EasyJet Refund Update
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
small claims costs
oh well if it is London then I'll travel down by train etc and have a day out as you say.
In Small Claims the Judge decides for the plaintiff or the defendent. There is no concept of costs, so the little guy like me if I lose cannot be asked to pay the, say, £15K legal bill of the other side. This isn't true in big court, which is why lots of small people don't decide to sue large companies cos it basically ends up in a blink first game, as opposed to a fair legal trial as it should be. A case in point is the kid in Shropshire or thereabouts who has beaten by an Asian gang at school sued the school for not providing a safe work environment. The school won the case and is now persuing the kids family for £100K of their legal costs, and of course the parents have to pay their side's legal costs as well. It's brinkmanship.
G
In Small Claims the Judge decides for the plaintiff or the defendent. There is no concept of costs, so the little guy like me if I lose cannot be asked to pay the, say, £15K legal bill of the other side. This isn't true in big court, which is why lots of small people don't decide to sue large companies cos it basically ends up in a blink first game, as opposed to a fair legal trial as it should be. A case in point is the kid in Shropshire or thereabouts who has beaten by an Asian gang at school sued the school for not providing a safe work environment. The school won the case and is now persuing the kids family for £100K of their legal costs, and of course the parents have to pay their side's legal costs as well. It's brinkmanship.
G
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys I work for EZY. I take pride in our customer service at the sharp end as CC. My company puts a lot of emphasis on this to us in training
I cringe with
when I see this sort of thing happening and just want to hand a shovel to our so called "Customer Services Champions".
They would be the ones who send out emails saying "due to the high volumes etc......."
Customer Services should be the most inactive dept in any organisation IMHO if they are getting it right. Our's apparently are inundated with claims/complaints......
A word to the wise. EZY do "brinkmanship" extremly well. Check your claims against the T&C's......the document not many actually read.
If you still feel you have a valid claim and are being jerked around by Customer Services then email the CEO direct.
I cringe with
when I see this sort of thing happening and just want to hand a shovel to our so called "Customer Services Champions".They would be the ones who send out emails saying "due to the high volumes etc......."
Customer Services should be the most inactive dept in any organisation IMHO if they are getting it right. Our's apparently are inundated with claims/complaints......
A word to the wise. EZY do "brinkmanship" extremly well. Check your claims against the T&C's......the document not many actually read.
If you still feel you have a valid claim and are being jerked around by Customer Services then email the CEO direct.
Groundbum
I'll bet Easy settle just before you go to court. They will wait as long as possible, hoping you'll change your mind.
Disgraceful situation, shame on you EasyJet!
I'll bet Easy settle just before you go to court. They will wait as long as possible, hoping you'll change your mind.
Disgraceful situation, shame on you EasyJet!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet T&Cs
Thanks for all the letters of support, it cheers me up no end. I could check Easyjet T+Cs, but unless they say in there they are above the law then it doesn't matter a jot. The reason being is my claim is for the EU Mandatory compensation of E250/passenger where the Airline cannot operate the flight.
Now, there is an exception in this EU regulation that says the airline doesn't pay the E250 where it would be unsafe to operate the flight, and this I totally agree with! We don't need flights occuring that should not be. Generally these exceptions are maintenance, war, industrial action, weather, etc.
As expressed previously Easyjet are wiggling out of this claiming weather. But 100 out of 103 aircraft operated from T3 MAN that day, including two on the exact same MAN/MALTA route. So yes England was in a cold snap, but there was nothing about the weather per se that meant that flight that day could not be operated.
Now, it could be, and it's not for me to argue, that the weather had stretched Easyjet so thin that they ran out of crews, tugs, aircraft, biscuits whatever. But the EU regulation is almost designed to "punish"/"deter" airlines that resource their operation so thin that passengers are regularly inconvenienced. Act of God can only be used so many times... And that's the basis for my case, all the other airlines managed it, so Easyjet cannot use the weather/safety argument for my flight.
