Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

jpsartre

RibZed wrote: »

Finally, the adjudicator awarded me £0 because I didn't include all of the receipts for which I was claiming and he "wasn't inclined" to ask me for them. Therefore - because I hadn' provided the actual receipts/evidence that I had incurred all of the expenses I was claiming - he couldn't award me anything.

That's unfortunate but it also means we don't really know what CEDR would have ruled had the receipts been there.

RibZed

Thanks Tyzap and jps.


Yes, in hindsight giving them everything I had given to EJ would have been belt & braces and strangely enough I don't think it actually crossed my mind to do so at the time (even though it seems an obvious and simple thing to have done now!)


However, even if I had included them, it would have only resulted in a decision on 1/3 of the case (and only half of the claim value) because the adjudicator decided I wasn't allowed to claim on behalf of the other passengers. I think it this element that irks me the most...because I made clear what the basis of the claim was (and that I was claiming on 3 case IDs) when CEDR agreed that the case met their criteria and they would arbitrate on it. I certainly wouldn't have bothered had they advised from the start that 2/3 of my case would be ignored by the arbitrator because I "didn't have the right" to claim on their behalf.


I checked the decision paper again and the word "compensation" was used 6 times by the arbitrator in his report. I do find it incredible that for a claim that included not a shred of compensation - but was 100% about underpaid reasonable expenses - that he should use that word 6 times. I agree Tyzap that quality is likely being compromised by them only being able to spend a fraction of the time actually needed to adjudicate fairly on these cases, but it is difficult not to also wonder about capability and bias when a word totally unrelated to my case - but on which EJ based their whole defence - is used so liberally in the decision document.


I certainly will be taking this down the MCOL route now and will be sure to keep you posted on the outcome! In the meantime, I have mentally replaced the "E" in CEDR with the word "Egregious"

RibZed

Sorry, I also meant to post this just to clarify the mismatch between the claim and the defence:


My case was a claim for £1,075.29 - representing the underpayment of reasonable expenses on 3 x Case IDs claimed from EJ. One of the case ids has never been paid out at all, despite EJ claiming it has. I provided CEDR with an analysis of all the expense claims and the difference between what was claimed and what was paid - the only thing they never had was copies of the receipts. EJ, of course, were in full possession of these.


Here is EJ's defence comment to my claim:


"To further explain what happened on the day of your flight; a 24hr French National Strike was called that included air traffic controllers at the airports and effected air space over France. Although French Authorities initially advised we should cancel 30% of scheduled flights in advance, the situation was far worse on the day, resulting in our network being severely disrupted as long delays resulted in flights missing curfews at some airports, aircraft having to be diverted and crews being pushed into their maximum legal operating hours. We do take reasonable measures to avoid delays and cancellations by having replacement crews and spare aircraft in our network. However deploying replacement crews and spare aircraft was not an option because of the air traffic control restrictions. "


This is a defence to compensation claims - not a defence as to why they did not pay out the full amount of expenses that were claimed. EJ did not have to defend my claim - they simply had to rely on me (a passenger who has never used CEDR before) not providing all of the information to justify my claim and an arbitrator who could "not be inclined' to request this information in order to make their decision. Egregious.

JPears

I would be inclined to make a complaint to CEDR as this would appear to be an administrative error (the ONLY route for making a complaint which is ridiculous in itself).
From what you say, the adjudicator, who is supposedly to be legally trained, appears to have completely misinterpreted the basis of your claim.
If the adjudicator is legally trained and registered with the Law Society, perhaps a complaint there too?
Also a strongly worded complaint to the CAA, who encourage the use of ADRs.
As an aside, apart from your out of pockets expenses claim, are you actually entitled to compensation under regulation 261/2004?

Tyzap

Jp is right, you should complain to CEDR but not on the basis of the decision, as that is something they will not re address.

Just ensure the content of the complaint is about the quality of the service you have received. See rules below...

8.2 With the exception of amending a decision following any minor error, neither CEDR nor the adjudicator will enter into correspondence relating to any decision.

8.3 If the passenger or the airline has a complaint about the quality of service provided in the course of the administration of a CEDR case, the complaint should be made through the published complaints procedure, copies of which are available from the CEDR website. The complaints procedure cannot be used to challenge the content or outcome of an adjudicator!!!8217;s decision, the decision process adopted by an adjudicator, or the content of these Rules.

Good luck.

RibZed

Thanks JP & Tyzap


Yes, I will make a complaint to CEDR about the administration of the claim but will keep it brief.


I will also see if the CAA will take up the complaint, although I notice their team don't deal with airlines that have ADR affiliation to bodies such as CEDR. But the complaint will be about both CEDR and the arbitrary nature of EJ's expense reimbursment "rules"


JP - you raise a good point. I assumed it wouldn't be subject to compensation due to it being down to the French ATC strike but do you think there is a chance it could fall within the compensation bracket? I ran it through Bott and Co's checker and they were happy to take the case on....that would be £250 less £75 if successful I think (multiplied by 6)?

JPears

Bott seem to say you have a claim unless they know you definitely don't (although some have reported errors here too) and then confirm no claim or valid claim at a later date. But it is risk free to you. If it is ATC related then unlikely a claim so let Bott have a go?

Although if you're going Small Claims for your expenses, you may as well include a compensation claim anyway. But you'll have to put a claim into EJ for this to follow correct CPR rules (even though EJ have already denied liability, technically you haven't claimed for it yet...)

RibZed

Thanks JP, that's excellent.


I reckon that giving the compensation claim for Bott to run with is the simplest solution - they're welcome to their slice given that I wasn't thinking of claiming anyway. That way, it still keeps the underpaid expenses part straight-forward for the small claim - as you say, it would delay it a bit if I went back and started from scratch with EJ for the compensation.


Thanks for the advice, much appreciated, will keep you posted on all fronts

RibZed

Sorry if this is getting boring...but I was just re-reading the CEDR scheme rules again. Point 5 covers "Powers of the Adjudicator" - and 5.2.2. states that the adjudicator has the power to:


"Request further evidence or documents from the passenger or the airline, and set time limits (of at least 10 working days) in which the passenger and the airline must provide such evidence or documents"


Here is what the adjudicator actually wrote in the decision paper:


"I have considered whether to request further evidence from the passenger on this matter. However, as an impartial adjudicator I do not consider it appropriate for me to assist the passenger in the collection and presentation of his evidence. I am also mindful that the Rules of this Scheme make it clear that the passenger should supply any essential supporting documents with their application"


So what is the point of Rule 5.2.2 and how is he assisting ME exactly? The additional evidence is surely to assist HIM in making the correct decision? Am speechless (good job I have a keyboard handy)


So he had the power to ask me for the receipts to assist him in making a decision. He also had the power to go back to EJ and ask why their defence bore no relevance to the case against them. He chose not do either because he interpreted this as assisting ME.


Complaint letter will be hitting CEDR cc'd to the CAA this week. They can sue me for the £25

legal_magpie

Having the power to do something doesn't mean that he is obliged to do it. There is an old adage in law "He who asserts must prove". I have known so many cases where, when asked about a certain document, the litigant says "I left it at home". It may seem unfair but ultimately it is up to you to make sure that you provide all the evidence to back up your claim. You are certainly entitled to ask for a review, though, but if you do this, make sure that you are polite or you will simply pxxs him off.