Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

Caz3121

worth reading this thread...I challenge you to find anyone who has had a payout from Jet2...most people are awaiting the outcome of the Liverpool case on the 25th of this month

Tyzap

Glances wrote: »

Hello again everyone - there's been a development.

Jet2 wrote back and denied my claim. I feel like it may be a little dodgy though, so can anyone please advise?

Basically to recap: the two of us arrive home over eight hours late (and have a letter from Jet2 to prove this) following not one, but two technical faults on the plane that we we were supposed to be flying on. The delay came after we were forced to wait for the maintenance man and then eventually a replacement plane.

Jet2 sent the following explanation as to why they've denied the claim.

"Turning to your request for compensation under the EC Regulation 261/2004, in accordance with Regulation 16 of Regulation 261, the national enforcement body that is responsible for the rights of passengers on flights from Spain is Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aerea (AESA), the Spanish civil aviation authority. According to the official list of extraordinary circumstances published and enforced by national enforcement bodies including AESA, a technical defect like the one which caused the delay in this instance is an "extraordinary circumstance" and therefore compensation is not payable".

They then quote Paragrah 24, 25 and 26 of the list that the national enforcement bodies consider to be technical defaults.

In all honesty, if this is the end of the claim then so be it. But I would have thought technical faults were something they could deal with? Or at least getting a replacement plane. Any thoughts, anyone?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Glances,

This is the document Jet2 are quoting to you....

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

It's commonly known as 'the NEB wish list' because it's how they would like the regulations to be worded... but they're not, far from it. It has no standing in law and can be ignored, it is completely meaningless. If it was put before a judge he would just laugh.

When the CAA tried to assist Jet2, at the Court of Appeal in Huzar v Jet2.com, with the above argument the Court of Appeal said

"How the regulation is enforced by the CAA is irrelevant to it's construction. So also is any "guidance" that has been issued by the CAA after the regulation was promulgated. Any material relating to the creation of the "Guidance" is doubly irrelevant to the construction issue.

This is what the CAA said about it following the Court of Appeal hearing that Jet2 LOST.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2370

Although you have not made clear the exact circumstances that led to your delay it seems that you have a perfectly valid claim which Jet2 are just attempting to avoid.

Don't let them put you off, there's lots of help here.

Good luck.

Glances

Thank you for your lovely reply, Tyzap! I wish I could thank you more than once.

I had another quick look back over this thread after I posted and realised just how common this excuse is. I'm now twice as angry as I was earlier and will certainly be taking this further.

I'm afraid I can't tell you what the problem was with the airplane because I simply don't know. We set off down the runway, and then stopped. Eventually after waiting the pilot came on the speaker and told us all that "a light had come on" and that he was calling the engineer.

So, we sat on the plane for the next two hours. During that time the engineer arrived and attempted to fix the problem. According to the pilot, it was a case of him having to "flick a switch" (or something along those lines).

After that, they said we could set off again - and then stopped almost immediately. As "another light had come on". So they sent for the engineer again, who came and "took the part away". They opened the doors to the plane but didn't let us off.

Eventually the pilot came out of the cockpit and said that he didn't know where the engineer had gone, (we also heard the co-pilot saying he was over his time limit and would be going soon - reassuring!). Eventually we were told that the part hadn't been brought back and the pilot was out of time so another plane had been sent for from Manchester.

After yet another hour on the plane (whilst they decided if we had to go through departures or arrivals - yes that was a legitimate discussion!), they took us back through arrivals (and customs) and then they decided to take us on a bus through to departures (and customs, and security checks again).

So this to be doesn't sound like an issue 'originally caused by an event that was “out of the ordinary”' as the CAA have clarified on the page you linked me too.

I'm going to be drafting a letter in response tonight including this ruling and telling them they have 14 days to respond. This is absolutely ridiculous. If I hadn't have posted here I may very well have just given up.

Thank you once again for your help. Can anyone suggest what I should include in my response?

Tyzap

Glances wrote: »

Thank you for your lovely reply, Tyzap! I wish I could thank you more than once.

Thank you once again for your help. Can anyone suggest what I should include in my response?

It sounds like an ordinary breakdown through wear and tear etc which does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

You should have a really thorough read of Vaubans superb guide and follow some of his links, that way you will familiarise yourself with what you need to know to move forwards. Here is the link.

https://dl.orangedox.com/GdfSa4xUZdZI5GJadr/Vauban's%20Guide%20to%20Claiming%20Flight%20Delay%20Compensation.pdf

Once you have done that you can decide whether to DIY or NWNF solicitor.

