Two year time-bar

111KAB

A few years ago a couple won a Monarch competition for a weeks holiday in the Canaries - despite searching I have lost the link for this story so if anyone finds please let me know - cutting a long story short due to plane overbooking the couple were abandoned at the airport and had to find their own way home.


The 'winners' decided to take Monarch to court - Monarch's argument was that the holiday was free so what reimbursement was required .... the couple had had no expenditure therefore Monarch had no liability. Monarch lost the case (Dartford court?) and they had to pay recompense - 261/2004 (cancelled flight) I believe.


If you now enter a Monarch competition (they have at least one a week) you waive your rights (by entering the completion by way of their T&C's) to any compensation claim under 261/2004. Of course the vast majority of people never read the small print however I would have thought Monarch would be well advised to remove this T&C as the adverse publicity if a situation like the one I describe occurred again would outweigh any publicity benefits they achieve by running their regular competitions.

NoviceAngel

CobyBenson wrote: »

..........Hope this helps people.

Many thanks for taking the time out to explain what's happening and what the actual arguments in this case centre on.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

howticklediam

CobyBenson wrote: »

Please note, none of these decisions affect Jet2.com because their terms and conditions are worded differently. I'm not aware of any test case against Jet2.com.... yet.
.

It's true that in J2's T&Cs, from around 2010-2013, the clause does not specifically mention damages, but it is item 31.4 of section "31 Notice of Claims" which talks about nothing but claims for damaged, lost or delayed baggage. So the perfectly reasonable assumption is that the clause only relates to baggage claims.

It's also interesting to note that in later versions of the T&Cs, that have been changed without notice, that clause has been moved to a section all of its own "32 Time Limits", for sole purpose of removing that association.

Mark2spark

Whilst not mentioned in any of the cited cases above Coby, do you think there's any mileage in the terminology of 'bringing an action within two years' as *not* stating that it has to be a LEGAL action, and simply making a claim through the normal claim form procedure as being the 'action' as it could be read in normal terminology?

JPears

Mark 2 spark - echos my thoughts entirely.
A "claim" to the man in the street, Mr or Mrs Joe Average, is applying to the airline for compensation, which many have done within the 2 years.
Whilst the "legal" teams who compose the T&Cs may have possibly intended for it to mean legal claim or imply as such, thats not what the T&Cs state, clearly in black and white print.
I think this is an extremely impotant arguement.
Its not semantics, as the meaning of "claim" both in isloation AND in the context of the paragraphs it is contained in, both Ryanair and Jet2, cannot be in any dispute (although a feathered legal co. might argue in a similar fashion black is white).
Another aspect which could be raised in theses cases in March, is the requirement and obligation under regulation 261/2004 for the airlines to make delayed/cancelled/denied boarding passengers aware of their rights under 261/2004 when such an event occurs.
My recent experience with KLM and I am sure, of many others, is that the airlines blatantly ignore this obligation.

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

Another aspect which could be raised in theses cases in March, is the requirement and obligation under regulation 261/2004 for the airlines to make delayed/cancelled/denied boarding passengers aware of their rights under 261/2004 when such an event occurs.
My recent experience with KLM and I am sure, of many others, is that the airlines blatantly ignore this obligation.

Same here, and I asked the head stewardess on the flight back and she said she didn't know what I was talking about. Which could be true.

I reported it to the CAA.

10 points for the first person to guess what the CAA did about it.

NoviceAngel

I win Flipping nowt!!!

howticklediam

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I win Flipping nowt!!!

10 points.

NoviceAngel

Out of interest this may be of interest here!

Apologies for the double post, this is also in the Jet2 thread.....

Just heard of some really distasteful behaviour by Jet2........

In their defence.............

12 b Further to any Court ruling if the Claimants claim is not time barred, any compensation due to the applicant would immediately be recoverable by the Defendant as damages for the Claimant's breach of their contract,.not to bring proceedings more than two years after the said flight. We will seek damages for our client.

Wording changed slightly to protect the LiP, but you get the gist of what that means!!!

glentoran99

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Out of interest this may be of interest here!

Apologies for the double post, this is also in the Jet2 thread.....

Just heard of some really distasteful behaviour by Jet2........

In their defence.............

12 b Further to any Court ruling if the Claimants claim is not time barred, any compensation due to the applicant would immediately be recoverable by the Defendant as damages for the Claimant's breach of their contract,.not to bring proceedings more than two years after the said flight. We will seek damages for our client.

Wording changed slightly to protect the LiP, but you get the gist of what that means!!!

goog luck with that one JET 2

Id love to see a court hammer them over that threat