Technical get out clause being used

111KAB

bustyg wrote: »

Please can someone help me out.
Recently I applied to Jet2.com for compensation for a delayed flight of 18hrs,today I received a letter stating it was extraordinary circumstances so no payout. The cause of the delay was 2 things, the ground crew damaged the door after bringing a disabled passenger on board then after fixing it they found a fuel leak, can a fuel leak be classed as extraordinary circumstances?

You have posted in wrong area - if you read Jet2 thread you will find your answers there - but in a nutshell > they are trying it on .... again.

Vauban

Tupence wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that TC claiming the issue was of a technical nature is NOT a valid reason for turning down our claim, they are just trying to fob us off?

Yes, you are.

Prothet_of_Doom

Tell me the fault and the part number that failed and I'll tell you if it's a new failure mode never seen before, or not.

David_e

Tupence wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that TC claiming the issue was of a technical nature is NOT a valid reason for turning down our claim, they are just trying to fob us off?

That's certainly what I think - but the key thing is to understand why they are wrong; how their explanation does not (even attempt to) address the Wallentin ruling.

Tupence wrote: »

This must be a standard letter sent out when they have someone claim for compensation.

Indeed. Ironic, isn't it, that they have so many "extraordinary" problems that they have a pro forma response to claims. A trite point but one with a grain of truth.

Tupence wrote: »

I would be interested for any further information that could help with our claim, and am very grateful for the info posted so far.

Not intending any self-promotion or recommendation but I posted a response, to iandv's similar/identical(?) point, which is located immediately above you post. The same caveat applies (about constructing your own response and only using your own words) but it would be rather amusing to see them receiving a pro forma response to their pro forma response.

David_e

Having thought further about the maintained car analogy, it seemed that it could actually be counter to the case they are trying to make as maintained/MOT'd cars breakdown all the time. It turns out this was not an original thought!

legal magpie has kindly procured a copy of the recent judgement in Huzar -v- Jet2.com which includes the following observation by the judge:

"Air carriers have to encounter and deal with such circumstances as part of running an airline just as the owner of a car has to encounter and deal with unexpected and unforeseen breakdowns of his car."

That suggests that TC have well and truly given their corporate feet both barrels. I would have thought it would now be worth anyone who has had the well used car/MOT letter saying: "Yes, it's just like a well-maintained car breaking down - totally unextraordinary, as per His Honour Judge Platts".

OK, maybe that is rather simplistic but obviously everyone even thinking about making a claim should read the judgement, reproduced here by Novice Angel:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63605747&postcount=940

Mark2spark

David_e wrote: »

Having thought further about the maintained car analogy, it seemed that it could actually be counter to the case they are trying to make as maintained/MOT'd cars breakdown all the time. It turns out this was not an original thought!

legal magpie has kindly procured a copy of the recent judgement in Huzar -v- Jet2.com which includes the following observation by the judge:

"Air carriers have to encounter and deal with such circumstances as part of running an airline just as the owner of a car has to encounter and deal with unexpected and unforeseen breakdowns of his car."

That suggests that TC have well and truly given their corporate feet both barrels. I would have thought it would now be worth anyone who has had the well used car/MOT letter saying: "Yes, it's just like a well-maintained car breaking down - totally unextraordinary, as per His Honour Judge Platts".

OK, maybe that is rather simplistic but obviously everyone even thinking about making a claim should read the judgement, reproduced here by Novice Angel:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63605747&postcount=940

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Eeeeeee....... I was just about to post the same thing David

After a whole year of reading that lame old excuse from TC, a judge goes and uses it to the opposite meaning :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Brilliant! Couldn't be happier.

David_e

Mark2spark wrote: »

Brilliant! Couldn't be happier.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the TC legal department!

iandv

Hi David_E

Thanks for the reply to me earlier up the thread it is really useful. Will let you all know how I get on.

Prothet_of_Doom

Did you get my PM?

iandv

Reading through the post from noviceangel this is the para that caught my eye which I have highlighted in BOLD. What would be a hidden manufacturing defect?

With regard to technical problems some guidance was given. Technical problems which are revealed by routine maintenance or technical problems which arise due to a failure to carry out routine maintenance and cannot amount to extraordinary circumstances (paragraph 25). However technical problems caused by hidden manufacturing defects which impact on flight safety or sabotage are cited as problems which would be extraordinary in that they are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity air carrier and beyond its actual control. (paragraph 26).