Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY
Options
Comments
-
JGJackson.
Please don't waste your time on the following:
1. Writing to CAA again. They can do nothing for you. Even if they say you have a valid claim (slim chance) Jet2 will ignore it with impunity.
2. Contacting Jet2 other than to send an NBA. Jet2 are desperate to the point of reckless mania to admit defeat. What they have told you is complete BS on every point. They will fight you every step of the way until you have a judgement in your hand from the court.
What was the reason for your delay? Valid ECs are few and far between.If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide
The alleged Ringleader.........0 -
Totally agree with J Pears, and to demonstrate the complete folly of having anything to do with the CAA, here is a recent email I received from them.
Prizes for anyone who can make sense of it, or translate it into English.:huh:
Thank you for your further correspondence and our apologies for the delay in replying.
As you mentioned further correspondence from Jet2 regarding your claim, may I ask you to send us a copy of it for our records?
I understand Jet2 has advised you they are ‘staying’ your claim in light of a court case, KLM v Van der Lans, which has been referred by the Dutch Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This case is likely to be heard by the CJEU in Spring 2015 with the final ruling expected later in 2015.
You may be aware there has been a similar court case in the UK. On the 11th June 2014 the Court of Appeal issued a decision in the Jet2 v Huzar case and found that ordinary technical problems that cause flight disruption, such as component failure and general wear and tear, should not be considered an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ and compensation would be payable in these cases.
Jet2 sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court. On 31st October 2014 the Supreme Court announced they had decided to refuse Jet2 permission to appeal the ruling. Therefore the Court of Appeal Judgment applies.
The CAA considers that airlines should now pay compensation for flight disruptions that fall within the scope of the Huzar ruling and most airlines are paying. However several County Courts have already granted ‘stays’ on the basis of the ‘KLM v Van der Lans’ case, which means currently it is unclear whether there is a sound legal basis for further delay for claims not currently lodged at Court. The CAA will be monitoring the decisions of the courts closely.
Jet2 has advised that they will not be handling your case until the outcome of the CJEU Judgment.
We will reopen your case but for the reasons outlined above, we are currently unable to progress your case at this stage. We will be in touch when the position is clearer to advise you how we will be taking your claim forward.
If you are not happy with this outcome, you may wish to take the case to a local County Court. We are not able to provide you with legal advice in respect of your claim, but you can get guidance on commencing court proceedings from your local Citizens' Advice Bureau or the Court Service. Please refer to the information provided via the following links:
- http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm
- https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview
- http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/
You should be aware that, until the CJEU issues a Judgment, any action you take through the courts may be stayed. You should also be aware that, the CJEU may take a different decision to the UK Court of Appeal.
Currently your claim relates to a flight disruption less than 5 years ago. However the legal process can take some time and you should be aware that in the UK the limitation period to take a claim to court is 6 years. If the legal process does end up taking some years, you may wish to bear in mind the 6 year time limit if you are considering County Court action.
To confirm we are holding your claim until the CJEU issues a Judgment and we will review the position at that stage. At that time we will be in touch to advise you further. Any further updates will also be available on our website as the following link;
www.caa.co.uk/passengercomplaints
Also I would like to explain that our enforcement powers do not cover obtaining redress for individual consumers and we do not have legal powers to impose a solution on an airline in the way that an ombudsman type scheme does.
Our powers, under the Enterprise Act 2002, are to take a_ction to ensure businesses change their practices and comply with the law for the benefit of consumers generally. As with legal action in general, the burden of proof is high and the process can take many months.
Yours sincerely,
Marion Sautereau
Consumer Affairs Officer
[EMAIL="passengercomplaints@caa.co.uk"]passengercomplaints@caa.co.uk[/EMAIL]0 -
Hi supermac9,
To cut straight to the chase, Jet2 lost their argument about EC's all the way up to the Supreme Court in the UK.
The result did not suite them so they searched for a very similar case in Europe in the hope the ECJ would somehow find in their favour.
I the mean time Jet2 asked the UK courts to stay all outstanding cases until the ECJ case was completed. On 25 Feb 15 Bott & Co, who won the case against Jet2 at the SC, will be asking the Judge at Liverpool to release the UK stay in one of these cases. As Liverpool is a collection centre for aviation cases this can be seen as a bit of a test case. Whichever way this case goes will probably decide how the blanket stay will be handled by all the UK courts.
What I find very distasteful, yet again, is the way the CAA are procrastinating and contradicting themselves. They say in their letter to you...
