We have taken Jet2 to court over refusing refund of holiday deposit - and won

CKhalvashi

eskbanker said:

stoem said:

He said he needs to make an objective decision, case by case, if those changes were significant. Jet2's own T&Cs state that a >12 hour delay is significant. The judge stated that it's easy to argue that the closure of an indoor pool in October for a family with 3 children is on its own significant, after all it lasts for 24 hours every day, not just once for 12 hours. So is the closure of the gym and spa - also significant.

These references to timings make no sense to me - the 12 hours in Jet2's Ts & Cs relates specifically to travel delays, so I can't see any relevance to unavailability of facilities once in resort?

Anyway, although the thread has meandered a bit along the way, the fundamental issue from the start was whether or not the changes were significant and the judge has deemed them to be so in your circumstances, so congratulations on your result, well done!

That part doesn't make sense to me either, but again well done to OP on this one.

Ultimately, we have pulled the case apart and a judge has come to a different conclusion on the basis of their understanding of the legislation, however we don't know if Jet2 put the argument forward that the breach could have been remedied in another way.

Thank you to OP for providing clarity on how the courts will deal with such a case, as while not binding on another judge this is important going forwards.

stoem

eskbanker said:

stoem said:

He said he needs to make an objective decision, case by case, if those changes were significant. Jet2's own T&Cs state that a >12 hour delay is significant. The judge stated that it's easy to argue that the closure of an indoor pool in October for a family with 3 children is on its own significant, after all it lasts for 24 hours every day, not just once for 12 hours. So is the closure of the gym and spa - also significant.

These references to timings make no sense to me - the 12 hours in Jet2's Ts & Cs relates specifically to travel delays, so I can't see any relevance to unavailability of facilities once in resort?

Anyway, although the thread has meandered a bit along the way, the fundamental issue from the start was whether or not the changes were significant and the judge has deemed them to be so in your circumstances, so congratulations on your result, well done!

Jet2 counsel tried to tie me up in the small print, made me admit that I agreed to those T&Cs as if it all hinged on that when other regulations and consumer law was also applicable. Everyone agrees to the T&Cs, otherwise they cannot book a holiday. 

In the end though, their own T&Cs is what undid their defence. The judge said that objectively, a 12 hour flight delay is less of an issue to a customer than the loss of the facilities I cited. Yet Jet2 states that a 12 hour delay (amongst other things) is a significant change. Using that as the bar stick, the changes (or disruptions) to our holiday would logically also be significant, and more so than a flight delay.

Any idea if I get a copy of the judge's conclusion in writing?

BTW I was awarded my deposit back, plus 2% interest (I asked for 8%... heck, worth a try) plus the court fees.

God knows what it cost Jet2 in total, they could have just transferred my deposit to a new holiday instead. 

eskbanker

stoem said:

In the end though, their own T&Cs is what undid their defence. The judge said that objectively, a 12 hour flight delay is less of an issue to a customer than the loss of the facilities I cited. Yet Jet2 states that a 12 hour delay (amongst other things) is a significant change. Using that as the bar stick, the changes (or disruptions) to our holiday would logically also be significant, and more so than a flight delay.

It still seems like contrived logic to me - if unavailability of a facility is considered significant then that should stand on its own merits, rather than trying to draw some parallel with a major flight timing change which, for some, could jeopardise their entire holiday.  The judge is obviously entitled to his opinion, and has to be considered more learned than the average web forum member and also has access to all documentation, etc, but stating that "objectively, a 12 hour flight delay is less of an issue to a customer than the loss of the facilities I cited" sounds more like subjectivity to me, albeit perhaps true in your specific circumstances!

stoem said:

Any idea if I get a copy of the judge's conclusion in writing?

Sorry, don't know, I haven't gone through the process myself.  Worth sharing if you do....

stoem said:

God knows what it cost Jet2 in total, they could have just transferred my deposit to a new holiday instead. 

