Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

David_e

CobyBenson wrote: »

There's no 'new EU RULING', I can only assume by ruling they mean Judgment and by new they mean from October 2012 - i.e. the TUI/Nelson case.

Thanks Coby; I was sure it would have been reported here!!

It seems a thoroughly odd thing for a court employee to say!

statictom

CobyBenson wrote: »

There's no 'new EU RULING', I can only assume by ruling they mean Judgment and by new they mean from October 2012 - i.e. the TUI/Nelson case.

It's District Judge Woodburn and he is indeed taking the lead on these claims at the moment.

I am due to appear before Judge Woodburn at Liverpool CC on Friday 28th Feb 14, for Case Management. There is a block list of cases involving airlines scheduled for that day, with 3 District Judges named as dealing with them.
I`m just pleased to be able to at least get my case started as I`ve waited 11 months now. I can understand the frustration of a case being moved to another area/town, but these Judges at Liverpool (from what I`m told) appear to at least understand these type of cases and are actively dealing with them.
Airlines are being called to Liverpool CC to show just reason why the cases should not be struck out.

TomUK

Further to my posts at #1128 and #1152 regarding my five hour delay at Faro, Portugal, in May last year, I sent a third letter asking for details of the "extraordinary circumstances" and "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" which were quoted as the causes of the delay in their first two replies.
Their third reply tells me that the actual cause was down to a "faulty anti ice valve" on our aircraft. Basically they are telling me that this type of incident is fortified by the NEB's working group. They quote several paragraphs (24,25 and 26) of the NEB list and provide web addresses for me to check for myself. They reiterate that a faulty anti ice valve falls within the NEB definition of "extraordinary circumstances". They go on to say " we firmly believe that, as in over 90% of claims that have reached trial to date, the court will agree that Jet2 could not have avoided the delay even if all reasonable measures were taken".
Has anyone been a faulty anti ice valve victim and does this, as they say, only have a 10% chance of success?
Is it time to put this in the hands of a claims company?

111KAB

TomUK wrote: »

Their third reply tells me that the actual cause was down to a "faulty anti ice valve" on our aircraft.
Is it time to put this in the hands of a claims company?

Not an extraordinary circumstance.


DIY or NWNF - the choice is yours.

TomUK

If I do decide to go down the NWNF route, do I have to send the 14 days NBA notification letter to Jet2 personally, or is this done on my behalf by the claims company?

David_e

TomUK wrote: »

If I do decide to go down the NWNF route, do I have to send the 14 days NBA notification letter to Jet2 personally, or is this done on my behalf by the claims company?

I am not sure anything hangs on that. You are just warning them you will take legal action and that could be either yourself or via a no win no fee firm.

sooty1826

I have been told to take jet2 to court but can anyone advise how difficult/easy this is?
Thanks

111KAB

sooty1826 wrote: »

I have been told to take jet2 to court but can anyone advise how difficult/easy this is?
Thanks

DIY = slight risk + tenacity + patience + lots of research + frustration.


NWNF = little effort + no risk however only around 73% of your entitlement

JPears

And Jet2 will fight you all the way.
NWNF such as Bott & Co. will probably relish taking on Jet2

CobyBenson

costavon53 wrote: »

can anyone tell me if Bird and Bird are legit? if they were to offer a settlement and a person was to sign a settlement agreement would that then mean that J2 were willing to settle?

They are a firm of Solicitors instructed by Jet2.com and they are entirely 'legitimate'.

If an offer was made then it would be made upon the instructions of Jet2.com. By the way if they offer to settle then the terms usually contain a confidentiality clause.