Huzar appeal

Vauban

:beer:

Centipede100 wrote: »

The CAA can henceforth be known as the Civil Ar**h***s Association.

Simply talking themselves into irrelevance...!

It is outrageous. It is contemptuous of passenger and court in equal measure.

Time to saddle up, I fear, and have a difficult conversation ...

legal_magpie

Quote from CAA
It says since the ruling came into effect on Wednesday, airlines should base any decisions on new compensation claims on the court's decision.

But it stressed to passengers that the ruling does not affect claims that airlines rejected prior to Wednesday 11 June, so it is unlikely that airlines will re-visit previously rejected claims.

This is absolute drivel. The CAA are comparing the Court of Appeal's decision to an act of Parliament with a commencement date. Courts don't make the law, they interpret it. So all they have said is interpret the regulations in the light of Wallentin, just as HH Judge Platts did.


Bott and Co's strategy of writing to the airlines in all stayed Claims inviting them to settle or else it will go back to Court is spot on and I would suggest that any LIP whose case was stayed pending Huzar appeal should do likewise.
JJ

Star9272

Here's Thomas Cooks reply today from an email I sent yesterday after hearing the Jet2 outcome

Thank you for contacting us again about your flight delay and for providing us with further details.

I’m sorry that your flight with us was delayed and based on your comments we conducted a full investigation when you wrote to us initially. Following a review of our maintenance data and an analysis of our other operations at that time we remain confident in our decision that compensation is not payable in this case.

Skid_Marks

Star9272 wrote: »

Here's Thomas Cooks reply today from an email I sent yesterday after hearing the Jet2 outcome

Thank you for contacting us again about your flight delay and for providing us with further details.

I’m sorry that your flight with us was delayed and based on your comments we conducted a full investigation when you wrote to us initially. Following a review of our maintenance data and an analysis of our other operations at that time we remain confident in our decision that compensation is not payable in this case.

Sounds like an NBA job to me!

OldManAhoy

legal_magpie wrote: »

Quote from CAA
It says since the ruling came into effect on Wednesday, airlines should base any decisions on new compensation claims on the court's decision.

But it stressed to passengers that the ruling does not affect claims that airlines rejected prior to Wednesday 11 June, so it is unlikely that airlines will re-visit previously rejected claims.

This is absolute drivel. The CAA are comparing the Court of Appeal's decision to an act of Parliament with a commencement date. Courts don't make the law, they interpret it. So all they have said is interpret the regulations in the light of Wallentin, just as HH Judge Platts did.


Bott and Co's strategy of writing to the airlines in all stayed Claims inviting them to settle or else it will go back to Court is spot on and I would suggest that any LIP whose case was stayed pending Huzar appeal should do likewise.
JJ

Is there anything an individual can do to get rid of the CAA PACT or at least get an independent review of their activities? Judicial Review? I've written to my MP, Secretary of State for Transport, CAA CEO. Just end up going round in circles. As a supposed unbiased enforcement body their behaviour is consistently appalling.

JPears

Nomination for Chairman - Centipede
Nominatin for Secretary/word wizrd - Prof Lord Sir Vauban
Nomination for PR/media - Dr Watson

Any seconders?

zzx

Hurrah, The Guidelines have gone!!!!

Removed from CAA website this morning.

Next - remove the advice that Huzar only applies to new cases. Huzar was a clarification of existing law, not new law.

Anyone else think consumers need a new regulatory body?

JPears

Centipede100 wrote: »

As you are the Alleged Ringleader, I am delighted to step aside from your nomination and anoint you in my stead.

Well, only according to some parties in the news..
Seemingly aircraft age has absolutely nothing to do with reliabilty, although no evidence whatsoever has been provided to back up this assertion

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

Seemingly aircraft age has absolutely nothing to do with reliabilty, although no evidence whatsoever has been provided to back up this assertion

It still grates that one JP !

What was it they said, they were just going to replace their entire fleet with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner then they discovered battery problems, so thought they would stick with their 30 year old fleet!:D

David_e

Centipede100 wrote: »

... their latest advice to passengers:

"The ruling came in to effect yesterday so airlines should base any decisions on new compensation claims on the court’s decision. The ruling does not affect claims that airlines rejected prior to Wednesday 11 June, so it is unlikely that airlines will re-visit previously rejected claims."

That is just scandalous. If they seriously believe that, it says everything about their "guidelines" and the nonsense they have been doling out for the past few years. They are an absolute disgrace.