"The CAA considers that airlines should now pay compensation for flight disruptions that fall within the scope of the Huzar ruling"
and yet then in the same letter they go on to say....
"we are currently unable to progress your case at this stage"
Which means the CAA are not ensuring that the airlines comply with CAA guidelines or English law, as it stands at this moment in time.
More proof that they are failing in their responsibilities to enforce EC261/2004.
If I were you I would wait for this case and then decide on your next move.Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.0 -
Courtesy of Bott and Co, this is the submission from Jet2.com made to the Supreme Court as part of their appeal.
It's the reference to the Dutch case which the Supreme Court subsequently rejected.
If you have been requested to agree to a further stay, pending the Dutch case, I would suggest you do not agree to it and quote the following passage that was rejected by the Supreme Court. Lower Courts will have to follow suit.
Ronald Huzar v jet2.com Limited
Section 7 - REFERENCE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
The present case has features which suggest that a preliminary reference to the CJEU is appropriate. In particular:
- the outcome turns on the interpretation of EU legislation which must necessarily be the same in each Member State
- some language versions of that legislation are inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeal
- regulatory authorities in other Member States continue to stand by the interpretation of the EU regulation which was contained in the CAA’s guidance, now withdrawn, and which is inconsistent with the position taken by the Court of Appeal
- one court has already made a preliminary reference to the CJEU on issues which are similar to those determined by the Court of Appeal (the District Court of Amsterdam in Van Der Lans v KLM, judgement of 29 April 2014), so the CJEU can be expected, in the medium term, to rule on the issues which are before this court.
If, contrary to the appellant’s primary position, the interpretation of article 5(3) is not acte clair, a reference should be made.
Hi Tyzap,
In what context would you include the above quote when writing or emailing to your C C judge informing her/him that you do not agree to a further stay on your case?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.0 -
benice - if you are going to reference it all, then you will need to read all of the Huzar thread and understand the whol case of Huzar, Jet2's pathetic attempts to cloud the issue with this spurious CJEU reference, and the crystal clear rejection of it by the Supreme Court.
Or keep it simple by mentioning that the Supreme Court rejected Jet2's leave to appeal, which included rejecting the argument about the Dutch van-der Lans case put forward Jet2.If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide
The alleged Ringleader.........0 -
Hi BeNiceToMe,
I'll try!
I would go with the JPears second option.
A reference to a SC decision is bound to make any CC Judge sit up and take note. It would take a very brave Judge to come to a contrary decision.
Good luck.Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.0 -
Weather conditions mean no claim for these people however this article indicates the lack of contingency planning or care Jet2 take .... http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/near-mutiny-diverted-jet2com-flight-83505540
-
The snow timing/level has been forcast accuratley since Monday last week. Chambrey, being between 3 mountains is particularly prone to weather delays - Jet2 (and the other airlines) should have had adequate contingency plans in place - they have plenty of options - Lyon, Grenoble and Geneva to land.
But its unlikely they did as it only affects 2 plane loads of passengers and the airlines don't appear give a toss about the individual, just the bigger picture.If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide
The alleged Ringleader.........0 -
I sent a letter to Jet2 about a 24 hour delay when our plane was diverted to Nice from Rome flying back into Manchester last year. I got a response a couple of weeks ago which many other people have got which is: it was a technical fault due to extraordinary circumstances. When I enquired as to what the fault was, Jet 2 said the ground crew in Rome were the ones at fault, as they are 3rd party engineers Jet2 will not pay compensation. Has anyone else had a response like this? Can I take this further? I've looked into CAA, but I think the flight has to originate from the UK for them to look into it? Any advice would be great!0
-
jennyrob669 wrote: »I sent a letter to Jet2 about a 24 hour delay when our plane was diverted to Nice from Rome flying back into Manchester last year. I got a response a couple of weeks ago which many other people have got which is: it was a technical fault due to extraordinary circumstances. When I enquired as to what the fault was, Jet 2 said the ground crew in Rome were the ones at fault, as they are 3rd party engineers Jet2 will not pay compensation. Has anyone else had a response like this? Can I take this further? I've looked into CAA, but I think the flight has to originate from the UK for them to look into it? Any advice would be great!
have a read of Vauban's guide, last link in the sticky
have a good read of this thread and you will likely see Jet2 are paying nobody
You will need to go to court with them and they are waiting on the outcome of a Dutch case and there is a case in Liverpool in Feb 15 that may impact this
People with delays in the last 6 years are waiting on compensation (me included from 2010) You have plenty time so you can either wait till after the Feb case or try and start proceedings now knowing that they will be stayed until after the Feb case0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards