Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY
Options
Comments
-
What Centipede 100 said!
I would add:
(20) There is no requirement to prove any loss under Reg 261/2004; it's a fixed amount of compensation.
(21) The Government think that 8% is an appropriate rate!
https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/work-out-interest
Whether you get that or any interest is, I believe, at the absolute disctretion of the court.
I'm not sure where the 8% actually is in legislation, etc. . I think it might be the rate prescribed for intra-business overdue debts - although the link from the above says 8% + base rate!
I put a bit more info on judgement interest rates etc. here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63979914#post63979914The above is just my opinon - which counts for nowt! You must make up your own mind.0 -
There is another point arising out of the Thomas Cook Charter. It is not unreasonable for Thomson to try to minimise the delay by chartering an aircraft from another airline. Indeed this has been used as an argument before. But I would argue that the fact that the aircraft developed a fault is nothing to do with our claim. This is something for which Thomson could seek an indemnity from Thomas Cook as they should have supplied an airworthy aircraft.
So I agree. Wait for the outcome of Dawson and if the appeal is thrown out, press on. Remember that all you have to prove is that you were on the flight and it was delayed. The rest is up to Thomson to prove.
JJ0 -
lol the defence shredding gathers pace.....;)If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide
The alleged Ringleader.........0 -
Centipede100 wrote: »Well the first part of their defence will either be upheld or found to be invalid during the course of the next couple of months or so when we get to hear the CoA judgment in the Dawson case.
The second part is very creative (but not particularly valid) in respect of your delayed flights.
Firstly in para 10) they state that the delay was attributable to two reasons: severe weather causing various airport closures across the UK in the period from 1st December. What they don't say is whether LGW was actually closed on the day your flight was due to depart as on the contrary it was clearly open and operational!!
Secondly they seem to be blaming a strike in Spain for your flight not being able to operate from LGW to SFB. Apart from the fact that events in Spain have nothing whatsoever to do with your flight, I am not certain that Thomson operated its extended range 767 aircraft to or from Spanish airports at that particular time. I can guess the answer to that as well as you can!!
They also claim that they attempted to bring in a replacement aircraft from TC to operate your flight but that was then delayed due to technical issues (which have also been found not to be Extraordinary Circumstances), so another big fail in the defence...
It is my humble opinion that their valid defence to your outbound flight claim is invalid and unsupported by the facts.
As for your inbound flight, TOM are claiming that weather again played a part in the delay to the preceding flight leaving LGW. This was not your flight, however, and the defence available in the Reg specifically states that 'meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned' can be construed as a valid defence. The airline however has not offered any evidence as to what if any adverse weather conditions directly affected the operation of your flight.
The defence as offered for your return flight cannot therefore be upheld IMHO.
I cannot believe how many replies I have received with some very interesting observations. My husband and I are sure we will sleep better tonight with your help. Thank you very much.0 -
Thank you Vauban. I knew I could rely on you! I will do that later today. Yes you are right, it's their first disclosure.
As you said, there are lots of people giving advice on this forum! I can hardly believe how many have taken the time to comment, bearing in mind the length of the Thomson defence. I can't thank everyone enough with their very interesting information and observations.
I will definitely keep you informed with further details, as and when they are received. Thank you for your encouragement Vauban and my husband and I will sleep better tonight!0 -
Centipede100 wrote: »Well the first part of their defence will either be upheld or found to be invalid during the course of the next couple of months or so when we get to hear the CoA judgment in the Dawson case.
The second part is very creative (but not particularly valid) in respect of your delayed flights.
Firstly in para 10) they state that the delay was attributable to two reasons: severe weather causing various airport closures across the UK in the period from 1st December. What they don't say is whether LGW was actually closed on the day your flight was due to depart as on the contrary it was clearly open and operational!!
Secondly they seem to be blaming a strike in Spain for your flight not being able to operate from LGW to SFB. Apart from the fact that events in Spain have nothing whatsoever to do with your flight, I am not certain that Thomson operated its extended range 767 aircraft to or from Spanish airports at that particular time. I can guess the answer to that as well as you can!!
They also claim that they attempted to bring in a replacement aircraft from TC to operate your flight but that was then delayed due to technical issues (which have also been found not to be Extraordinary Circumstances), so another big fail in the defence...
It is my humble opinion that their valid defence to your outbound flight claim is invalid and unsupported by the facts.
As for your inbound flight, TOM are claiming that weather again played a part in the delay to the preceding flight leaving LGW. This was not your flight, however, and the defence available in the Reg specifically states that 'meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned' can be construed as a valid defence. The airline however has not offered any evidence as to what if any adverse weather conditions directly affected the operation of your flight.
