Court success thread

magnaman

Tom022 Hi

I have asked fellow passengers to PM so I can draw their attention to the issue/circumstances in regard to the successful conclusion and provide them with documents they will need..

Basically, our flight was scheduled to depart at 0915 but the original, inbound aircraft was struck by lightning resulting in a damaged, flight deck window. Thomson flew in a replacement aircraft but by 1130, during pre-flight checks, we were advised that a vehicle had struck the replacement aircraft causing an escape chute to "fall out" - not an extraordinary event however, it then transpires that the replacement aircraft was not hit by a vehicle but the chute just "fell off". As a consequence, the flight was cancelled as the crew were out of legal time. We were then unceremoniously, herded towards the very grotty, Gatwick Hilton and boarded the next day at 0815 landing in Cancun some 23+ hours late.

Returning to the UK I decided to pursue Thomson for compensation. Having been initially fobbed off with their ridiculous 56 day investigation rubbish, I began my research and discovered that this chute issue can be attributed to none latching and/or worn parts and, even more alarming, misrigging by maintenance staff. It was on this that our case succeeded.

Incidentally, the Air Accident Investigation Branch, have documented a similar issue with an almost identical aircraft (Boeing 767-200, ours was a 767-300 but of similar age) en route from Harare to LGW in 2006. Seems the chute "fell out" and was found a few days later in a field about 3 miles from the airport. Boeing were also aware of this "technical issue" according to the AAIB, there were two likely causes 1) In-compartment Inflation, which would be immediately evident or 2) incomplete latching, misrigging or worn parts. They (AAIB) concluded number 2 - case closed!

DTDfanBoy

magnaman wrote: »

Incidentally, the Air Accident Investigation Branch, have documented a similar issue with an almost identical aircraft (Boeing 767-200, ours was a 767-300 but of similar age) en route from Harare to LGW in 2006. Seems the chute "fell out" and was found a few days later in a field about 3 miles from the airport. Boeing were also aware of this "technical issue" according to the AAIB, there were two likely causes 1) In-compartment Inflation, which would be immediately evident or 2) incomplete latching, misrigging or worn parts. They (AAIB) concluded number 2 - case closed!

Being bumped by a vehicle causing a slide to fall out :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

There are some well known problems with both the 762 and the 763 overwing slides, but they generally identify themselves when they deploy whilst airborne and are ripped off :eek:

Assuming it was an empty replacement flight coming in my money is on a slide not being disarmed by the cabin crew, did Thomson state which slide was involved ??

Well done on the win as well, it was well deserved as whatever led to the slide being deployed was almost certainly caused by incompetent Thompson staff members, which is obviously nothing extraordinary :cool:

Gorbar

Another TC success, flight TCX 7175. Should have gone to Court on 5th Nov., yesterday they pulled out, they are going to pay expenses also. Would like to thank everybody for their help. We used a NWNF & I think a little is better than nothing.

Vauban

Well done Gorbar - what percentage of your entitlement do you get to keep, therefore?

Gorbar

Vauban wrote: »

Well done Gorbar - what percentage of your entitlement do you get to keep, therefore?

We get 75% plus the £150. Court fees we had paid, think we will also get interest. We used EU delay

magnaman

DTDfanBoy

Thank you - and no, no mention of which door it was but I think the captain said it was a rear one but don't quote me! Yes, it was an empty aircraft which may well fit with your conclusion!

PS. Cheque arrived this morning!

grazzzz

Flight TCX57L Antalya to Gatwick 4/5/09
Court today

I won !
The judge was not impressed with TC submitting
Late evidence , they also omitted the engineers witness statement.the barrister could not use extraordinary circumstances even though she tried as she could explain what the actual problem was with the
Aircraft hence she wanted an adjournment.This was refused on the basis
The hadn't adhered to the courts strict guidelines in supplying the correct
evidence /bundles and as there was no written statements then any oral statements from the engineer wouldn't be allowed either.
I was given quite a hard time by the judge however as the couldn't explain
What they actual problem was with the cracked screen it could have been a multitude of reason some extraordinary some not he decided in my favour
At the opening of the hearing TC dropped all of there claims except the extraordinary circumstances claim. I was up against a barrister TC had instructed I have won £682 she even contested the exchange rate the judge overruled this they have until Oct 23 to pay.
Thanks for all your help everyone on here has been really good and some great advice
The CAA letter was very useful judge took notice of it and as my flight wasn't listed judge thought it can't be a serious fault or even a smokescreen
Very happy
If anyone has any questions or is thinking of doing this themselves I would encourage you to go for it

VOB72

At the opening of the hearing TC dropped all of there claims except the extraordinary circumstances claim. I was up against a barrister TC had instructed

Well done Grazz - gives heart to those of us still battling! Just 2 questions please:- 1) what other arguments did they drop? and 2) Were they represented by Trav Law or did they deal with it in house?

grazzzz

VOB72 wrote: »

At the opening of the hearing TC dropped all of there claims except the extraordinary circumstances claim. I was up against a barrister TC had instructed

Well done Grazz - gives heart to those of us still battling! Just 2 questions please:- 1) what other arguments did they drop? and 2) Were they represented by Trav Law or did they deal with it in house?

They dropped that I had to prove I was on the flight
And that I had no private law civil cause of action
And that my wife was included in the claim

grazzzz

Centipede100 wrote: »

The use of a barrister suggests that they were legally represented rather than inhouse.

She was employed to represent them she was an independent I presume