Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

111KAB wrote: »

A significant amount of cases are being transferred to Liverpool, Manchester or Luton courts for preliminary hearings particularly where a stay release has been requested. The expertise of Judges in these courts allows for a quick determination of initial matters which may result in the defendant deciding to drop their defence before an initial hearing is held in the court where your hearing was requested.

From what DrA posted below , looks like you were spot on there 111KAB :beer:

DrA_Harrogate wrote: »

As I understand it a bunch of Jet2 cases - I think some of the Bott ones - have been gathered at Liverpool. The documentation from 2birds sent to the Harrogate Court was a copy of the stuff they sent to Liverpool with 'Liverpool' written at the top so that's how the Judge at Harrogate worked it out :T. I had asked that the stay be lifted and quoted brief rejoinders to 2birds' rather specious arguments but this was the Judge's decision.

I can see some sense in this - having Courts around the country jumping this way or that would result in a proper stooshie. In the meantime it's an 8% p.a. savings scheme!


AS

Yes indeed, thanks for posting back with more info. It may also be the case that other claimants were all on the same flight!?!?!?

That would make perfect sense, can you image the situation if someone in Liverpool WAS paid compensation, and because you live in Harrogate you were not, even though you were both on the same flight?

So perhaps you're case hasn't been 'stayed' just transferred to a huge batch of cases?

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

But see my new post. Is just one case for the same flight going to a hearing and all the same flight cases will have the same verdict applied? What if that claimant is unfortunate enough to lose, through a silvertongued airline solictor or a poorly prepared case?
It all smacks of a cop out by the leagl system.
Some higher court (or the CAA, bless their little cotton socks,) should be taking the airlines to task for forcing the issue to court in so many cases.

Very good point JP, perhaps they will hear arguments from Bott & Co and the airline, then make a decision affecting all other claimants ex-parte.

In fact, you never know if it's obviously not an EC, (ie tech fault) then all the cases might be dealt with ex parte, in one big bang of the gavel :j

EDIT - discussion continued on your new thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5127432

Colvaczek wrote: »

I complained to Jet2 in Sept. Had the usual reply stating they would reply in strict date order that the complaint was received! Heard nothing. I complained again in October, was ignored. It's now december and I've still been ignored. Just sent my 3rd letter. If they ignore this I will take them to court, for the only reason that they are ignoring me! Expected better!

Was your your 3rd letter an NBA?
If not send one now then either submit papers to court or employ a NWNF firm eg Bott, others re available.

happy-traveller wrote: »

Just received communication from Jet2 saying that they are not accepting our claim. Flight was delayed for 10 hours, Malaga to Glasgow in 2012.

The reasons are
1. "On the basis that you agreed at the time of acceptance of the conditions that you would not bring legal proceedings again us more than two years after the scheduled date of arrival. Accordingly any right to compensation against us is within two years of the flight date ?
2. The delay was the result of extraordinary circumstances - a lightening strike ..........

Goes on to mention para 13 the NEB's and damage to aircraft that can affect the integrity of the safety

Do I take this further - I would have thought that a replacement airplane should have been found for us before 10 hours.

Has anyone else had this standard letter. Who knows whether the plane would have been hit by lightening, how can that be proved or not.

Would welcome others opinions. Thanks

A NWNF company will know whether anybody else was on this flight. They will also know if the delay was caused by a lightning strike and they will also know if a lightning strike is considered an extraordinary circumstance.

I think the 2 year rule was knocked over by the dawson case.

stevemej123 wrote: »

A NWNF company will know whether anybody else was on this flight. They will also know if the delay was caused by a lightning strike and they will also know if a lightning strike is considered an extraordinary circumstance.

I think the 2 year rule was knocked over by the dawson case.

No the Dawson case was Thomson trying to use the Montreal Convention to avoid liability.
This old chestnut - Jet2, in their pathetic and manic desperation attempt to avoid liabilty by writing into their terms and conditions (check if those terms and conditions were actually in your contract when flight booked) - Ryanair tried this and I believe (but stand to be corrected) that it was overturned in court in a similar case. Terms and Conditions can be challenged if they are "Unfair Terms and Conditions" - The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Jet2 and other airlines will try to put any old BS in front of you to stop you claiming. Unfortunately Jet2's bad attitude and stubborn position will also force you to take legal action.