Lost luggage and easy jet £25 a day essentials budget

RBizz

Ganga said:

RBizz said:

@ColdPensioner oh my goodness, the cheek of trying to charge for the extra bag!! 

I was thinking earlier it would be so much more straight forward if our luggage was actually lost at this point, as it seems to be a simpler process for a claim and the claim for the lost luggage would cover our emergency expense variations between what was spent and the amounts we can claim too! 

Even if your luggage had been lost you would not get the full value of the contents back ,i am sure the airlines /handling agents are covered by the Montreal convention ( apologies if spelt wrong )

Oh I’d be getting the full value back, travel insurance covers up to £5k each in lost luggage!

RBizz

CKhalvashi said:

eskbanker said:

RBizz said:

Not sure anyone checks the ins and outs of the easyJet website on lost luggage before flying so I’m not too fussed if it’s on their website, it’s a very low amount and definitely not enough to cover 3 days worth of clothes and essentials for most (especially in this economic climate!)

I wasn't necessarily suggesting that you should have read that policy before leaving, but simply that if they've done exactly what they say they'll do then your options for challenging them about it (especially in court) are somewhat curtailed.

RBizz said:

my concern is around the ‘essential’ label for purchases, so might need to go down the Small claims route either way, as I’m concerned what’s essential for us might not be essential in their eyes! 

I don't think they'd necessarily contend that their published figure would be enough to cover everyone's definition of 'essential', but doubt that there's any legal obligation on them to cover that on an unrestricted basis (have you found anything?), so I imagine that their approach of capping reimbursement at a standardised value would be deemed reasonable by a court.

I have to agree with what Eskbanker has said here.

The limit is published and therefore a court will likely deem that it should stand.

I will always skim through documents and terms before entering a contract and suggest that people do at least this before claiming that they have read the terms and conditions quite clearly. I know a few airlines policies quite well, but despite having flown with Easyjet I can't say I remember what was in what I read, just that I was happy enough with them.

I've also picked up some bargains over the years in second hand shops. I get that this isn't everyone's style of shopping but definitely it's a frugal way to shop. I get you were on a cruise ship so this option wasn't available but for the majority of people who don't take cruises this also will be deemed completely reasonable.

Just because you don't agree with the term you agreed with when you entered your contract with Easyjet doesn't mean you can change it now. If you don't like a contractual term, it's always the case that this needs to be changed before you enter into it.

I’d argue most couldn’t do 3 days worth of clothing and essentials for £75. Even when not on a cruise ship. 

I’m arguing it’s not a fair or reasonable policy, just because it’s written doesn’t mean legally it will stand (have had this before with other companies that I have successfully taken through to small claims court - so will follow the same tactic here, was just posting to see if anyone had got round this without having to go down that path) 

onashoestring

whilst the clothing may have cost more than £75 you will be able to wear  it ( after washing ) for more than just 3 days . 

eskbanker

RBizz said:
I’d argue most couldn’t do 3 days worth of clothing and essentials for £75. Even when not on a cruise ship. 

I’m arguing it’s not a fair or reasonable policy, just because it’s written doesn’t mean legally it will stand (have had this before with other companies that I have successfully taken through to small claims court - so will follow the same tactic here, was just posting to see if anyone had got round this without having to go down that path) 

But they're not necessarily contending that it's enough as such, they're effectively just saying that they're prepared to contribute to the costs of essentials rather than accepting a principle that they're legally liable to reimburse all such costs in their entirety, i.e. it's a gesture rather than an obligation.  Hence my earlier question about whether you were aware of any legislation or regulation that obliges airlines to cover all costs in these circumstances, as I'm not aware of anything....

CKhalvashi

eskbanker said:

RBizz said:
I’d argue most couldn’t do 3 days worth of clothing and essentials for £75. Even when not on a cruise ship. 

I’m arguing it’s not a fair or reasonable policy, just because it’s written doesn’t mean legally it will stand (have had this before with other companies that I have successfully taken through to small claims court - so will follow the same tactic here, was just posting to see if anyone had got round this without having to go down that path) 

But they're not necessarily contending that it's enough as such, they're effectively just saying that they're prepared to contribute to the costs of essentials rather than accepting a principle that they're legally liable to reimburse all such costs in their entirety, i.e. it's a gesture rather than an obligation.  Hence my earlier question about whether you were aware of any legislation or regulation that obliges airlines to cover all costs in these circumstances, as I'm not aware of anything....

I'd argue the same.

The clothes will last for years, not 3 days, and were brand new at the time you had to purchase them to replace (presumably) second hand items.

I would argue that £75 is more than enough in most of the world, naturally staying away from designer brands.

You will also have your old clothes back at some point, so will have benefitted from an upgrade with a £75 contribution.

In cases of extreme hardship I can see a case to go further, but as you have not mentioned financial difficulty I am assuming this isn't the case.