Huzar appeal

OldManAhoy

Centipede100 wrote: »

Why not write to the Sec of State for Transport stating that the CAA has consistently failed to achieve one if its Strategic Objectives, that of "contributing to consumers' ability to make informed decisions and protecting them where appropriate."

It has clearly failed in that regard, viz the number of passenger claims they deem invalid for compensation when the courts have generally taken the opposite view, and continue to fail in 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."

This is absolutely at odds with precedent civil case law and since the CAA participated willingly with other NEBs in drawing up their "guidance list" on extraordinary circumstances as if they are some form of quasi-judicial body, it remains unsurprising that they continue to peddle the same line.

Except that is at odds with their Strategic Objective concerning passengers' making informed decisions....

Unfit for purpose - tick
Irrelevant for passengers - tick
Ignoring Strategic Objective - tick
Continue to give incorrect advice - tick


I cannot see why any passenger would approach the CAA for assistance in any way, shape or form. Perhaps some of the contributors here could form a body corporate to suggest to the SoS that they take on the Passengers' Advice role as it should be removed from the CAA forthwith.

This rubbish about Huzar appeal judgement only applying to new claims.... When the CJEU ruled on Sturgeon & Block that comp rules applied to delays as well as cancellations that wasn't just applicable to new claims was it?

batman44

Complaints on mass to the Secretary Of State for Transport I say. Asking them to remove the statement or update it. This is a clear mis-representation of the law.

JPears

Perhaps a crafty wordsmith could draft some such letter to SoS for customisation and sending?

socrates1882

The CAA are fundamentally wrong.

If their stance was correct Mr Huzar would not be entitled to compensation given that he submitted his claim prior to the ruling.

Tyzap

JPears wrote: »

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

This also gets me going. It's something I brought to the district judges attention when presenting my case but it was just poo poo'd by Jet2, as you would expect, and the judge seemed un impressed.

The aircraft that broke was B737-33A G-CELC, It's first flight was on 3rd November 1987 and it is now 26.6 years old.

The interesting part about this was in Jet2's expert witness statement where the engineer said this about the faulty wiring that had to be replaced....

"The wiring also tends to be covered in oil, grease and a preservative which makes handling the cables even more difficult. Great care also has to be taken not to stress the wiring as the insulation tends to be very brittle"

Well I doubt it is on a new aircraft.

So on the one hand they say age is not a factor and on the other they submit evidence that suggest the opposite!

On a change of subject.

I'd like to thank everyone again for the messages of support. It's been one hell of a journey so far and it's not over just yet. I'll give a much fuller account after the fat lady has sung.

Vauban

Quite. The contempt for passengers is integral to the airlines logic.

In my case, Monarch said that the window was an "on condition" part - which meant (as I understand it) that it has no declared "shelf life" and is used until it breaks (actually, a number of aviation articles I read said that this was nonsense, and that the older the window, the greater the chance of failure). Of course, Monarch also readily conceded that they didn't have the facilities at Gatwick to fix this problem when it (inevitably) happens. So if you were the unlucky passenger, Monarch’s formal attitude is "tough"!

This is precisely why the Regulation was iintroduced - to deal with airline practices like that. Shameful airline; shameful CAA.

stevemej123

batman44 wrote: »

Looks like the CAA had to do something or it would leave them with more egg on their faces. Interesting that new claims will be stayed pending the Supreme Court (not imho) but current claims not, and they are informing the airlines. LOL should of done this a long time ago.:mad:
CAA-
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. What?

I think that what the CAA MIGHT have meant is that claimants who have LOST court cases would not be able to revisit their claims.

Tyzap

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/huzar-solicitor-clashes-with-aviation-regulator-over-jet2-case/5041679.article

JPears

stevemej123 wrote: »

I think that what the CAA MIGHT have meant is that claimants who have LOST court cases would not be able to revisit their claims.

Me thinks you are too generous with your interpretation.

JPears

Dear Sir or madam,

There are some fundamental errors and misinformation posted on your webpage:
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2369

1. "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."
Of course the rulingaffects claim thats the airlines rejected or ignored prior to 11 June 2014. The ruling confirmed existing case law and prescedent that has stood for many years but has been widely ignored or rejected by the airline industry and indeed by the CAA.

2."There are also likely to be further developments on the issue, with Jet2 confirming it will appeal the decision. This may mean airlines delay processing new claims involving technical faults until the outcome of the appeal."
Jet2 may well have confirmed they will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. But since this was denied by the Court of Appeal and past history suggests any appeal to the Supreme Court by another route is unlikely to be granted, the Court of Appeal ruling is law. Until any leave of appeal is actually granted, consumers and airlines must abide by the current law.

3. "However, if the Court of Appeal’s decision stands, it will mean a large increase in the number of passengers entitled to compensation for delayed and cancelled flights."
Incorrect, there will be no change in the number of passengers that are "entitled" to compensation, since there has been no change in the actual law. However airlines will have much less of an excuse to procrastinate and fob passengers off with pathetic and specious excuses.I respectfully request that the CAA take a long hard look at the misleading and incorrect contents of this webpge. Passengers shoud not be mislead or misinformed any further regarding their rights under Regulation 261/2004.

Yours faithfully,


John M Pearson