Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

Vauban · 16 December 2014 at 2:19PM

JPears wrote: »

Usual desperate J2 BS. Ignore and get on with it.

It is desperate, isn't it? I'm now actually starting to feel embarrassed watching them write this nonsense. Toe curling.

supermac9 · 16 December 2014 at 2:47PM

stevemej wrote: »

Just received the latest claptrap letter from J2
firstly our claim is now time barred because their ts+cs say we wont sue after 2 years.
2ndly the tech delay was extraordinary circumstances.
3rdly the issue of whether a tech issue constitutes an extraordinary circumstance has been referred to the ECJ.
4thly - they note our ref to the Huzar case but the ECJ sit above the national courts.

I am beginning to wonder who at Jet2 is coming out with this total nonsense - I expect they have a competition among the staff each morning to come up with the most unbelievable tripe possible.:eek:

Tyzap · 16 December 2014 at 3:50PM

stevemej wrote: »

Just received the latest claptrap letter from J2
firstly our claim is now time barred because their ts+cs say we wont sue after 2 years.
2ndly the tech delay was extraordinary circumstances.
3rdly the issue of whether a tech issue constitutes an extraordinary circumstance has been referred to the ECJ.
4thly - they note our ref to the Huzar case but the ECJ sit above the national courts.

Where is our National Enforcement Body when you need them? and why are they not using their powers to force compliance, not just with the law, but also their own guide lines.

It's about time they issued their first £5000 fine.

They are a disgrace to allow this to go on!

NoviceAngel · 16 December 2014 at 7:27PM

stevemej wrote: »

4thly - they note our ref to the Huzar case but the ECJ sit above the national courts.

They said the exact same thing to me after they had read my objection to a further stay pending Van der Lans . My (credit to Batman) argument is:-

The EU directive 261/2004 is for member states to decide via the law of the land of that state, and to be interpreted as such, no other country, cannot be overruled by any other pending case in some other country.

and I posted in the Huzar thread:-

NoviceAngel wrote:

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Absolutely, by its own definition, it is the Supreme Court and any decision made is binding on all lower courts.

Not according to 2Birds, their response to my Court submission is

2Birds wrote:

our client considers that the outcome of van der Lans is directly applicable to your matter as any ruling on the same shall be binding not only on the national court on whose initiative the reference for a preliminary ruling was made but also on all of the national courts of the Member States.

I guess our Supreme Court doesn't really matter then?

To play devils advocate ~ Do J2 have any wriggle room left?

Tyzap · 16 December 2014 at 8:10PM

NoviceAngel wrote: »

They said the exact same thing to me and I posted in the Huzar thread:-

My (credit to Batman) response is:-

The EU directive 261/2004 is for member states to decide via the law of the land of that state, and to be interpreted as such, no other country, cannot be overruled by any other pending case in some other country.

To play devils advocate ~ Do J2 have any wriggle room left?

I guess it will all become clearer when the Bott test case goes to court in Liverpool some time in February. As this is where the more experienced aviation Judges are, I expect this will be the best court to hear the case. It could be very interesting!

It seems to have been listed pretty quickly too, wonder if thats a sign the Judges are keen to get their teeth into it?;)

Mark2spark · 16 December 2014 at 11:01PM

Surely we can somehow muster up a petition to the CAA, quoting jet2's continuing body swerves, and *insist* that they now start dishing out fines?
And if not, then we might have the first step towards getting the CAA kicked off as *our* NEB?

NoviceAngel · 16 December 2014 at 11:19PM

Mark2spark wrote: »

Surely we can somehow muster up a petition to the CAA, quoting jet2's continuing body swerves, and *insist* that they now start dishing out fines?
And if not, then we might have the first step towards getting the CAA kicked off as *our* NEB?

Well to be fair to the CAA, they have said that the airlines SHOULD now pay up.

CAA wrote:

1. The UK Civil Aviation Authority issued this press release on the 31st October 2014.
Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the CAA, said:
“…. the court’s decisions in these cases bring legal clarity to this issue and we now expect airlines to abide by them when considering claims.

This is also important information for anyone who has made a claim for flight delay compensation but is waiting for a decision pending the outcome from Supreme Court. Following the decisions in these two cases, airlines should not continue to put claims on hold. Where airlines have already put claims on hold, the CAA expects airlines to revisit them and pay compensation for any eligible claims.”

After reading their powers, they are not without teeth, so YES fines should be forthcoming from the CAA, but we all know that the CAA will say that since this is subject to Court proceedings that they will decline to comment further.

The CAA are simply not fit for purpose, and I think Bott will have a better chance sorting this mess out in February than any petition. I recall 111KAB had posted that he/she had written to everyone in power and it was blanked by all and sundry.

There have been complaints not just to the CAA, but MP's MEP's Chief Execs of the airlines - nobody wants to take action, they really are that scared of the airlines.

I recall Vauban posting along the lines of 'my work is done' following the SC ruling, one of the few times that PtL Vauban was wrong. I think that our work will never be done, not until some of the airlines cease trading, they would rather do that than pay compensation to passengers.

You will have noticed the new battle - Jet2's 2 yr limitation, so just when Huzar and Dawson comes to an end, we start again!

NoviceAngel · 16 December 2014 at 11:32PM

Tyzap wrote: »

Found it.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1018_Guidance_on_Consumer_Enforcement.pdf

Re-posted since we were talking about their powers.

and

111KAB wrote: »

Having written to my MEP, my local MP, the UK representative on the EU transport committee, the EU ombudsman, the EU leader of the transport committee, the CAA all more than once - I have given up - the final letter was from the secretary to the EU ombudsman (the ombudsman is actually an Irish woman) and it was apparent that she like all the others mentioned have not got a clue.

mrtonygibson · 17 December 2014 at 5:38PM

I have today received a letter from the district judge at Mansfield CC refusing the "stay" requested by 2 birds in light of "paragraph (2) of the order of the supreme court in cases of Jet2.com v Huzar and Thomson Airways v Dawson". Court date 18th Feb at Mansfield CC. Looks like this judge is going to enforce the SC decision if I read this correctly.

JPears · 17 December 2014 at 5:47PM

mrtonygibson wrote: »

I have today received a letter from the district judge at Mansfield CC refusing the "stay" requested by 2 birds in light of "paragraph (2) of the order of the supreme court in cases of Jet2.com v Huzar and Thomson Airways v Dawson". Court date 18th Feb at Mansfield CC. Looks like this judge is going to enforce the SC decision if I read this correctly.

Fantastic news. Hopefully the Judge will also ask Jet2 why their defence should not be struck out at this stage. It is interesting that your date is just after the "Bott Case" in Liverpool, Feb 15th. I wonder if the judge is being canny, taking lead from the result of that case?

Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free