G
Now, there is an exception in this EU regulation that says the airline doesn't pay the E250 where it would be unsafe to operate the flight, and this I totally agree with! We don't need flights occuring that should not be. Generally these exceptions are maintenance, war, industrial action, weather, etc.
As expressed previously Easyjet are wiggling out of this claiming weather. But 100 out of 103 aircraft operated from T3 MAN that day, including two on the exact same MAN/MALTA route. So yes England was in a cold snap, but there was nothing about the weather per se that meant that flight that day could not be operated.
Now, it could be, and it's not for me to argue, that the weather had stretched Easyjet so thin that they ran out of crews, tugs, aircraft, biscuits whatever. But the EU regulation is almost designed to "punish"/"deter" airlines that resource their operation so thin that passengers are regularly inconvenienced. Act of God can only be used so many times... And that's the basis for my case, all the other airlines managed it, so Easyjet cannot use the weather/safety argument for my flight.
G
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above the law.
Groundbum you won't find EZY's T&C's stateting they are above the law because they are not.... despite the company interpretation of the law
Playing devil's advocate here I wonder why ulxima got an albeit partial refund for weather disruption yet you seem to have got nothing? You should at least be treated the same for the same disruption claim.
Just a little bit of a heads up here. EZY cancelled loads of flights due to "weather". That is the official line and will be logged on every cancellation report I'm sure. These will be referred to if your case ever gets in front of a Judge. Our flag carrier at LHR also seems to have the same problems whenever we have snow,fog etc and we are both on a par with our appalling numbers of cancellations due to "weather".
So why do EZY/BA not fly routes in bad weather that other airlines seem to manage to do even with the delays.....the same route in your case?
I've no idea how geared the infrastructure at Manchester airport is to dealing with cold weather/snow but at LGW it is pitiful. Add to that the size of EZY's operation at LGW when it gets icy/snows we have a big problem.
Due to limited de icing facilities planes from all airlines form an orderly queue to get this done by the spray can trucks (they have "drive thru" hangars downroute in say BUD). This can be really long and when it is done we then join another queue for departure clearance from ATC.
On a good day at LGW it is not unusual at peak times to sit in this queue for 20 mins+ and that is when everything is working to capacity.....in extreme weather it is nowhere near capacity. De icing is only effective for a limited period of time....I think it's 40 mins but stand to be corrected by a Pilot on this. After 40 mins we then have to be de iced again and could go to the back of the original queue .....
Revolving doors spring to mind.
It's unsafe for us to take off when we are not effectively de iced....nobody would argue with that I'm sure so EZY can effectively blame the weather for this and wriggle out of compo claims but here is the flip side.
Delays because EZY run such a tight schedule impact on where the aircraft is for the next rotation. It also impacts on crew hours and if we go out of hours the next problem arises regardless of where the aircraft is and so on and so on....... until EZY bite the bullet and cancel that days operations. They may do it sooner rather than later.
So whose fault is this? Is it the pax so the cost of an operation too big for an airport infrastructure should be passed on to them.........
Good luck with your claim, it may indeed set a precedence or you may loose who knows.
What I do know is EZY will approach you for a settlement if they have broken the law........ stick with it
Playing devil's advocate here I wonder why ulxima got an albeit partial refund for weather disruption yet you seem to have got nothing? You should at least be treated the same for the same disruption claim.
Just a little bit of a heads up here. EZY cancelled loads of flights due to "weather". That is the official line and will be logged on every cancellation report I'm sure. These will be referred to if your case ever gets in front of a Judge. Our flag carrier at LHR also seems to have the same problems whenever we have snow,fog etc and we are both on a par with our appalling numbers of cancellations due to "weather".
So why do EZY/BA not fly routes in bad weather that other airlines seem to manage to do even with the delays.....the same route in your case?
I've no idea how geared the infrastructure at Manchester airport is to dealing with cold weather/snow but at LGW it is pitiful. Add to that the size of EZY's operation at LGW when it gets icy/snows we have a big problem.
