Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

holmbush

I won because they failed to appear.

They argued I was out of time as I had claimed after two years for an article 9 claim.

I used the following case law:
para 20:[FONT=&quot]McDonagh v Ryanair[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 31 jan 2013[/FONT]

The Court has already had occasion to explain that, when an air carrier fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, an air passenger is justified in claiming a right to compensation on the basis of the factors set out in those provisions (see, to that effect, Case C-83/10 Sousa Rodrguez and Others [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 44) and that such a claim cannot be understood as seeking damages, by way of redress on an individual basis, for the harm resulting from the cancellation of the flight concerned in the conditions laid down, inter alia, in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention(see, to that effect, Sousa Rodrguez and Others, paragraph 38).

If Easyjet try to rely on the statute of limitations act, I cited sec 1(2):
1. Convention to have the force of law
(1)The applicable provisions of the Carriage by Air Conventions have the force of law in the United Kingdom in relation to any carriage by air to which they apply, irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft performing that carriage.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to Community air carriers to the extent that the provisions of the Council Regulation have the force of law in the United Kingdom.

The judge gave judgement in my favour. They will try to dissuade you with complicated legal argument, even now they still disagree with me.

But what I found instructive was whilst they copied their case law in full for the court bundle, they only copied the conclusion of Denise Mcdonagh v Ryanair and not the full account.

If anyone is faced with the two years issue with Easyjet, I will try to help if possible.

Good luck

JPears

holmbush wrote: »

I won because they failed to appear.

They argued I was out of time as I had claimed after two years for an article 9 claim.

I used the following case law:
para 20:[FONT=&quot]McDonagh v Ryanair[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 31 jan 2013[/FONT]

The Court has already had occasion to explain that, when an air carrier fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, an air passenger is justified in claiming a right to compensation on the basis of the factors set out in those provisions (see, to that effect, Case C-83/10 Sousa Rodrguez and Others [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 44) and that such a claim cannot be understood as seeking damages, by way of redress on an individual basis, for the harm resulting from the cancellation of the flight concerned in the conditions laid down, inter alia, in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention(see, to that effect, Sousa Rodrguez and Others, paragraph 38).

If Easyjet try to rely on the statute of limitations act, I cited sec 1(2):
1. Convention to have the force of law
(1)The applicable provisions of the Carriage by Air Conventions have the force of law in the United Kingdom in relation to any carriage by air to which they apply, irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft performing that carriage.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to Community air carriers to the extent that the provisions of the Council Regulation have the force of law in the United Kingdom.

The judge gave judgement in my favour. They will try to dissuade you with complicated legal argument, even now they still disagree with me.

But what I found instructive was whilst they copied their case law in full for the court bundle, they only copied the conclusion of Denise Mcdonagh v Ryanair and not the full account.

If anyone is faced with the two years issue with Easyjet, I will try to help if possible.

Good luck

Congragulations and well done. :T:T:T

razorsedge

holmbush wrote: »

If Easyjet try to rely on the statute of limitations act, I cited sec 1(2):
1. Convention to have the force of law
(1)The applicable provisions of the Carriage by Air Conventions have the force of law in the United Kingdom in relation to any carriage by air to which they apply, irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft performing that carriage.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to Community air carriers to the extent that the provisions of the Council Regulation have the force of law in the United Kingdom.

Is this the Limitation Act 1980? I cannot find the text you quoted in it. ( I might not be seeing the wood for the trees though)

David_e

nonleague wrote: »

Thank you.

I'm unsure who I need to address it too and the address I have is:

Hangar 89, London Luton Airport, Luton, Bedfordshire LU2 9PF

Do you know who I should address the letter too?

Thanks.

That address appears to be the registered office so that should be the one to use.

Not sue that the addressee is critical. When I wrote to Virgin, I just adressed to "Company Secretary" - ie the title not an individual. I would do that unless the EJ thread suggests better alternative.

As an aside, you could quote back to them their Customer Charter guff:

http://corporate.easyjet.com/corporate-responsibility/our-customers/easyjet-customer-charter.aspx?sc_lang=en

including such gems as:

• On your side, we see it from your point of view.

• Make it easy, at every step.

• Open and upfront, we will always be straight with you.

nonleague

So after they informed me on the telephone that the reason is an extra ordinary situation because the fault with the plane had happened on the same day it was due to fly, therefore it comes under extra ordinary situation. If the fault with the aircraft was the day prior to the flight, then EasyJet would be liable.

