Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

supermac9

After first reporting my case to the CAA way back in March 2013 (and then basically forgetting about them, knowing that in reality they are the airline's friend), out of the blue I received the following e-mail from them a couple of days ago:

RE: Jet2
Thank you for your latest email, and for your patience with us while we investigated your complaint about the disruption of flight LS597 on 25 August 2012.
During our investigation we received information from Jet2 about the flight concerned, which we have considered in the light of new guidelines clarifying the “extraordinary circumstances” exception of EC 261/2004.
After considering all the evidence available to us, it is our view that the disruption of your flight is of a type which means that the airline does not need to pay compensation. It appears from the documentation provided that there was a type of technical fault which means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption was beyond the control of the airline and could not have been avoided. It is our view therefore that this disruption falls under the 'extraordinary circumstances' exception of EC261/2004 and as such, we believe that you are not entitled to compensation in this case.
Unfortunately we are unable to take your case any further on the compensation part of your claim. Our opinion that, in this case, the disruption was due to extraordinary circumstances is based on the information provided to us. It is not legally binding and only relates to the flight concerned.
We understand that this may be disappointing for you. You do still have the option of going to county court but, in our opinion, we believe that the airline has a strong case not to pay compensation and, as such, it is for you to decide whether you wish to pursue this further.

As previous contributors to this forum will testify, the CAA are a complete washout and can be safely by-passed. I'll wait for the Huzar appeal before deciding where to go with my case.
:mad:

JPears

supermac9 wrote: »

After first reporting my case to the CAA way back in March 2013 (and then basically forgetting about them, knowing that in reality they are the airline's friend), out of the blue I received the following e-mail from them a couple of days ago:

RE: Jet2
Thank you for your latest email, and for your patience with us while we investigated your complaint about the disruption of flight LS597 on 25 August 2012.
During our investigation we received information from Jet2 about the flight concerned, which we have considered in the light of new guidelines clarifying the “extraordinary circumstances” exception of EC 261/2004.
After considering all the evidence available to us, it is our view that the disruption of your flight is of a type which means that the airline does not need to pay compensation. It appears from the documentation provided that there was a type of technical fault which means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption was beyond the control of the airline and could not have been avoided. It is our view therefore that this disruption falls under the 'extraordinary circumstances' exception of EC261/2004 and as such, we believe that you are not entitled to compensation in this case.
Unfortunately we are unable to take your case any further on the compensation part of your claim. Our opinion that, in this case, the disruption was due to extraordinary circumstances is based on the information provided to us. It is not legally binding and only relates to the flight concerned.
We understand that this may be disappointing for you. You do still have the option of going to county court but, in our opinion, we believe that the airline has a strong case not to pay compensation and, as such, it is for you to decide whether you wish to pursue this further.

As previous contributors to this forum will testify, the CAA are a complete washout and can be safely by-passed. I'll wait for the Huzar appeal before deciding where to go with my case.
:mad:

Since the airlines comletely disregard anything from the CAA, in favour of the consumer, you can return the favour.

danielleindebt

Hi all

I'm not sure if I can take this further?

Letter from jet2 -

I understand from your letter that you believe your flight delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances. Please be assured we have investigated your claim thoroughly on an individual basis and I can confirm that your delay was caused by a number 3 slat actulator leak, which was an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which was beyond jet2.coms actual control.

Blah blah blah

We believe our conclusion is fortified by a recent publication by a working group of the national enforcement bodies which are responsible for the enforcement of regulation ec 261/2004 of a non-ehaustive list of matters that they coincided to be extraordinarily circumstances.

Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the lust confirms that the neb consider "failure of necessary or required aircraft systems either immediately prior to departure or in-flight



Is this something that should gave been picked up in routine maintanence. Checks ????

Any help would be much appreciated

razorsedge

danielleindebt wrote: »

Hi all

I'm not sure if I can take this further?

Letter from jet2 -

I understand from your letter that you believe your flight delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances. Please be assured we have investigated your claim thoroughly on an individual basis and I can confirm that your delay was caused by a number 3 slat actulator leak, which was an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which was beyond jet2.coms actual control.

Blah blah blah

We believe our conclusion is fortified by a recent publication by a working group of the national enforcement bodies which are responsible for the enforcement of regulation ec 261/2004 of a non-ehaustive list of matters that they coincided to be extraordinarily circumstances.

Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the lust confirms that the neb consider "failure of necessary or required aircraft systems either immediately prior to departure or in-flight



Is this something that should gave been picked up in routine maintanence. Checks ????

Any help would be much appreciated

Please read the FAQ's on the first page of the dedicated Jet2 thread and then post any further questions not answered in the FAQ's on the Jet2 thread.

Ignore the 'lust', it is not the law. Search NEB wishlist on this forum for more info.

Your plane had a technical problem so it's irrelavent whether it should have been picked up in routine maintenance. Search for the Wallentin judgement to find out why.

danielleindebt

Hi all

I'm not sure if I can take this further?

Letter from jet2 -

I understand from your letter that you believe your flight delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances. Please be assured we have investigated your claim thoroughly on an individual basis and I can confirm that your delay was caused by a number 3 slat actulator leak, which was an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which was beyond jet2.coms actual control.

Blah blah blah

We believe our conclusion is fortified by a recent publication by a working group of the national enforcement bodies which are responsible for the enforcement of regulation ec 261/2004 of a non-ehaustive list of matters that they coincided to be extraordinarily circumstances.

Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the lust confirms that the neb consider "failure of necessary or required aircraft systems either immediately prior to departure or in-flight



Is this something that should gave been picked up in routine maintanence. Checks ????

Any help would be much appreciated

Vauban

danielleindebt wrote: »

Hi all

I'm not sure if I can take this further?

Letter from jet2 -

I understand from your letter that you believe your flight delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances. Please be assured we have investigated your claim thoroughly on an individual basis and I can confirm that your delay was caused by a number 3 slat actulator leak, which was an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which was beyond jet2.coms actual control.

Blah blah blah

We believe our conclusion is fortified by a recent publication by a working group of the national enforcement bodies which are responsible for the enforcement of regulation ec 261/2004 of a non-ehaustive list of matters that they coincided to be extraordinarily circumstances.

Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the lust confirms that the neb consider "failure of necessary or required aircraft systems either immediately prior to departure or in-flight



Is this something that should gave been picked up in routine maintanence. Checks ????

Any help would be much appreciated

Razorsedge has already given you advice on this - which is to read the FAQs on page one and post any specific questions, not covered there, here.

Whether the technical failure could have been picked up during routine maintenance is immaterial to your claim - as is the "recent publication" by the NEBs.

You will have to do quite a bit of reading to get your head round this if you want your compensation - or you could hand over to a decent NWNF outfit, like Bott.

razorsedge

danielleindebt wrote: »

Hi all

I'm not sure if I can take this further?

Letter from jet2 -

I understand from your letter that you believe your flight delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances. Please be assured we have investigated your claim thoroughly on an individual basis and I can confirm that your delay was caused by a number 3 slat actulator leak, which was an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which was beyond jet2.coms actual control.

Blah blah blah

We believe our conclusion is fortified by a recent publication by a working group of the national enforcement bodies which are responsible for the enforcement of regulation ec 261/2004 of a non-ehaustive list of matters that they coincided to be extraordinarily circumstances.

Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the lust confirms that the neb consider "failure of necessary or required aircraft systems either immediately prior to departure or in-flight



Is this something that should gave been picked up in routine maintanence. Checks ????

Any help would be much appreciated

Please do read the FAQ's on the first page this thread before reposting the same question. The FAQ's are on Page 1 Post#2. In particular have a good read of the contents of the first links below the bit in red that says
Technical fault with plane is not usually "extraordinary circumstances" so you can claim

You can take this further, either by taking legal action yourself or using a NWNF firm.

Otherwise it is the same answer as before:

Ignore the 'lust', it is not the law. Search NEB wishlist on this forum for more info.

Your plane had a technical problem so it's irrelavent whether it should have been picked up in routine maintenance. Search for the Wallentin judgement to find out why.

Edit: Vauban just beat me to the reply there.

danielleindebt

Thank you for your swift replys - my confusion is mainly the list of what they deem to be extraordinary circumstances. The fault with my flight is listed under the neb draft listing?

danielleindebt

Or am i missing the point?

Vauban

danielleindebt wrote: »

Or am i missing the point?

The NEB list has no force in law, and indeed is arguably a stitch up. See what Judge Platts thought of it in the Huzar judgement, for example. And see how Wallentin - which is binding case law - describes extraordinary circumstances.

I linked to this background article only yesterday ...

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/feature/0722271-legal-issues-compensation