Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

razorsedge

Tyzap wrote: »

I hope you are right, I'd love to see something definitive on the subject.:)

For what it is worth, HH Judge Yelton (in the Dawson case) specifically said the limit was 6 years in his original Judgment (paragraph 27). This Judgment has also been upheld by the COA and SC of course.

http://www.bottonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Judgment.pdf

You will note that HH Judge Yelton did not say anything about 'unless airlines T&C's say otherwise'!
It would seem to me then, that my rights under EU261/2004 are as the law has interpreted them in this country (so I have 6 years to claim) and that Article 15 of the Regs specifically excludes my rights being denied by restrictive clauses in airline T&C's.

Article 15
Exclusion of waiver
1. Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation
may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation
or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage.

JPears

hit it on the head there razor - jet2 and others have indefensible T&Cs

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

hit it on the head there razor - jet2 and others have indefensible T&Cs

I'm afraid that legally they do not have an indefensible position - and as I've already said airlines have already won in court on this point. I wish it weren't so, but there we are.

The Dawson case was not strictly about whether the limitation period was six or two years. It was about whether the Montreal Convention or the national regime governed the Regulation in the UK. There are circumstances when the six year period can be varied.

I think there are good arguments a claimant can use in these circumstances, but we shouldn't suggest that it's cut and dry. Sorry.

JPears

Agreed, nothing is ever cut and dried, but I feel there is far more, legally, in favour of the passenger:
1. Unfair terms and conditions acts.
2. Article 15 - specificially denying airlines limiting or waiving their obligations
3. The wording of the T&C's from a legal standpoint.
4. That most airlines usually cannot provide a copy of these T&Cs actually agreed and signed by the passenger.
What do the airlines have? Bleating, smoke and mirrors and expensive barristers.

howticklediam

yozzer1941 wrote: »

thanks guys for your advice,unfortunate that i have not got the terms and conditions form that i received when i booked my flight

Neither have they because it's on the the web, subject to change, and they didn't send it to you so it can't be enforced IMO. They have to be submitted on a durable medium such as an email. Do you have the email which was the booking confirmation, these are the only T&Cs they send and it does not have the 2 year clause.

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

Jet2's T+C clause -
"Time Limits to bring a Claim
Your right to make any claim against us shall be extinguished if you do not bring an action within two years from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped."
Definition of action (noun)-

1. the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.
   "ending child labour will require action on many levels"
2. a thing done; an act.
   "she frequently questioned his actions"
   "his actions emphasized his words
   It matters not one iota what Jet2 meant or implied in their terms and conditions, it is what is written in black and white and the definition of that word. If a word has several, different meanings then effectively the word becomes null and void as part of the contract, being too ambiguous.

If Jet2 implied or meant legal action, thats what it should state.
This, as I am sure some of our more learned friends will confirm, is the basis of law when it comes to contracts. Hence "small print" is often the largest section of any contract since it has to be precise and accurate.
Remember we are dealing with desperate companies, who will look at every trick, turn and shenanigan to try to reduce the impact their own stubborness and intransigence has created, particularly one......

Good post, I'll use those definitions of action.

howticklediam

Tyzap wrote: »

I don't think their t's + c's have changed since 2011, when my delay occurred.

I'm also led to believe that it seems to be accepted, in the legal world that is, that 'action' means 'legal action'. My wife and granddaughters cases are now also caught up in this argument. Although I was paid my compensation following the SC hearing they still have not received a penny. Three years and 3 months... but still counting!

Both cases are in the hands of Bott and Co and I know they are doing their best.

No you're wrong, they have changed, they have tightened up the type of claim to include compensation, and moved the clause so it can't be associated with claims for damages for baggage as it did in 2011. But you have no way of knowing because you don't have a permanent record. What flight were you on? - my claim is from 2011.

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Agreed, nothing is ever cut and dried, but I feel there is far more, legally, in favour of the passenger:
1. Unfair terms and conditions acts.
2. Article 15 - specificially denying airlines limiting or waiving their obligations
3. The wording of the T&C's from a legal standpoint.
4. That most airlines usually cannot provide a copy of these T&Cs actually agreed and signed by the passenger.
What do the airlines have? Bleating, smoke and mirrors and expensive barristers.

I think so too - and reckon the first of these is the most important (there's some legal discussion about how, if a contract it so contain terms that have less than the statutory norm, it should be genuinely negotiated between two parties of equal standing).

But it remains the case that, on the basis of those claims that have gone to court at the County Court level, the airlines have won about half when arguing this point.

So some substantial risk involved.

Vauban

howticklediam wrote: »

No you're wrong, they have changed, they have tightened up the type of claim to include compensation, and moved the clause so it can't be associated with claims for damages for baggage as it did in 2011. But you have no way of knowing because you don't have a permanent record. What flight were you on? - my claim is from 2011.

Evidence of "tightening" can be really helpful. I read of one case - on here I think - where the claimant noted that since they had signed the T&Cs the two year limit for "damages" had been amended to "damages and compensation". They were thus able to argue that, if damages and compensation were the same, the airline wouldn't needed to have amended the T&Cs.

I used the wayback machine to look at previous T&Cs for Jet2 - but like Tyzap couldn't see any change since 2011. I'll take another look though.

[And surely everyone knows which flight Tyzap - aka Mr. Huzar - was on by now ]

Mark2spark

Tyzap, was D/grand D on the same flight as you (and not been paid out yet)?
Pretty sure the newspapers would like that one if it's so...