JET2 making it difficualt for a compansation

tomorrow_2

DrA_Harrogate wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]By all means use a nwnf solicitor as they do all the work for you. They then take a fairly big chunk of your compensation. If you write a well argued NBA letter (which it will be if you read Vauban's guide) you may well find these days this produces results by itself and you could always have the nwnf lawyer 'in reserve'.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Thank you, although I hate that it all has to be done via regular mail and not emails!! :mad:

Linelimit

Folks, I object to nwnf on principle, they are pushing appropriate legal compensation to the limit. To the extent that Thomas Cook or tui had a judgement about a bird strike being within the airlines control or normal ops. So the airline pays to have the aircraft fixed, moves the customers and then has to pay compensation. So who wins out of all this,? the lawers, they get their fee. We have to pay higher fares to pay for nonsense compensation. This regulation was never written for this, it was simply to protect customers from overbooking. Rant over but please consider what I have said.

111KAB

Linelimit wrote: »

Folks, I object to nwnf on principle, they are pushing appropriate legal compensation to the limit. To the extent that Thomas Cook or tui had a judgement about a bird strike being within the airlines control or normal ops. So the airline pays to have the aircraft fixed, moves the customers and then has to pay compensation. So who wins out of all this,? the lawers, they get their fee. We have to pay higher fares to pay for nonsense compensation. This regulation was never written for this, it was simply to protect customers from overbooking. Rant over but please consider what I have said.

Linelimit - your point has been raised many times on this forum before and indeed I agree with you that people have to consider themselves any action they decide to take in respect of 261/2004 claims.


I also agree that the use of a no win no fee should be discouraged however if an airline are hell bent on not paying a legitimate claim this leaves the claimant with very few alternatives and if a NWNF takes a fee then yes of course the airline pay but this is their own fault for just not settling the claim in the first instance.


You mention just one judgement (Tui bird strike) but your rant singles out this without mentioning any of the other claims for which the airlines have had judgements against them. Is your 'problem' only centred upon bird strikes or on all (legitimate) claims?


You regard the law as providing nonsense compensation whereas many who frequent these pages would consider it a justified law when they have had a lengthy delay before say, starting their holiday or endeavouring to return to the UK.


The main point of many a post on these pages and in many respects why some people claim is as a result of the lack of information/help many airlines fail to provide when people are delayed. Yes fares may nominally rise however many regard this as a small 'insurance' premium to ensure that, should they be delayed (through the fault of the airline), they can at least resort, if they wish, to 261/2004.


261/2004 was written to protect the customer from cancellations not only overbooking and indeed the law was ratified to confirm that, in effect, a delay of over 3/4 hours was tantamount to a cancellation.


The airlines have all improved their punctuality record (with no instance of inadequate service/maintenance/repair unless you know different) and yes they may have taken a 'hit' with 261/2004 payments in the early days but reference to this forum alone will indicate how matters have quietened off in recent times.


You will not alter the law or many (if any) claimants position by posting on these pages and if you feel so strongly about it the way is to challenge the legal position ..... although it may be better to wait to see if we depart the EU in June.