Unfair Easy Jet Policy (PLEAS HELP ME)

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

dmg24 wrote: »

Please go and find something to back up your statements. I am assuming that you have no expertise in this area?

:T :T :T

arealbasketcase

Please don't argue on my account, I promise I will do nothing rash, and I will check and double check everything before doing anything. Tickets are paid for and, yes, mum does have insurance who will cover the cost of her fare but not the replacement, after all insurance is to protect mum's losses not anyone elses.

The problem will be shoring up my mum's energy to allow her to make the claim (she really is THAT ill) obviously I will do what I can but mum really doesn't want any fuss, as far as she is concerned the tickets can be changed and she doesn't need to know they can't.

Thanks for everything all you guys have said, I hope it helps the OP, I know it has helped me.

geordie_joe

mommyme wrote: »

geordie - i worked for Servisair who handles easyjet - as well as other airlines - ive had the same arguement with that many passengers that i have lost count and not one of them have been able to get the charges scrapped.

Yes but that's because they are dealing with company employees who are told not to back down. I am talking about taking a case to court and asking a judge to look at the law and rule who is right.

I totlly agree that most people would not bother to do this. But that doesn't mean the company is right just because nobody has bothered to challenge them.

mommyme wrote: »

At the end of the day if the OP doesnt pay the charges then EJ will simply not allow them to check in - so they will waste a lot more money than what they are going to do anyway. I'm not attacking but stating that if the OP didnt read the T&C and simply agree to them then it is their own fault. The OP never asked if the T&C was right - because they didnt read them!

That is not the point. If it were me I would pay what the airline asks THEN challenge them in court.

The airline gets away with it simply by saying if you don't pay you don't get on the plane. Then relying on people not doing anything about it after. This does not make it right!!!!

The law is quite clear on this, if the other party fails to fulfill their side of the contract then you can only charge what that costs you.

In this case a different person is going to use the flight, so they can only charge for changing the name on the ticket, they can't change the cost of the flight.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

geordie_joe wrote: »

Yes but that's because they are dealing with company employees who are told not to back down.

lol actually i have NEVER been told to back down. It was drilled into me that the Customer has right - but they are not always right. the OP agreed that they would pay any extra charges if the names etc had to be changed BEFORE they brought their ticket. They could of simply gone to another airline if they didnt agree to this but they didnt read the agreement but stated that they had read them in order to book the tickets. I'm not going to argue over this any more. The fact is that if this did get to court - it would be thrown out as it is quiet simple. It was an agreement that was broken by the PASSENGER - not the airline.

(SO glad i dont work at EMA anymore - thanks for confirming to me i made the right decision to leave)

geordie_joe

dmg24 wrote: »

Please go and find something to back up your statements. I am assuming that you have no expertise in this area?

Please go and find something to back up your statements. I am assuming that you have no expertise in this area?

dmg24

geordie_joe wrote: »

Please go and find something to back up your statements. I am assuming that you have no expertise in this area?

A hell of a lot more than you (but then that wouldn't be difficult)! :rolleyes:

arealbasketcase

geordie joe

I think that all of you have valid points of view and I assure you I am big enough, strong enough and daft enough to fight my own battles. I really do not want you fighting over this, I had no intention of causing such a fight between people whose opinions I have come to respect.

Isn't it time to put this one to bed now? Truce?

geordie_joe

mommyme wrote: »

lol actually i have NEVER been told to back down. It was drilled into me that the Customer has right - but they are not always right. the OP agreed that they would pay any extra charges if the names etc had to be changed BEFORE they brought their ticket.

But in this case they are ONLY changing the name. Therefore the costs incured to the airline can only be for changing the name, they cannot change the cost of the flight.

It's not the admin charge of changing the name I am against, it is also charging the difference in what was originally agreed for the price of the flight and what the airline thinks it could sell it for nearer the time.

The established jurisprudence

The law relating to penalties has been established through case law. The cases date back to the nineteenth century and the courts have been consistent in the way that they have ruled on penalty clauses.

Wilson v. Love (1896)

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach – in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty. Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages.

If one party fails to fulfill their end of the contract you can only charge what it will cost you.

In this case all it is costing is the admin fee for changing the name. If you add anything to that cost it is considered to be a penalty and illegal.

geordie_joe

arealbasketcase wrote: »

geordie joe

I think that all of you have valid points of view and I assure you I am big enough, strong enough and daft enough to fight my own battles. I really do not want you fighting over this, I had no intention of causing such a fight between people whose opinions I have come to respect.

Isn't it time to put this one to bed now? Truce?

Yes, I'm off to bed.

Sorry for you getting caught up in the argument, but some people on here are only here to put others down and not help them.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

geordie - which post are you arguing over lol the OP HAS to pay the added cost as they agreed to it (which is the one ive been talking about but im guessing youve just been scan reading my replies) Ive already said to arealbasketcase that if it isnt in her T&C then she doesnt have to pay the added charge. Now i know your trying to help - but your confusing the situation. Am not going to argue with you about this any more - one because its nearly 12pm and secondly - because i have better things to do with my time.