The defence as offered for your return flight cannot therefore be upheld IMHO.
I can only say thank you, which doesn't seem enough after reading and responding to my copy of Thomson's defence. It wasn't very clear to me but now I have received so many messages it is getting a lot clearer! Well it does take a bit longer when you are in your 70's! Lol. My husband and I definitely feel more confident with our claim now. Thank you for taking the time to reply and we really appreciate your help.0 -
razorsedge wrote: »Double check that you have actually got a signed copy and that you have received a copy directly from Thomson.
If not, you might consider writing to the Court to apply for the entire Defence to be struck-out under:
Practice Direction 22 3.4 & CPR22.2 (2) - Failure to verify with a statement of truth (if unsigned). However, you may need to formally apply to the Court for a stike-out under CPR 22.2 (2) - see CPR 22.2 (3).
CPR15.6 - Not following Court procedures by not serving a copy of the defence on all other parties.
Thank you for reminding me!
Thomson sent a copy of their defence to us dated 4th April 2010 but received mid-day on 9th April 2010 unsigned! This was one day late for submission to us. Interestingly the CCMCC forwarded a copy of the same Thomson defence to us dated 4th April 2010 but received 10th April 2010.
This copy, although signed, appears to be a "carbon copy" signature. It is as though a copy of the defence was signed (maybe for CCMCC) with a carbon placed between two copies of defence and we received the one with the carbon signature! Is this legal?0 -
Centipede100 wrote: »Well the first part of their defence will either be upheld or found to be invalid during the course of the next couple of months or so when we get to hear the CoA judgment in the Dawson case.
The second part is very creative (but not particularly valid) in respect of your delayed flights.
Firstly in para 10) they state that the delay was attributable to two reasons: severe weather causing various airport closures across the UK in the period from 1st December. What they don't say is whether LGW was actually closed on the day your flight was due to depart as on the contrary it was clearly open and operational!!
Secondly they seem to be blaming a strike in Spain for your flight not being able to operate from LGW to SFB. Apart from the fact that events in Spain have nothing whatsoever to do with your flight, I am not certain that Thomson operated its extended range 767 aircraft to or from Spanish airports at that particular time. I can guess the answer to that as well as you can!!
They also claim that they attempted to bring in a replacement aircraft from TC to operate your flight but that was then delayed due to technical issues (which have also been found not to be Extraordinary Circumstances), so another big fail in the defence...
It is my humble opinion that their valid defence to your outbound flight claim is invalid and unsupported by the facts.
As for your inbound flight, TOM are claiming that weather again played a part in the delay to the preceding flight leaving LGW. This was not your flight, however, and the defence available in the Reg specifically states that 'meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned' can be construed as a valid defence. The airline however has not offered any evidence as to what if any adverse weather conditions directly affected the operation of your flight.
The defence as offered for your return flight cannot therefore be upheld IMHO.
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post with Thomson's defence.
I have had so many interesting observations I will be kept very busy doing my preparation.
I am endeavouring to collate all the information received on this wonderful forum to enable me to be prepared for the eventual court date. I certainly do not want to rush my statement at the last minute.
Thank you again for your valuable help. I certainly would not have been able to carry on without everybody's kind help and comments.0 -
I hope this is the correct location
However here goes i was onboard this flight and before takeoff the Pilot/First Officer advised us that there was a problem with the Electrical controller apparently this is an automatic switch that will switch from the main wiring loom to the backup wirring loom in the event of a fault whilst in the air and as a result the fault deemed that the flight could not take off till repaired
The ground staf tried many thing including rebooting the system to no avail and they then decided they needed a complete new govenor which they didnt have at Gatwick
The nearest was at Luton so they decided the quickest remedy was to get a replacement aircraft which at this time was an incomming flight
we were therefore offloaded given a £5.00 voucher and told to wait in departures
We did this and eventually got to our destination 3hours 55 mins later than schedule
I therefore looked on the Martin Lewis site and got the template letter and submitted to thompson
However they now say that they wont pay compensation as the technical fault was an extraordinarry event
I feel that this is a mistake and that i am due compensation as i beleive it is reasnable that if the part that failed was such an important part that it would stop a plane being aloud to depart that the spares should be kept in stores at gatwick so that a repair can be carried out within the 3 hour limit
However i would appreciate the member of the forums view as i feel i have a valid claim
Many thanks
ncgreyfriars0 -
A technical problem with a plane is quite ordinary and definitely not extraordinary. A plane can be likened to a car .... they are machines which can break down and they do on a regular basis. So a commonplace problem that should be sorted by the airline within 3 hours or they pay up.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards