Two year time-bar

Demonic

Jet2 have followed the same path with me.

I was delayed for 7 hours on an outbound flight to Cyprus in June 2012. I originally contacted Jet2 in April 2013 and got the "extraordinary circumstances" denial. Following the update after the Huzar case I contacted Jet2 again in January 2015 to ask them to reconsider (how niaive of me ), only to get the 2 year time bar.

My logic is that I did start my claim for compensation within 2 years and, as some have already pointed out, Jet2's terms and conditions make no mention of "legal" proceedings. As such, my initial contact with Jet2 was within 2 years.

As I don't have the time (due to work and moving house) I've now put it into the hands of Bott & Co.

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

A retort/alternative pleading for the LiP in these cases is that Jet2,along with the majority of the airlines, repeatedly fail to inform the passenger of their rights under reg 261/2004 with respect to compensation.
If you don't know about the regulation, or you are deliberatly delayed in your claim/action by the airline or for the veterans of the forum, delayed by such things as Sturgeon, how can you make a claim.
I think this is a strong counterargument for those in the 2 year battle.

That's exactly the point the CAA are now finally making to Jet2.

With now the CAA, The Courts and us against them, they have no where to go with this 2 year argument. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming weeks..

howticklediam

Demonic wrote: »

Jet2 have followed the same path with me.

I was delayed for 7 hours on an outbound flight to Cyprus in June 2012. I originally contacted Jet2 in April 2013 and got the "extraordinary circumstances" denial. Following the update after the Huzar case I contacted Jet2 again in January 2015 to ask them to reconsider (how niaive of me ), only to get the 2 year time bar.

My logic is that I did start my claim for compensation within 2 years and, as some have already pointed out, Jet2's terms and conditions make no mention of "legal" proceedings. As such, my initial contact with Jet2 was within 2 years.

As I don't have the time (due to work and moving house) I've now put it into the hands of Bott & Co.

Well done, nothing to lose.

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I have read very little on this months appeal, if anyone knows details, times, dates if it's an open Court, your roving reported might be tempted to make an appearance.

CobyBenson wrote: »

......

The appeal will take place in public, before a circuit judge, at Manchester County Court at 10:30am on 27th March 2015. As with any County Court appeal the decision will not be binding.

Anybody fancy a day in Manchester to watch events unfold, PM please....

111KAB

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2015942&c=setreg&region=2


Do you agree? Maybe the CAA could do with our support now as the airlines gang up against them. Why not tell the Chief Exec ([EMAIL="andrew.haines@caa.co.uk"]andrew.haines@caa.co.uk[/EMAIL]) that your claim has been kicked out as delay was over 2 years ago?

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2015942&c=setreg&region=2


Do you agree? Maybe the CAA could do with our support now as the airlines gang up against them. Why not tell the Chief Exec ([EMAIL="andrew.haines@caa.co.uk"]andrew.haines@caa.co.uk[/EMAIL]) that your claim has been kicked out as delay was over 2 years ago?

I am more skeptical about whether this leopard has changed its spots. Has the CAA really concluded that the likes of Ryanair and Monarch are now fully compliant with 261/04? If so, why am I still reading of stories on here of people's legitimate claims being rebuffed? And as for the emergence of the latest "hidden manufacturing defect" gambit, what has the CAA got to say about that?

We shouldn't forget that the CAA colluded arm in arm with the likes of Jet2 to prevent a reasonable interpretation of the Regulation: they even tried to muscle in unhelpful lay on the Huzar case. So this breach with Jet2 is of course very significant, and I'd be most interested to know what's brought this about. The CAA detailed report, which Angel tells me they're publishing today, will be very telling.

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

The CAA detailed report, which Angel tells me they're publishing today, will be very telling.

The_CAA wrote:

The full reports of the CAA’s reviews of airlines’ approaches to compensation and providing passengers with information about their rights will be published on Monday 23 March. The CAA is committed to also publishing details of any future reviews and related enforcement action.

They didn't say what year!

111KAB

Update > http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2438

NoviceAngel

Taken from the CAA Website full document here :- http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6680

Jet2.com


4. The Dawson v Thomson Airways judgment confirmed that the limitation period in the UK for taking a case to court in respect of the Denied Boarding Regulations is 6 years. Please confirm that you apply this limitation period.

Jet2.com applies a contractual limitation period of two years as clearly set out in its conditions of carriage, which are incorporated into every contract with passengers. The Dawson judgment did not consider the effect of contractual time limits which are incorporated into conditions of carriage and only dealt with the question of the general limitation period. In Jet2.com’s case there is an overriding contractual limitation period of two years. Further detail on the reasons for Jet2.com’s approach are set out in paragraph 5 which follows.

5. If, for any reason, you apply a different limitation period, please explain what it is, how you apply it in practice (for example through your Terms and Conditions), and why you consider it is not in conflict with the Dawson v Thomson Airways judgment.

(a) The Court of Appeal in Dawson made it clear that the domestic law should apply to the time limits in which claims for compensation pursuant to the Regulation should be made. As a matter of domestic English law, it is entirely permissible to have a contractual limitation period for claims in contract or tort. Provided that the conditions of carriage are incorporated into the contract with the passenger, and the period is not unreasonable, an airline has a defence to a claim if it is commenced in the courts after the expiry of that shorter contractual period. There is nothing in the Dawson case which states to the contrary.

(b) Jet2.com's conditions of carriage, which are incorporated into every contract, provide for a 2 year contractual limitation period. A 2 year limitation period cannot be considered to be unreasonable given that it is the same period as is provided for in the Montreal Convention in respect of much more complex and serious causes of action. Indeed it is a generous period when one considers that in a flight delay claim, the passenger immediately has all of the information and evidence he or she needs to lodge a claim.

(c) Such 2 year contractual limitation periods have been upheld by the courts, for instance in the cases of Pickard v Ryanair and Clissold v Ryanair. In both cases, the Claimants' claims were dismissed as the claims had not been commenced within the adjudged "fairly imposed" two year limitation period in accordance with the airline’s terms and conditions. In addition, the Liverpool County Court, where the majority of "Flight Delay" claims are allocated, has struck out claims of its own volition on the basis that, by entering into a contract with our client, the passenger agreed, under the relevant clause of Terms and Conditions, that the limitation for claims would be reduced to two years.

(d) For completeness, we note that it has been suggested recently that Article 15 of the Regulation limits an airline's entitlement to agree a period shorter than the normal contractual time limit. Article 15 does not have this effect. It prevents an airline from limiting or waiving "obligations". The only relevant obligation in the Regulation is the obligation of the airline to pay compensation in the sums set out in Article 7. Article 15 prevents an airline from imposing a term which reduces the extent of its obligation to pay compensation; it does not prevent it from setting a reasonable period for the lodgment of claims. We are unaware of any court decision to the contrary.