Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

windmill26

Vauban wrote: »

Not very good of Bott.

If you want help you need to post up all the Order - at the moment we just have a fragment.

I just sent you a PM.

Vauban

Got it.

So it would seem that EasyJet are denying that the flight you took was delayed by less than three hours. The judge has asked you to provide an explanation of the discrepancy and why you think compensation is due.

From your correspondence with Bott I understand that your original flight from Barcelona to Gatwick was delayed by a significant period (flight stats shows that it was eventually over 5 hours). So after some waiting in the airport you say you were advised to take a different flight - this is called "rerouting" in the Regulation. The airline appears to claim - and this is why Botts seem to have dropped the case - that you were not rerouted but chose instead to take another flight.

So you need to provide to the court a clear chronology of what actually happened - what flights you were originally booked on, when this should have arrived, at what point you were rerouted onto another flight, the circumstances of that rerouting (i.e. You were put onto this flight with your original booking - you did not buy a second ticket), and when you finally arrived into London - and how much later this was than you original booking suggested.

You will then need a couple of paragraphs linking this to the provisions of the Regulation, citing the appropriate European Court cases. But not to worry: if you can do the first bit (it doesn't require legal jargon, but it must be clear and cover all the relevant points) then I will do the second bit.

You should also have received a copy of the airline's defence, which I guess Bott have got. Bott have offered to send you the file, so it's important you see what the airline are claiming in case there's anything else you need to correct.

windmill26

Vauban wrote: »

Got it.

So it would seem that EasyJet are denying that the flight you took was delayed by less than three hours. The judge has asked you to provide an explanation of the discrepancy and why you think compensation is due.

From your correspondence with Bott I understand that your original flight from Barcelona to Gatwick was delayed by a significant period (flight stats shows that it was eventually over 5 hours). So after some waiting in the airport you say you were advised to take a different flight - this is called "rerouting" in the Regulation. The airline appears to claim - and this is why Botts seem to have dropped the case - that you were not rerouted but chose instead to take another flight.

So you need to provide to the court a clear chronology of what actually happened - what flights you were originally booked on, when this should have arrived, at what point you were rerouted onto another flight, the circumstances of that rerouting (i.e. You were put onto this flight with your original booking - you did not buy a second ticket), and when you finally arrived into London - and how much later this was than you original booking suggested.

You will then need a couple of paragraphs linking this to the provisions of the Regulation, citing the appropriate European Court cases. But not to worry: if you can do the first bit (it doesn't require legal jargon, but it must be clear and cover all the relevant points) then I will do the second bit.

You should also have received a copy of the airline's defence, which I guess Bott have got. Bott have offered to send you the file, so it's important you see what the airline are claiming in case there's anything else you need to correct.

Thank you so much! I will get in touch with Bott regarding Easyjet defence and I can send you everything.I have all the communication with Easyjet and the flights details.

QuestionRequest

Caz3121 wrote: »

You need to split out your expenses to those that should be covered by the airline under EU261 and those that you will need to claim from your travel insurance
1) Hotel fees - in Palma whilst you waited for the new flight - EU261 duty of care claim from Easyjet
2) Car parking at Luton - Consequential loss - claim from Travel Insurance
3) taxi Stansted to Luton - should be covered by Easyjet
4) dog kennel fees - consequential loss - claim from travel insurance
5) food and substinance during delay - Easyjet (note many airlines will not reimburse alcohol)
6) Car rental to and from airport - travel from airport to accommodation and back should be covered under duty of care (although if having the car for 4 days was more than a taxi each way they may choose not to pay the full bill)

FINALLY got a response from customer service today (Hallelujah....or not as it turns out)!!! They have offered to pay for basically half the amount of food(???) for the 4 days for 4 people; the taxi to Luton from Stansted and the Car Hire (as much cheaper than a return taxi would have been). :mad:

They have not mentioned the other part of the food despite being sent receipts (and not we didn't go mad or claim for alcohol - in fact we were very restrained) or the accommodation (should we have slept on the beach????) nor obviously the other bits which you have mentioned I should claim from my now lapsed insurance policy!

I have obviously declined this and quoted the EC 261/2004 duty of care rule at them and I am now waiting for a response. Has anyone else experienced this in the past....what did you do and what was the result???????

Gecclestone

Hi
I have followed (hopefully) all the procedures read on this site, sent many emails to easyjet,most getting the standard responses. We had a 36 hour delay from Antalya to Manchester in September, which easyjet say was caused by Birdstrike and therefore they would not pay out. I then sent a letter threatening court action to customer services and the CEO. Below is a copy of the rely. Where do I go from here?

