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

stoem

Update. 

The court date was last Friday morning. On Thursday afternoon at 4.30pm I had a call from the court advising me that there was no court capacity for this case and it has been postponed. No new date has been given yet. 

I’m ok with that but imagine if I was in a stronger position and needed this money, or if it was for a higher amount. 

Justice delayed and all that. 

Being from Germany I am amazed at the low level of public service provision the British public is willing to tolerate. In France they’d be rioting, in Germany it would have long been fixed. Here they shrug and vote for more of the same. Quite incredible. 

Thrugelmir

stoem said:

Being from Germany I am amazed at the low level of public service provision the British public is willing to tolerate. In France they’d be rioting, in Germany it would have long been fixed. Here they shrug and vote for more of the same. Quite incredible. 

There's been a global pandemic. No point getting over excited . Just a drain on ones own mental health. At least us Brits have a sense of humour and can laugh at ourselves. On my last trip to Germany I realised how things aren't getting fixed. Far from it. 

CKhalvashi

I'm sorry to hear this, however you will still have your chance to have your case heard.

I wish you luck when you do finally get a date.

brianposter

As a simple reader of this thread I would expect the OP to win his case and am surprised that Jet2 have not already refunded the deposit. The crucial point in time is when the balance of the cost became due from the OP. At that point Jet2 were advertising a holiday that was not available and was unlikely to become available.

The judicial system is not there to protect people who make such errors, however understandable they may be, and I see it as entirely reasonable to cancel the holiday at that point, particularly as he did discuss the matter with Jet2.

eskbanker

brianposter said:

The crucial point in time is when the balance of the cost became due from the OP. At that point Jet2 were advertising a holiday that was not available and was unlikely to become available.

I don't recall any mention of what Jet2 were advertising at that point in time, but even if they were, that doesn't affect OP, who had already entered into a binding commitment some time earlier and was seeking grounds on which to cancel it without losing the deposit.  Your reference to 'unlikely to become available' is key though - OP's stance is that the information provided by the hotel was 100% definitive and could be relied upon, whereas (as I understand it) Jet2's position on that is effectively that, three months out, there was a chance the hotel facilities could become available, i.e. the 'flicker of hope' test in the earlier legal case.

As per earlier posts, there are other relevant aspects to the dispute too, such as whether or not the changes were significant in PTRs terms, so it still seems to me that it's not as straightforward as you suggest....

stoem

Update from the court. New date set for July but case may be passed to another court. Glad I’m not waiting for the trial of my stalker. 

[Deleted User]

Thanks for keeping us up to date.

Westin

I stumbled on this today.  I wonder if this might have baring on the OP's court case.  Different travel operator but some similarities in that the court decided that the operator could have offered an alternative hotel if necessary.

The county court overruled an earlier district court ruling on appeal. 

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/travel-agents/judge-rules-in-favour-of-loveholidays-over-refund

stoem

Thanks @Westin I'll check it out.

Alan_Bowen

The case has no official report and county court cases do not create precedents, which means other county courts can ignore it. The barrister who presented the case for the company has blogged that she thought they won because Ryanair did not cancel the flight and therefore would not refund the fare and it may not be quite as strongly in favour of the tour operator as suggested by the solicitors who took the case..