Good reading and good luck.

howticklediam

Glances wrote: »

Thank you for your lovely reply, Tyzap! I wish I could thank you more than once.

I had another quick look back over this thread after I posted and realised just how common this excuse is. I'm now twice as angry as I was earlier and will certainly be taking this further.

I'm afraid I can't tell you what the problem was with the airplane because I simply don't know. We set off down the runway, and then stopped. Eventually after waiting the pilot came on the speaker and told us all that "a light had come on" and that he was calling the engineer.

So, we sat on the plane for the next two hours. During that time the engineer arrived and attempted to fix the problem. According to the pilot, it was a case of him having to "flick a switch" (or something along those lines).

After that, they said we could set off again - and then stopped almost immediately. As "another light had come on". So they sent for the engineer again, who came and "took the part away". They opened the doors to the plane but didn't let us off.

Eventually the pilot came out of the cockpit and said that he didn't know where the engineer had gone, (we also heard the co-pilot saying he was over his time limit and would be going soon - reassuring!). Eventually we were told that the part hadn't been brought back and the pilot was out of time so another plane had been sent for from Manchester.

After yet another hour on the plane (whilst they decided if we had to go through departures or arrivals - yes that was a legitimate discussion!), they took us back through arrivals (and customs) and then they decided to take us on a bus through to departures (and customs, and security checks again).

So this to be doesn't sound like an issue 'originally caused by an event that was “out of the ordinary”' as the CAA have clarified on the page you linked me too.

I'm going to be drafting a letter in response tonight including this ruling and telling them they have 14 days to respond. This is absolutely ridiculous. If I hadn't have posted here I may very well have just given up.

Thank you once again for your help. Can anyone suggest what I should include in my response?

Sounds horrendous. They won't tell you what the problem was until you take legal action. And you will get a long and complicated defence from a London law firm that may seem overwhelming. Don't be daunted, it's mostly BS and bluff and most arguments can be discarded immediately.

They will try "extraordinary circumstances" but they know, and hopefully so do most judges by now, that it doesn't stand up in court. If they say "hidden manufacturing defect" they must back it up with evidence, scrutinise that evidence to make sure it does sound the problem as you experienced it, it could be something completely different.

If you are likely to be put off by this use a NWNF. Botts seem to have the best reputation and are taking on the airlines in the appeal courts. If you go it alone be prepared to spend a fair bit of time doing the paperwork and reading up on the law and past cases. But don't worry, they are wrong and scrabbling around for excuses, you have the upper hand.

legal_magpie

And remember that if you have a case which was stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Huzar and Dawson, and you haven't heard anything from Jet2 or the Court, you should contact the Court and ask them to list the case. I am aware of a case where this happened today and the Judge has listed it for hearing.
Don't assume that the Court will take action of its own motion.
JJ

Tyzap

Thats good advice JJ but the other half of 'enforcement' is the CAA who have instructed the airline to re visit and inform claimants.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued advice to passengers and called on airlines to comply with the law on compensation for disrupted flights, following the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse both Jet2 and Thomson permission to appeal rulings made by the Court of Appeal in June (see notes to editors for details).

Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the CAA, said:
“We acknowledge airlines’ concerns about the proportionality of the flight delay regulations and recognise that airfares may increase as a result. However, the court’s decisions in these cases bring legal clarity to this issue and we now expect airlines to abide by them when considering claims.”

This is also important information for anyone who has made a claim for flight delay compensation but is waiting for a decision pending the outcome from Supreme Court. Following the decisions in these two cases, airlines should not continue to put claims on hold. Where airlines have already put claims on hold, the CAA expects airlines to revisit them and pay compensation for any eligible claims.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2398

legal_magpie

Noted Tyzap, but the CAA have no power to force the airlines to do anything. "Expects" is not mandatory and the Birds are still trying to get cases stayed.

JPears

Glances - this is a typical BS response from J2. They will try every trick in the book and some creative new ones toto misinform you. Bear in mind the average age of jet2 fleet is approximately 22 years old and you can draw your own conclusions about why those "lights" came on....

mrtonygibson

In one more week all should become a lot clearer. My case was also an 8 hour delay reference given to AESA. Even when AESA wrote back in my favour categorically stating that it was not an extraordinary circumstance Jet2 still defend it so don't let the constant knock backs put you off as that is exacly what they want you to do. After next wednesday they should have run out of wriggle room.