Dear Graham
Please accept my apologies for the delayed response to your recent query. We are receiving a high volume of enquiries at the moment and this has affected our response times, so thank you for your patience.
When a passenger claims for EU Compensation we have to refer to the Flight Disruption Report(FDR). The FDR gives us the official reason for the delay/cancellation and classifies this as either Extraordinary(unavoidable, and EUC will not be paid) or Non-Extraordinary(avoidable and EUC must be paid). This is per Regulation EC 261/2004.
The FDR for your flight was classified Extraordinary. EU Compensation is not available for this flight. I realise that this is not the response that you were hoping for, however, in the interest of fairness to all of our passengers we must adhere to the rules of Regulation EC 261/2004. You can obtain a copy of the FDR by applying to the Civil Aviation Authority(CAA), one of our governing bodies.
We are not governed by the internet, but by the CAA and FAA.
If you wish to dispute this please have your legal representative contact our Legal Department at:
Legal Department
easyJet Airline Company Ltd
Hangar 89, London Luton Airport
Luton, Bedfordshire
UNITED KINGDOM
LU2 9PF
Please be aware that our Legal Department will only respond to correspondence from Legal Representatives.

Regards

Christine
easyJet Customer Services

Tyzap

Gecclestone wrote: »

Hi
I have followed (hopefully) all the procedures read on this site, sent many emails to easyjet,most getting the standard responses. We had a 36 hour delay from Antalya to Manchester in September, which easyjet say was caused by Birdstrike and therefore they would not pay out. I then sent a letter threatening court action to customer services and the CEO. Below is a copy of the rely. Where do I go from here?

Dear Graham
Please accept my apologies for the delayed response to your recent query. We are receiving a high volume of enquiries at the moment and this has affected our response times, so thank you for your patience.
When a passenger claims for EU Compensation we have to refer to the Flight Disruption Report(FDR). The FDR gives us the official reason for the delay/cancellation and classifies this as either Extraordinary(unavoidable, and EUC will not be paid) or Non-Extraordinary(avoidable and EUC must be paid). This is per Regulation EC 261/2004.
The FDR for your flight was classified Extraordinary. EU Compensation is not available for this flight. I realise that this is not the response that you were hoping for, however, in the interest of fairness to all of our passengers we must adhere to the rules of Regulation EC 261/2004. You can obtain a copy of the FDR by applying to the Civil Aviation Authority(CAA), one of our governing bodies.
We are not governed by the internet, but by the CAA and FAA.
If you wish to dispute this please have your legal representative contact our Legal Department at:
Legal Department
easyJet Airline Company Ltd
Hangar 89, London Luton Airport
Luton, Bedfordshire
UNITED KINGDOM
LU2 9PF
Please be aware that our Legal Department will only respond to correspondence from Legal Representatives.

Regards

Christine
easyJet Customer Services

Hi,

I believe bird strikes fall into two categories. If your flight hit a bird on take off and had to return to the airport for repairs or checks, it would count as an extraordinary circumstance. No compensation would therefore be due.

However, if it was a previous flight that was affected and due to the knock on effect you got delayed as a result, then it is not an extraordinary circumstance and you should receive compensation.

Sometimes the airlines will claim the incident was an EC even though the bird strike was 2 or 3 rotations before yours. In this case the airline has had sufficient time to make alternate arrangements and should have done so, it is their responsibility and the courts will, generally, find in your favour.

Try putting your details into Botts claim calculator to see if they think you have a valid claim.

If you haven't already, read/download Vaubans guide, just google it, and if you feel you still have a claimable case you will need to issue proceedings. Usually this is the only way to find out the full sequence of events leading to your delay.

Delve deeper and good luck.

Gecclestone

Hi Tyzap
The birdstrike was to the incoming flight (the one we thought we were leaving on). we were at the gate ready to leave, when we got cancelled and taken to a nearby hotel. we eventually left for home 36hrs late on the repaired plane. Bott's tool says 400 euro claim but I thought the time and distance meant 600 euro. Most importantly I would prefer not to use Bott's but a bit scary to do court action without them and being sure I've got a case.
Thanks again

Tyzap

Gecclestone wrote: »

Hi Tyzap
The birdstrike was to the incoming flight (the one we thought we were leaving on). we were at the gate ready to leave, when we got cancelled and taken to a nearby hotel. we eventually left for home 36hrs late on the repaired plane. Bott's tool says 400 euro claim but I thought the time and distance meant 600 euro. Most importantly I would prefer not to use Bott's but a bit scary to do court action without them and being sure I've got a case.
Thanks again

Hi,

36hrs is a long time to be left waiting for the aircraft to be repaired. You could rightly argue that EJ could, and perhaps should, have got you back to Manchester much quicker than that. It is their responsibility to do everything within their powers to return you ASAP. Further, to claim an EC they must explain how and why they have come to that conclusion.

