Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

And if they can't actually provide AND prove a copy of the terms and conditions that are relevent to the contract they made with you vis a vis your booking/flight their defence is null and void. End of.

Isn't it the balance of probability in civil cases, or do they need to show absolute proof of the TCs on the day you booked?

JPears

In the credit card/bank charge scandal a few years ago ( and still continuing....) credit card companies oftern had to capitulate becasue they couldn't provide a signed copy of the credit card agreement, either because they hadn't retained it, it was "signed" online or one was never actually proferred, in full to the customer.
This is a similar situation as we are concerned with contract law, not a balance of probabilities, my thoughts are that strict proof ought to be required by the judge.

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

In the credit card/bank charge scandal a few years ago ( and still continuing....) credit card companies oftern had to capitulate becasue they couldn't provide a signed copy of the credit card agreement, either because they hadn't retained it, it was "signed" online or one was never actually proferred, in full to the customer.
This is a similar situation as we are concerned with contract law, not a balance of probabilities, my thoughts are that strict proof ought to be required by the judge.

Some case law to quote on that subject would be handy.

JPears

Now there you have me....

NoviceAngel

It's all gone quiet on the Gledhill appeal, has anyone read anything further, I assume that we're waiting for a hearing date ?

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

This is a similar situation as we are concerned with contract law, not a balance of probabilities, my thoughts are that strict proof ought to be required by the judge.

Personally, I'm not sure that the two situations are comparable. The CCA has clear requirements of what is necessary to enforce a debt. This is a different proposition.

But, I do agree that it is reasonable for the airline to have to provide what they believe were the terms and conditions for when you flew. If you disagree that these are the T&Cs, you will need to offer some evidence - the wayback machine is quite good for that.

howticklediam

NoviceAngel wrote: »

It's all gone quiet on the Gledhill appeal, has anyone read anything further, I assume that we're waiting for a hearing date ?

Watchful waiting.

Tyzap

NoviceAngel wrote: »

It's all gone quiet on the Gledhill appeal, has anyone read anything further, I assume that we're waiting for a hearing date ?

Not the answer to your question but an interesting article.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/may/11/airlines-ignore-court-rulings-over-compensation-for-delayed-flights

It states what we're all feeling:mad:

NoviceAngel

howticklediam wrote: »

Watchful waiting.

Me thinks it will wait a week be right back but even the little Angel needs a holiday and boy if that flight is delayed I have PtLV on speed dial!!!

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Be back soon

JPears

Vauban wrote: »

Personally, I'm not sure that the two situations are comparable. The CCA has clear requirements of what is necessary to enforce a debt. This is a different proposition.

But, I do agree that it is reasonable for the airline to have to provide what they believe were the terms and conditions for when you flew. If you disagree that these are the T&Cs, you will need to offer some evidence - the wayback machine is quite good for that.

Agreed - the CAA regulations are laid out in detail.
But I would expect a Judge would want to see defintive evidence/proof of the contract T&Cs from a large business/corporation, where the defence hinges soley on the T&Cs and nothing else.