The above is what their supervisor informed me over the telephone. I asked him to put this to me in writing and this is the email I received a short-while later:

Dear Mr xx,
I am very sorry to hear about the delay of your flight. We work hard to provide our passengers with a punctual and reliable service.In your case, unfortunately we had to delay your flight for technical reasons. A situation like that is considered, under our Carrier's Regulations and European Law, to be outside our reasonable control. For this reason, I'm afraid we cannot offer you any compensation.

Thank you for taking the time to get in contact with me and let me apologise again for the inconvenience. I understand how frustrating it must have been for you.
Yours sincerely

Anil
easyJet Customer Services



This is my reply to the above:

Dear Anil,

A situation of a delayed flight comes under regulation EC 261/2004 Article 6 1a/b and Article 7 1a.


Please can you state what the 'technical' reason was that makes this situation not to come under the above articles in regulation EC 261/2004. The only way for this not to be the case is if the delay was caused by an 'Extra Ordinary' situation, however in this case, a fault with the plane does not come under extra ordinary situation as it is solely the responsibility of EasyJet to ensure that their planes are operational for it's customers at the said scheduled time.



I look forward to your response, outlining the technical fault and a detailed explanation.


Regards


So, what are your thoughts on both EasyJets reasoning over the telephone and then their email? Also, do you think my email to them is okay?

Thanks.

David_e

nonleague wrote: »

So, what are your thoughts on both EasyJets reasoning over the telephone and then their email?

Unsurprised. The letter is so vague it isn't completely inconsistent with what you were told. From memory there is no "reasonable" test as far as control is concerned. In any event, that's not the key test.

Ask what events gave rise to the technical issue (not what that issue was) and how he believes those events are not inherent in the normal activity of an air carrier.

Carrier's "Regulations" are irrelevant. European law says you are entitled to compensation.

nonleague wrote: »

Also, do you think my email to them is okay?

You will get more nonsense back so you need to give them the NBA warning and be prepared to take legal action when they don't pay up as they should. They'll happily exchange emails with you all day long; I would make this one your last.

You could ask Anil what his legal qualifications are to be able to make such categoric, and incorrect, statements, and whether he has actually read the Regulations and the Wallentin and Huzar rulings. Tell him you have (assuming you have) and that it supports your claim.

nonleague

David_e wrote: »

Unsurprised. The letter is so vague it isn't completely inconsistent with what you were told. From memory there is no "reasonable" test as far as control is concerned. In any event, that's not the key test.

Ask what events gave rise to the technical issue (not what that issue was) and how he believes those events are not inherent in the normal activity of an air carrier.

Carrier's "Regulations" are irrelevant. European law says you are entitled to compensation.



You will get more nonsense back so you need to give them the NBA warning and be prepared to take legal action when they don't pay up as they should. They'll happily exchange emails with you all day long; I would make this one your last.

You could ask Anil what his legal qualifications are to be able to make such categoric, and incorrect, statements, and whether he has actually read the Regulations and the Wallentin and Huzar rulings. Tell him you have (assuming you have) and that it supports your claim.

Thank you David, I'll await their response and send the NBA along with some of the things that you have quoted.

holmbush

razorsedge wrote: »

Is this the Limitation Act 1980? I cannot find the text you quoted in it. ( I might not be seeing the wood for the trees though)

my apologies, I over edited my statement.

Easy Jet rely on sec 39 Statute of Limitations Act 1980 to use in turn the Carriage of Air Act 1961(which was amended) to give effect to the Monreal Convention into UK law.

However sec 1(2) of the Carriage of Air Act excludes community airlines where there's a regulation. In this case reg 261/2004.

They are very good at dropping in narrow legal references, it's only when you wade through the whole act can you find other meanings.

My point is as the convention does not apply, we are back to the 6 yrs time limit.

holmbush

See my note of today (and follow up) on how I argued against the two years.

razorsedge

holmbush wrote: »

my apologies, I over edited my statement.

Easy Jet rely on sec 39 Statute of Limitations Act 1980 to use in turn the Carriage of Air Act 1961(which was amended) to give effect to the Monreal Convention into UK law.

However sec 1(2) of the Carriage of Air Act excludes community airlines where there's a regulation. In this case reg 261/2004.

They are very good at dropping in narrow legal references, it's only when you wade through the whole act can you find other meanings.

My point is as the convention does not apply, we are back to the 6 yrs time limit.

Just to clarify the above...
The COA Act 1961 was amended in 2002 (note: that is 5 years after the Sidhu ruling) and I believe it is the amended Act that has the wording in Sec 1(2) that holmbush is referring to.