Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

howticklediam

Tyzap wrote: »

As NoviceAngel confirmed, yes it's true that they are both still waiting for their compensation. Unbelievable but true.

This is due to the legal process taking so long that it was over two years before the SC decision, so Jet2 just changed the goal posts.

It's still in the capable hands of Bott and Co and I still have a close involvement as I am my granddaughters litigant friend.

I think it's gone largely unreported because it's become a long and complicated story, the press and TV seem to like easy to swallow short soundbites.

Were they not on the original claim?

Tyzap

howticklediam wrote: »

Were they not on the original claim?

Yes they were, but I had naively used MCOL. I explained that I was the lead pax and that I was claiming for all our party but their solicitor objected and the judge removed them from the claim.

Like many others who come onto this forum you learn a lot quickly. Although I've been through a lot I'm still learning and the regulars on here keep me on the straight and narrow.

I still cannot see why you cannot claim for more than one person when using MCOL, does it make any difference to the judge? other than it prevents another case clogging up the court system.

NoviceAngel

Tyzap wrote: »

I still cannot see why you cannot claim for more than one person when using MCOL, does it make any difference to the judge? other than it prevents another case clogging up the court system.

Yes, I made exactly the same mistake.

From what I've read any reasonable judge should allow an oral application to quickly add claimaints at the start of the hearing, but as you found out not ALL Judges are reasonable.

richardw

Tyzap wrote: »

....I still cannot see why you cannot claim for more than one person when using MCOL, does it make any difference to the judge? other than it prevents another case clogging up the court system.

Claimants must be listed in the claimant box. If it isn't big enough use N1. It's a massive failing of MCOL.

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Yes, I made exactly the same mistake.

Me too! Fortunately, though Monarch objected, the Judge was interested in more germane matters.

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

Me too! Fortunately, though Monarch objected, the Judge was interested in more germane matters.

I actually remembered you saying when I also owned up, I did think about naming and shaming!

Isn't it unjust how you got away with your error and Tyzap didn't, but thinking about it Tyzaps Judge made an even bigger mistake when he gave Judgement..

Just shows how fickle our legal system is......

JPears

The limitations of MCOL worked in our favour, for once, as it will allow my daughter to make a seperate claim.
We are awaiting the BS/flying excrement of February/Liverpool case to clear first before we send a refreshed NBA. After all I'd like to be seen to give Jet2 a sporting chance....

Skid_Marks

JPears wrote: »

After all I'd like to be seen to give Jet2 a sporting chance....

On the sporting theme I'd prefer to see the 2 birds get stuffed.

yozzer1941

hi jet 2 in the letter they have sent me with regards to my claim being time barred quote 2 cases ie clissold v ryanair and pickard v ryanairin addition they claim they have received an order from liverpool county court where the majority of FLIGHT delay claims are allocated'on a matter against jet 2.com in which the court dismissed the matter of its volition.The court confirmed that by entering into a contract with us the passenger agreed'under the relevant clause of terms and conditions'that the limitation for claims would be reduced to two years.
can anyone tell me any claims that they have lost on the time barred limit and what does the liverpool ruleing mean

Vauban

yozzer1941 wrote: »

hi jet 2 in the letter they have sent me with regards to my claim being time barred quote 2 cases ie clissold v ryanair and pickard v ryanairin addition they claim they have received an order from liverpool county court where the majority of FLIGHT delay claims are allocated'on a matter against jet 2.com in which the court dismissed the matter of its volition.The court confirmed that by entering into a contract with us the passenger agreed'under the relevant clause of terms and conditions'that the limitation for claims would be reduced to two years.
can anyone tell me any claims that they have lost on the time barred limit and what does the liverpool ruleing mean

They're all county court judgements - which set no precedent. Oddly Jet2 don't seem to have advised you of the ones where airlines have lost on this point. Funny that.

But this is all going to an appeal at the end of March - so keep an eye of for that.