Thomson Claim Success in Court

JeremyBuxton

In August 2010, my family took a Thomson holiday to the Greek Island of Samos. Flight TOM2437 from Samos (SMI) to Manchester (MAN) scheduled for 1220GMT on 5 August 2010 was delayed by twenty hours and fifty seven minutes due to a fault with the plane. We had kept the actual paperwork handed out by Thomson to passengers on arrival at Manchester on 6 August 2010, which clearly explained the circumstances behind the delay and the fact that the fault was discovered at Manchester.


However, Thomson's statement submitted to the court dated 9/4/2013 stated otherwise. The company wrongly claimed that the fault was discovered in Samos, a possible deceitful attempt to maliciously try and avoid paying compensation as this fault did not occur on our flight TOM2437 but a previous deployment of the aircraft. The airline also stated on the court statement submitted on 9/4/2013 that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel guage. I had evidence submitted from a trained Boeing pilot (my father who flew for Britannia/Thomson until retirement) which explained that even if the faulty fuel gauge had been discovered in Samos on flight TOM2437, it would still have been perfectly possible to fly the plane back to Manchester by using the manual dipstick system for checking fuel levels. A faulty fuel gauge would not have been sufficient reason to cause this length of delay.


When we got to court on 13/8/2013, Thomson's witness statements stated that the fault with the plane was in fact discovered in Manchester (NOT Samos - which we knew all along), and that the fault was caused by a faulty fuel VALVE (not guage as they initially submitted). Clearly I stressed to the District Judge that it was odd that this fault had changed in nature and location between their legal submission dated 9/4/2013 and now, and that it rendered my evidence pointless. However, it would prove useful to have a 737 pilot in the courtroom as my father was able to clarify operational queries raised.


Thomson's defence in this case rested on this faulty fuel VALVE (not gauge!) being an "extraordinary circumstance". EU regulation 261/2004 states "As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". I stressed that an airline should have a reasonable expectation that things can and do go wrong on an aircraft, and therefore should have adequate contingency plans in place. The standby plane was in Cardiff, and Thomson chose to fly that plane to Manchester first rather than direct to Samos. This then meant that the crew were out of their legal flying hours and could not possibly operate flight TOM2437. Nor did Thomson bother to include an extra crew on the flight into Samos to then operate the flight. This was entirely within the airline's operational capacity, should have been pre-empted under contingency plans, and therefore cannot be considered as an extraordinary circumstance. The airline had a duty of care to its fee-paying passengers to reduce the delay as much as possible - and it chose not to do so.


The judge was not initially swayed by this argument, and it seemed as though we were not going to win the case.



Thomson also claimed that they had no choice but make the plane stay overnight in Samos and fly back on the following day (6 August 2010) because the airport closed at 1730hrs. However, there were flights departing from Samos Airport into the evening - and we were able to show that there was an Air Berlin flight that very night to Dusseldorf at 2025hrs local time! Thomson were being economical with the truth.


We also pointed out that throughout Thomson's witness statements/evidence, there were three different time zones used - GMT, BST and Samos local time - whereas all air travel uses the standard GMT. We believed they were manipulating the timings to cause maximum confusion.




Thomson's barrister also tried to show that the fault was out of their control, as the plane had been regularly serviced and the faulty part only replaced in May 2010. However, they said it was the fourth time it had been replaced. I suggested to the judge that if his car had a part fail four times, he would surely be contacting the manufacturer? Thomson said it was not happening across the Boeing 737-800 fleet, therefore wasn't a known issue. However, I told the judge that it was likely to be a possible dodgy batch which Thomson had then continued to use when alarm bells should have been ringing on the fourth occasion.


The true breakthrough moment came when we highlighted that Thomson's evidence submitted to the court included the pilot report from when the fault was ACTUALLY first discovered - on an earlier flight from Ibiza to Manchester that day (5/8/2010) and not at Manchester as they had claimed (after previously stating it was discovered in Samos!). This meant that the airline was actually able to fly the plane, as it was discovered on pushback at Ibiza and they continued to fly to Manchester. But most important was that it had given Thomson operations managers an extra 2.5/3 hours' notice of the problem, during which time they could have ordered the necessary repair parts and also arranged for the standby crew/plane to come from elsewhere. I argued that effectively Thomson Airways had failed to keep the delays to a minimum, and had therefore definitely failed us as paying customers.


In summing up, the judge agreed with this and decided that Thomson had not successfully defended the case as their own evidence had failed them. He would not rule on whether it was an extraordinary circumstance, as he deemed it unnecessary in the case due to the evidence failings. I also believe he wanted to avoid having to decide that, as it is such a sensitive, grey area.


Eitherway, we were awarded the full 1600 euros (£1238) plus costs. Thank you Martin and the MSE team!!! And keep fighting if you have a claim; they will do anything to stop you! :beer:

JPears

Marvellous result. Egg on the face of the airlines again.

Angelina1

Fantastic result.....just shows that you can beat the big boys. Must have taken an awful lot of hard work to get that result.

Well done and shame on you Thomson for not paying out and trying to wriggle out of it using the same old excuse "extraordinary circumstances"

JPears

Angelina1 wrote: »

Fantastic result.....just shows that you can beat the big boys. Must have taken an awful lot of hard work to get that result.

Well done and shame on you Thomson for not paying out and trying to wriggle out of it using the same old excuse "extraordinary circumstances"

And quite frankly showing complete incompetance or bordering on questionable moral ethics and truthfulness

friendofbillw2

JeremyBuxton wrote: »

their own evidence had failed them

Crikey, that's the forum understatement of the year!

Make me a District Judge. Please. Pretty Please?

Prosecutions for contempt, and dare I say perjury, would increase tenfold if I got my share of these delay compensation cases.

And what do the Civil Aviation Authority, our National ENFORCEMENT Body, think of airlines behaving like this and dragging the industry to new lows?

Silence. In fact, if anything, they encourage it. Total waste of rations, the lot of them.

JeremyBuxton

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

And what do the Civil Aviation Authority, our National ENFORCEMENT Body, think of airlines behaving like this and dragging the industry to new lows?

The CAA are funded by the airlines, so you can guess who they will back. Interestingly they wrote to me and told me that they couldn't help as the flight originated in Greece. They said I had to contact the Greek equivalent and raise it with them...!

maghater

Sounds like you were pretty nimble on your feet in the court, well done

System

Angelina1 wrote: »

trying to wriggle out of it using the same old excuse "extraordinary circumstances"

There was no ruling on that so no evidence of whether it would have succeeded or not. Don't put words into the judge's mouth

He would not rule on whether it was an extraordinary circumstance

Mark2spark

Well done Jeremy. As the flight was 2010, did Thomson ever try the 2 year time limit one?