Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

JPears

clayton79 wrote: »

My reference to the two years was merely because I had read the comments on here and see that jet2 have been including this I'm their responses to customers.

I tried to ring the tour operator today to see if they can provide me with any proof but apparently their customer services only open 10-4.

I did pay for some of it on a credit card so I think I can probably get a statement.

The thing is they have been specific and asked for a boarding card or booking confirmation or they won't even consider my claim.... Can they insist?

You can issue a Subject Access Request under the Date Protection Act. It will cost you £10 but this forces the company to disclose ALL and ANY data they have regarding you. Its a pain but the info should be there. It could also indicate that you are serious about your claim, although that seems to do nothing to stop J2s blanket denial of every single claim.

JPears

Bump
Everyone quiet on the Jet2 front?
Who has the first court hearing? Mine about 4 weeks

dino25uk

JP, just sending in the N180 forms to the county court. Unfortunately for me it looks like I'm going to have to fly into London for the court hearing as the courts will not move to my local county court. Pain in the a$$ but I'm not dropping this one with the way JET2 have treated me.

P_Doff

Returned my N180 on 30 April agreeing to mediation(for what it is worth).
I also wrote to Jet2's solicitors requesting further details of their defence. If they don't provide the answers, I may issue a formal CPR part 18 request. Meantime, like for so many of us, it's a waiting game.

JPears

dino25uk wrote: »

JP, just sending in the N180 forms to the county court. Unfortunately for me it looks like I'm going to have to fly into London for the court hearing as the courts will not move to my local county court. Pain in the a$$ but I'm not dropping this one with the way JET2 have treated me.

What is the reason given for Court oocation?
AFAIK as a litigant in person V company, you are entitled to have hearing in your local CC

Paulatfixby

I have just sent a letter to Jet2 asking how many delays, cancellations etc., have been caused by hydraulic failure since 2004. From reading this site there are a number. Surely, if there are a good few, it would knock out their claim of extraordinary circumstances. Any views from the team?

Jet2fan

Paulatfixby wrote: »

I have just sent a letter to Jet2 asking how many delays, cancellations etc., have been caused by hydraulic failure since 2004. From reading this site there are a number. Surely, if there are a good few, it would knock out their claim of extraordinary circumstances. Any views from the team?

Hydraulic Failure.

Malaga - Manchester Flight LS810 on 11th August 2009 Departure Time...... 20.05

Largely academic now for myself as I have submitted my details with the" EU Claim" webisite....

John

maghater

Jet2fan wrote: »

Hydraulic Failure.

Malaga - Manchester Flight LS810 on 11th August 2009 Departure Time...... 20.05

Largely academic now for myself as I have submitted my details with the" EU Claim" webisite....

John

Surely Wallentin scuppers most claims that technical issues are Ecs?, especially if they occur at a "hub" airport. The whole reasoning behind Ec 261/2004 is to improve the lot of the poor paying customer, who too often had (and still is) was being abandoned for many hours by airlines. Airlines have the options of anticipating technical issues, and building some slack into their scheduling to take account of such matters, or flogging their fleet to death to get the last possible penny out of the passengers.A look at www.flightontime.info easily identifies the latter, and it is to discourage such practices that EC 261 came into being.

Jet2fan

maghater wrote: »

Surely Wallentin scuppers most claims that technical issues are Ecs?, especially if they occur at a "hub" airport. The whole reasoning behind Ec 261/2004 is to improve the lot of the poor paying customer, who too often had (and still is) was being abandoned for many hours by airlines. Airlines have the options of anticipating technical issues, and building some slack into their scheduling to take account of such matters, or flogging their fleet to death to get the last possible penny out of the passengers.A look at xxxxxxxxxxxx easily identifies the latter, and it is to discourage such practices that EC 261 came into being.

You are looking at the issue incorrectly IMHO.

This is a decision taken by Jet 2, not in "fairness" or "the spirit of the law", it is a business decision they have taken and it is the way they have chosen to play it.

They will have studied the actuaries, crunched the numbers and along with their highly paid legal advisors come to the conclusion that this is the best way to tackle the issue of EC 261 / 2004.

They will have decided that with the number of claimants they reject at each stage of the "legitimate" claims process, a number will fall by the wayside.

Jet 2's stance seems to be (at this juncture) they will not pay ANY claims until they are FORCED to do so. Other airlines seem to have taken a different tact.... I.e. BA seem to be paying out.

I am not saying that their decision is correct, it is merely a business decision they have chosen.

Remember that the whole area of EC 261 / 2004 claims is new to both airlines and claimants... We (and the enemy) are just finding our feet with regards this legal issue.

I am using one route (EU Claims), others are trying different options (JPears - is using direct legal action). I wish all claimants success and whatever route is chosen, I hope it is right for them.

(Yes, Jet 2 have wound me up the wrong way with their dismissive, go away and stop bothering us, you are wrong to claim, stance !)


I am claiming for 2000 Euro off Jet 2 and I perfectly understand why they would not wish to pay me.

Once again.... Good Luck to all.

John

louise3965

Ich wrote: »

That is the point it would be classed as the nearest suitable airport to do any repair needed as it is their base. (and might even have an available spare aircraft)(it certainly had available crew)
A diversion elsewhere would not guarantee any of those as would a continuation to destination where if the problem was serious could see the aircraft grounded for some time waiting repair.

So it was probably more in the interest of the passengers to do what they did!!

I was on that flight too and think they did exactly the right thing. It was a pain yes and it was scary too but all that happened is that we were 6 hours late into Lanzarote. Personally I won't be claiming but if the OP feels it is the right thing to do then I'm sure they'll go ahead.