Botts calculator is correct, you would only qualify for 600 euros if the flight was over 3500km. AYT to MAN is 3136km.

You can DIY by following Vaubans guide, plus there are many regulars here who will always offer advice if and when you need it. In my opinion you have a very good case so give it a go!

Good luck.

Vauban

windmill26 wrote: »

An order from the Court which needs to be complied with by 26th November 2015 otherwise the claim will be struck out. Bott decided to throw the towel in last week and asked me if I want to carry on with the claim myself. The order from the Court is paperwork that they emailed me. What I don't understand is how Easyjet can claim that there was no delay of more than 3 hours.

So for the benefit of others, Ms Windmill and myself have been working up a draft witness statement to respond to the Judge's Order requesting an explanation of why compensation is due given the plane Ms. Windmill's party travelled on wasn't delayed.

Bott & Co rather uncourageously (in my view) dropped the case with little notice, leaving Ms Windmill to pick up the pieces in short order.

The bottom line is that Ms Windmill did travel on a flight that wasn't delayed. But she did so because EasyJet rerouted her onto it, after she had waited over four hours for her original flight to depart (and been told they had no idea when the original flight might leave). In the event, even taking the second flight, she arrived back into Gatwick over five hours later than she should have originally done.

This is the witness statement in response to the Judge's Order. I am sure Ms. Windmill would welcome any quick feedback before she sends it off.

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. This witness statement is in response to District Judge xxxx’s Order of xxxx requiring the Claimants to serve a Reply to the Defence setting out a detailed response to the Defendant claiming a delay of less than three hours and clarifying how Article 7 of EC Regulation 261/2004 applies to this claim.

2. The Claimants were booked to travel on xxx xxxx 2010 on EasyJet Airlines flight EZY 5136 from Barcelona to London Gatwick. EZY 5136 was scheduled to leave Barcelona at 17.05 hours, arriving into Gatwick at 18.25 hours. The Claimants presented themselves in good time at Barcelona airport and were checked in for flight EZY 5136, as per their booking with EasyJet Airlines.

3. Shortly before boarding Flight EZY5136 the Claimants were advised that there was an undetermined delay to this flight and that they should await further instructions. The Claimants waited for over three hours, and were provided with meal vouchers by EasyJet Airlines in accordance with the Defendant’s obligations under Regulation 261/2004.

4. At a little after 20.00 hours, EasyJet staff advised the Claimants that the delay to Flight EZY5136 was likely to continue for some time and that the flight might not leave Barcelona that evening. They were therefore offered the option of rerouting on a later flight (EZY 5140), which was scheduled to leave Barcelona at 21.50 hours, arriving into Gatwick at 23.10 hours – over five and half hours later than EZY5136 should have arrived into Gatwick.

5. The Defendant appears to contend that the Claimants are not entitled to compensation because they did not!travel on the delayed flight, but rather took a free transfer to the next available flight and which was not delayed. But this is tendentious and inconsistent with the provisions of Regulation 261/2004. The Claimants did not choose to take this alternative flight in preference to their original booking, but rather were re-routed at the advice of the airline, and having already been delayed for some four hours.

6. Article 5 of the Regulation stipulates that when a passenger is offered re-routing by the airline following a cancellation of the booked flight (or, following the Sturgeon Judgement [C402/07], a significant delay to the original flight of over three hours) then compensation is due under Article 7 if the delay in their journey to the final destination was greater than two hours from the original flight’s scheduled arrival. The Claimants contend these are precisely the circumstances outlined above and that compensation is therefore due.

We believe the facts stated in this witness statement are a true and accurate account of our claim.

howticklediam

Vauban wrote: »

This is the witness statement in response to the Judge's Order. I am sure Ms. Windmill would welcome any quick feedback before she sends it off.

I'm no expert on re-routing, but that statement is clear and to the point, I'm sure it will get you to the next stage.