Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

111KAB

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/jet2-lashes-back-at-threat-of-fines-unless-it-adheres-to-european-compensation-rules-10125713.html

NoviceAngel

howticklediam wrote: »

So the thing to do is ask for an CPR Part 18 request for the Mandatory Occurrence Report that the operator is obliged to complete in accordance with:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP382.PDF.
A fantastic document to pull out in court if there's a known issue, because the operator or manufacturer has to report occurrences that could have implications on safety.
I'm not sure a judge would do that for you though.

Agreed, but a reluctance to supply easy accessible data by a computer history of an aircraft could look suspicious to a DJ..

The rebuttal will be something like :-


Dear NoviceAngel


Further to our email below, we respond as follows.

The claim is for xxxxx and it is entirely disproportionate for our client to undertake extensive searches for documents for a claim likely to be allocated to the Small Claims Track, and is contrary to the overriding objective as set out in Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

In any event, and in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 27.2(1)(f), Part 18 requests for further information do not apply to proceedings on the Small Claims Track. In particular, we note your requests at numbers 2 and 3 for "historic data" in relation to the xxxxxxxxx over the previous 24 years and wear pin measurements for each day over the last four weeks. In this respect, these requests are unreasonable in the circumstances.


On the above basis, and given that witness evidence is yet to be exchanged, we do not consider that the Court would make any order for further information at this stage.

We would advise you to seek independent legal advice in this respect

Yours sincerely

xxxxxx

howticklediam

howticklediam wrote: »

Surely the airlines are playing with fire in brining forward this bogus claim that the parts they have replaced had manufacturing defects. wouldn't they have to notify the appropriate authority of the defect also the manufacturer. Any judge worth their salt would require reports on the defective parts after all safety is paramount. Once they are challenged and have to produce this evidence in court they will back off. Don't be put off I believe they are making a fatal mistake and they are just clutching at straws as they know they are fighting a losing battle.

So the thing to do is ask for an CPR Part 18 request for the Mandatory Occurrence Report that the operator is obliged to complete in accordance with:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP382.PDF.
A fantastic document to pull out in court if there's a known issue, because the operator or manufacturer has to report occurrences that could have implications on safety.
I'm not sure a judge would do that for you though.

BTW I should have said you can only do the first bit if you are already in the court process. But you can ask the airline and threaten that they'll have to produce it in court when you start proceedings, or ask the CAA for the report under an FOI.

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel wrote: »

In any event, and in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 27.2(1)(f), Part 18 requests for further information do not apply to proceedings on the Small Claims Track.

If they do or don't makes no difference, you've made the request and the airline has denied the request for further info.

Doesn't look good on them...

howticklediam

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Agreed, but a reluctance to supply easy accessible data by a computer history of an aircraft could look suspicious to a DJ..

The rebuttal will be something like :-


Dear NoviceAngel


Further to our email below, we respond as follows.

The claim is for xxxxx and it is entirely disproportionate for our client to undertake extensive searches for documents for a claim likely to be allocated to the Small Claims Track, and is contrary to the overriding objective as set out in Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

In any event, and in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 27.2(1)(f), Part 18 requests for further information do not apply to proceedings on the Small Claims Track. In particular, we note your requests at numbers 2 and 3 for "historic data" in relation to the xxxxxxxxx over the previous 24 years and wear pin measurements for each day over the last four weeks. In this respect, these requests are unreasonable in the circumstances.


On the above basis, and given that witness evidence is yet to be exchanged, we do not consider that the Court would make any order for further information at this stage.

We would advise you to seek independent legal advice in this respect

Yours sincerely

xxxxxx

Point accepted, but ask for one document and they can't give you the "it's too much hassle" knock back.
And ask the CAA:
FOI Requests <FOI.Requests@caa.co.uk>
and as long as you can focus in on the fault and the flight they will provide the information.

NoviceAngel

howticklediam wrote: »

Point accepted, but ask for one document and they can't give you the "it's too much hassle" knock back.
And ask the CAA:
FOI Requests <FOI.Requests@caa.co.uk>
and as long as you can focus in on the fault and the flight they will provide the information.

In my mind it's not about if a practise direction request is legally valid on a small claims case, or even gaining the info from the CAA under a FOI request...

As deux Oiseaux have refused a reasonable request by a LiP, who knows nothing (and is not expected to know legal procedure by the DJ) then the refusal to co-operate with an LiP speaks volumes.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Vauban

There is also an opportunity in court to address this. It's what I did. When 111KAB tipped me off about the existence of an "event print out" I asked Monarch's witnesses about the content of the document, explaining to the judge why it was significant. The judge agreed it was relevant and instructed Monarch to submit the document to the court: their failure to do so was one of the reasons they lost their case.

howticklediam

NoviceAngel wrote: »

In my mind it's not about if a practise direction request is legally valid on a small claims case, or even gaining the info from the CAA under a FOI request...

As deux Oiseaux have refused a reasonable request by a LiP, who knows nothing (and is not expected to know legal procedure by the DJ) then the refusal to co-operate with an LiP speaks volumes.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

C'est vrai, and I'm fairly sure (although I can't be bothered to locate the law right now as I'm beyond a bottle of cider) that the other side can't hide documents that they are aware of and that are material to the case. And once you have asked the question, by whatever conduit, the question is out there and must be satisfied or a good excuse given.

howticklediam

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I think that's the thoughts of us all in here, it simply beggars belief what out and out lies that the airlines come up with.

I'm am trying to think of any other business that tells outright lies to their customers and I can't think of any.....

It's staggering beyond belief, they argue, cheat and lie then class themselves as above the law of the land.

For anyone that wants to know why we 'obsessive forum people' help out here, it's worth reading our stories HERE!

I certainly didn't think when I first wrote to Jet2 a few years ago, I'd end up here helping others to get justice through the Courts, I've always said back then when I first contacted Jet2 about my delay, I'd be happy with a £50 voucher for another flight. A nice little apology and a good will gesture, now I actively avoid booking with Jet2 as a result of the appalling way they have dealt with my claim for compensation. In the end it cost them a great deal more than £50 to settle my claim, and even in the beginnings when they had some surprising spurious cases going their way, think how much JP has cost them, going on to help, hundreds of forum members claim what is rightfully theirs....

When will it end? I think we are on the home run now, everyone is against them, and now with their previous allies The CAA turning against them, the airline manufacturers may well take some sort of legal action, over the manufacturing defect excuses they are coming up with. The Supreme Court rulings on Huzar and Dawson before that Sturgeon.

What is this all about ? All passengers want is a reliable and on-time service, if you miss a days holiday or your late back in the UK and have to take another day off work, isn't it only fair that you are compensated ? The airlines seem to think that because you may have paid for a cheaper flight, and I would even argue that Jet2 is not a 'cheap' airline, then that gives them the absolute authority to treat passengers like something foul that the CEO has stepped in, well no longer, we're coming to get you Jet2, my personal fight is over, but I can tell you, I'll make damn sure I help hundreds more claim what is rightfully theirs under the regs, until such time that you abide by the law, like each and everyone of us does every single day...

There, rant over, wine o'clock time......

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Right on brother!

NoviceAngel

howticklediam wrote: »

C'est vrai, and I'm fairly sure (although I can't be bothered to locate the law right now as I'm beyond a bottle of cider) that the other side can't hide documents that they are aware of and that are material to the case. And once you have asked the question, by whatever conduit, the question is out there and must be satisfied or a good excuse given.

Well I'll sign off for the night and finish my bottle of wine, I may live in Leeds, but I live in the posh bit :cool: bring your cider over next time you visit!