Huzar appeal

David_e

If you read the footnote to the press releaae:

"However, the CAA can take legal action where there is evidence of systematic non-compliance with the regulation by an airline."

You couldn't make it up.

OldManAhoy

David_e wrote: »

If you read the footnote to the press releaae:

"However, the CAA can take legal action where there is evidence of systematic non-compliance with the regulation by an airline."

You couldn't make it up.

Great isn't it. Nice to know we have a powerful ally in the CAA. Reg 261 came in 2004, the CAA can prosecute under the Civil Aviation Denied Boarding etc, etc. I sent the CAA an FOI late last year to ask how many times they had taken legal action in the last 9 1/2 yrs, Not won, just taken action. Not once! Obviously we are all whinging complainers and no airline has systematically broken any rules.:mad:

batman44

JPears wrote: »

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

I love this site, so many and learned members perpared to stand up for the passengers and their rights.
I take my "not so nice hat" off to all:T

On another note I may have to let my 28 day stay after the judgement run it's course as instructed by the judge or pre empt now? i have emailed travlaw and they will get back to me -yeh right.

David_e

JPears wrote: »

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.

Absolutely hits the nail on the head. It just shows what a shower the CAA are when they don't even understand (a) Reg 261/2004 specifically and (b) the application of statue and case law generally.

flymeaway

JPears wrote: »

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

Love this, really do. Wrote back to TC today and got a response to the effect that of course I may reopen my stayed case but the Huzar Judgment will be appealed at the Supreme Court and we will therefore be requesting a further stay on the matter! You really could not make it up. So I have written back using your piece above in part - let's see what I get back next.

David_e

flymeaway wrote: »

Love this, really do. Wrote back to TC today and got a response to the effect that of course I may reopen my stayed case but the Huzar Judgment will be appealed at the Supreme Court and we will therefore be requesting a further stay on the matter! You really could not make it up. So I have written back using your piece above in part - let's see what I get back next.

Gosh, you heard it here first! The Supreme Court haven't even given leave to appeal and TC know it's going to happen!

You couldn't make it up, but it appears TC do.

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

You couldn't make it up, but it appears TC do.

:rotfl: I love it.

stevemej123

NBA sent yesterday.

Jet2 have well and truly litigated themselves into a corner.

TrevorSmith

seems the CAA have listened to the e-mails and corrected their advice:

"The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is clarifying its advice to passengers on their rights to compensation for delayed and cancelled flights, following the ruling in the Jet2 v Huzar case at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday 11 June.

The Court of Appeal ruled that ordinary technical problems that cause flight disruption, such as component failure and general wear and tear, should not be considered “extraordinary circumstances”. This means that airlines can only cite technical faults as a reason for not paying compensation if the fault was originally caused by an event that was “out of the ordinary”. So technical faults such as a part on the aircraft failing before departure will generally not be considered extraordinary circumstances.

The effect of the judgement is:
• New claims should be assessed by airlines in the light of the judgement.
• Claims previously put to an airline can be reconsidered in the light of the judgement, if the passenger wishes, unless the passenger agreed a settlement with the airline.
• Claims that have already been decided by a court cannot be taken back to court unless they are within the time limit for an appeal.


There may also be further developments on the issue, with Jet2 confirming it intends to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Airlines might delay processing claims until the outcome is known. Passengers therefore have a choice: either to ask and wait for their airline to reconsider their claim in the light of the judgement, or to take their claim to court.


The CAA apologises that our earlier advice was not clear. We will contact passengers who have previously sought our help to provide advice on the matter. The CAA will also provide guidance on the judgment to airlines.

For more information please contact the CAA press office on 020 7453 6030 or press.office@caa.co.uk. Follow the CAA on Twitter @UK_CAA. "

JPears

Well I never, I can't believe anybody at the CAA would actually be working on a Friday afternoon.....:o