may be able to successfully argue extraordinary circumstances

Bamb0ozle

Thank you markavo

jenn1ewest1

I filed my claim via mcol on the 15th April after receiving a letter stating my claim for my flight delay in 2009 was not valid due to the two year rule they are using .Thomson acknowledged on the 19th of april stating they intended to defend am I right in believing they have until the 5th of May to present their defence. can they now change their mind on the two year and go with extraordinary circumstances as their defence
JH

nigelpm

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

I filed my claim via mcol on the 15th April after receiving a letter stating my claim for my flight delay in 2009 was not valid due to the two year rule they are using .Thomson acknowledged on the 19th of april stating they intended to defend am I right in believing they have until the 5th of May to present their defence. can they now change their mind on the two year and go with extraordinary circumstances as their defence
JH

They can defend in any way they so desire.

Any communication you have had with them is irrelevant due to the "Without prejudice" line used

markavo1

nigelpm wrote: »

They can defend in any way they so desire.

Any communication you have had with them is irrelevant due to the "Without prejudice" line used

Not true!! "Without prejudice" is commonly misconceived. The legal phrase applies only when a party offers to settle. Without prejudice would prevent any inference being made by the offer to settle if the case was not settled and continued to court

Previous communications with Thomson will likely be admissible in court