Due to limited de icing facilities planes from all airlines form an orderly queue to get this done by the spray can trucks (they have "drive thru" hangars downroute in say BUD). This can be really long and when it is done we then join another queue for departure clearance from ATC.
On a good day at LGW it is not unusual at peak times to sit in this queue for 20 mins+ and that is when everything is working to capacity.....in extreme weather it is nowhere near capacity. De icing is only effective for a limited period of time....I think it's 40 mins but stand to be corrected by a Pilot on this. After 40 mins we then have to be de iced again and could go to the back of the original queue .....
Revolving doors spring to mind.It's unsafe for us to take off when we are not effectively de iced....nobody would argue with that I'm sure so EZY can effectively blame the weather for this and wriggle out of compo claims but here is the flip side.
Delays because EZY run such a tight schedule impact on where the aircraft is for the next rotation. It also impacts on crew hours and if we go out of hours the next problem arises regardless of where the aircraft is and so on and so on....... until EZY bite the bullet and cancel that days operations. They may do it sooner rather than later.
So whose fault is this? Is it the pax so the cost of an operation too big for an airport infrastructure should be passed on to them.........
Good luck with your claim, it may indeed set a precedence or you may loose who knows.
What I do know is EZY will approach you for a settlement if they have broken the law........ stick with it
I guess that the users here are up to speed with this situation. But the EC "weather" get out is aimed at weather actually stopping the operation, like crosswinds out of limits. It is however quite possible to operate in freezing conditions by de-icing. If you (or your agents) haven't got enough de-icers that is a matter of operations organisation, not the weather.
THe same is true when Heathrow goes on LVPs and BA cancel much of their domestic programme. This is not "because of fog", as they claim. It is because there is a reduced number of departures, and BA have taken a commercial decision to run every long haul and European flight, and to dump the domestics. There is nothing inherent in the domestic aircraft which means they cannot operate while their equivalents on other flights are dispatched OK.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 56
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why ulxima got an albeit partial refund for weather disruption yet you seem to have got nothing?
On my experience I can write to have been very satisfied with EZY Customer Service and the way they dealt with my case; and fairly satisfied with EZY airline.
I did not get full satisfaction but it is ok, I want to trust there is nothing else the guys at CS can do and I do not wish to escalate this to court.
My best of luck to Groundbum.
Ciao
Ulxima
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM That was exactly my point to groundbum re operations Vs weather. Not enough de icing capability for the operation means knock on delays etc which EZY like BA will put down to the weather cos it's convienient. 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To expand slightly on the Court issue.
The plaint-fee is on a sliding scale, geared to the value of the claim.
IIRC, the upper claim limit is £2,000 for the small-claims hearings.
The plaint fee is automatically added to the claim (only reimbursed if the plaintiff wins)
In certain circumstances, a Professional Report fee is allowable , up to ~£150
(in this instance, it would be something like a despatcher's report confirming that Wx was nit the reason for cancellation, IE confirming the numbers leaving/arriving before and after the cancelled slot within say a couple of hours Maybe a copy of the NOTAM for the period (together with a layman's translation) (charge photocopies against expenses)
Re- the "move the hearing" trick.....the defendant cops for the bill if they lose.
My last plaint was against a motor-trader...he moved the local (to me) hearing to his local town . spent a lot of money on solicitor's letters trying to refute the claim and intimidate me.......all money down the drain....he lost...claim in full, travelling and lost income to attend court 40 miles from home, plaint fee and professional report fee. This brings us to the next point.
The judge is a lay person. Make your documents easy to understand, enlarge and use a highlighter if needed.
You do NOT need "absolute proof"....in a Civil case, the judge decides on "the balance of probabilities" -Or to put it bluntly, who is the most credible.
Legal representation will not go down well in this sort of court....they don't like bullying and intimidation and those costs are NOT allowable
I cannot guarantee the above is 100% accurate,but have had several happy experiences over the years.
State the facts clearly and go for it!-Oh,-and don't forget that their bean-counters will have a big say as to wether you get "hush-money" or the case becomes Public Domain in the National press and opens the floodgates.
to close.....their T's and C's mean bugger all if they contravene the unfair contract terms legislation.
The plaint-fee is on a sliding scale, geared to the value of the claim.
IIRC, the upper claim limit is £2,000 for the small-claims hearings.
The plaint fee is automatically added to the claim (only reimbursed if the plaintiff wins)
In certain circumstances, a Professional Report fee is allowable , up to ~£150
(in this instance, it would be something like a despatcher's report confirming that Wx was nit the reason for cancellation, IE confirming the numbers leaving/arriving before and after the cancelled slot within say a couple of hours Maybe a copy of the NOTAM for the period (together with a layman's translation) (charge photocopies against expenses)
Re- the "move the hearing" trick.....the defendant cops for the bill if they lose.
My last plaint was against a motor-trader...he moved the local (to me) hearing to his local town . spent a lot of money on solicitor's letters trying to refute the claim and intimidate me.......all money down the drain....he lost...claim in full, travelling and lost income to attend court 40 miles from home, plaint fee and professional report fee. This brings us to the next point.
The judge is a lay person. Make your documents easy to understand, enlarge and use a highlighter if needed.
You do NOT need "absolute proof"....in a Civil case, the judge decides on "the balance of probabilities" -Or to put it bluntly, who is the most credible.
Legal representation will not go down well in this sort of court....they don't like bullying and intimidation and those costs are NOT allowable
I cannot guarantee the above is 100% accurate,but have had several happy experiences over the years.
State the facts clearly and go for it!-Oh,-and don't forget that their bean-counters will have a big say as to wether you get "hush-money" or the case becomes Public Domain in the National press and opens the floodgates.
to close.....their T's and C's mean bugger all if they contravene the unfair contract terms legislation.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an offer has been made
Easyjet solicitors have sent me a letter offering me £300 without admission of guilt to settle, to save both sides time and costs. I've sent them a quick note back saying 50% of the £1250 plus £70 court fee would do it.
We shall see!
G
We shall see!
G
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
too easy - drats
darn, solicitors emailed in the last few minutes accepting my offer of £625 plus £70 court costs. I fill in their form releasing them of liability and notifty the Small Claims we've settled and got my dosh.
Wish now I'd held on for a bit more. Other's reading here take note!
Don't forget I think I had a strong argument against the weather clause, 2 other aircraft operated MAN-MALTA that day and 95% of MAN T3 departues left by and large on time that day. I think the EU allows weather as an excuse where it would be unsafe to operate the flight, not where recent bad weather has mucked up the carriers crews, planes etc. In this case the carrier needs more resilience etc.
G
Wish now I'd held on for a bit more. Other's reading here take note!
Don't forget I think I had a strong argument against the weather clause, 2 other aircraft operated MAN-MALTA that day and 95% of MAN T3 departues left by and large on time that day. I think the EU allows weather as an excuse where it would be unsafe to operate the flight, not where recent bad weather has mucked up the carriers crews, planes etc. In this case the carrier needs more resilience etc.
G
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundbum well there's a surprise!! EZY approached you for a non liability settlement when they knew they were on dodgy ground. They would have paid the full amount I guarentee it if you had tested them on this..... but you were happy to settle for 50% less 
This is exactly how EZY conduct their employment issues as well. They will break employment law and then settle because they don't want adverse publicity.
SLF take note.....when EZY start making offers they will know they are in the wrong. If they are sure of their position they will not make offers/goodwill gestures. Don't accept initial offers and go for what you think you are entitled to
Groundbum I'm glad you are happy with the outcome.
This is exactly how EZY conduct their employment issues as well. They will break employment law and then settle because they don't want adverse publicity.
SLF take note.....when EZY start making offers they will know they are in the wrong. If they are sure of their position they will not make offers/goodwill gestures. Don't accept initial offers and go for what you think you are entitled to
Groundbum I'm glad you are happy with the outcome.