I'd see it as confidence in their case and a belief that it was defendable - as per previous posts, I wasn't the only one who thought that they had a reasonable prospect of success, but they no doubt recognise that they win some and lose some.

stoem

I should clarify this some more for the benefit of future readers.

First of all, I'll naturally have to omit 98% of what was said during the hearing. I'm trying to sum up from memory. 

The judge didn't say that the changes were objectively significant. He did say that each case needs to be looked at objectively and he needed to do so here.

His conclusions were that the changes were significant, especially when considering what sort of changes Jet2 themselves deem significant, including a long delay to the departure. It's difficult to argue that a flight delay ruins someone's holiday completely and it is uncontested that a delay at departure is a one-off event whereas lack of facilities is a daily occurrence. 

Moreover, Jet2 also deems a downgrade of a hotel category as significant. Once you remove a gym, spa and indoor pool from a hotel then it can reasonably argued that the hotel has been downgraded.

Lastly, all that talk of 'the OP should have waited longer before cancelling' was dismissed during the hearing. The judge made it clear that the information about the closure of facilities (for the rest of the season) was known before I cancelled and it was Jet2's decision (and mistake I assume) not to follow up on it once I told them about it. He also thought it was reasonable that I tried to cut my losses at that point when the full balance was due and the changes to facilities known.

Therefore there was an element of anticipatory breach of contract at play as well and I have a feeling the judge would have used that angle to greater effect had the case not been clear on the significant change angle alone.

I think it helped my credibility that I admitted that had the change been limited to the change from buffet to table service then we would have travelled. In fact the judge made more of a deal of that point than I would have done. He said that since we would be travelling with 3 children and in his opinion the buffet service allows us to turn up when we want and in groups (the teenager may want a lie in etc) that this was an important element of the holiday, more so for families than for couples. 

It also didn't help Jet2's case that they didn't offer any way out; no offer of a voucher, no transfer of deposit, no moving of the holiday to another year. 

Butts

Well done Stoem for sticking to your guns !!

Great result !!

stoem

Butts said:

Well done Stoem for sticking to your guns !!

Great result !!

Thanks, appreciate it. 

stoem

I’ve updated the topic of this post to reflect the outcome. 

eskbanker

stoem said:

His conclusions were that the changes were significant, especially when considering what sort of changes Jet2 themselves deem significant, including a long delay to the departure. It's difficult to argue that a flight delay ruins someone's holiday completely and it is uncontested that a delay at departure is a one-off event whereas lack of facilities is a daily occurrence. 

It's obviously all moot in the context of the successful conclusion of your case but I think there may be some confusion arising from the use of the word 'delay' here - the Jet2 Ts & Cs (like those of their competitors) regarding significant changes aren't referring to delays in the sense of flights departing or arriving late as such, but are instead talking about flights that are rescheduled, often months ahead of departure, and are advised to the customer in advance accordingly.

The point I was making was that such schedule changes can and do prevent some people's holidays going ahead, such as those with no flexibility around time off work, school, etc.

stoem said:

The judge didn't say that the changes were objectively significant. He did say that each case needs to be looked at objectively and he needed to do so here.

So "The judge said that objectively, a 12 hour flight delay is less of an issue to a customer than the loss of the facilities I cited" should presumably have been "The judge said that objectively, a 12 hour flight delay is less of an issue to a this particular customer than the loss of the facilities I cited"?

sunshinesusie_2

Do you have the case number?  I’m looking to take Jet2 to small claims court for similar circumstances and would like to use your case as an example. Thank you 

CKhalvashi

sunshinesusie_2 said:

Do you have the case number?  I’m looking to take Jet2 to small claims court for similar circumstances and would like to use your case as an example. Thank you 

This will not be a case on which a precedent can be set.

If you start your own thread outlining the facts we can look at this. Please be aware that we did get this one wrong and judges do have discretion as long as the law is stuck to, so once again your case will not be open and shut.