EZY6466 GVA/NCL 09/01/10 - a few issues

[Kathryn70]

Hi

Thanks for finding that, I think Cityboy's last sentence sums it up. Put yourself in an airline's shoes, do you:

a. Give everyone all compensation and rights due under 261/2004 without question because it is the correct thing to do and you are an honest and honourable operator.

or

b. Give no-one the compensation they are due, and 'dumb-down' the rights under Articles 8 & 9 to minimise costs, in the full knowledge that the vast majority of punters will either never be the wiser, be apathetic and not bother claiming, or will give up claiming for what they are entitled to through frustration, fear or exhaustion.

No surprise that the answer seems overwhelmingly to be b!

The case is very interesting and supports my case absolutely, but I guess it couldn't be cited in any witness statement as it is from a foreign court (albeit the same EC law being applied).

Have filed N244 and amended N1, will file Allocation Questionnaire later in the week. All observations, info and advice is of course very much appreciated.

Kathryn

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Kathryn70

Hi

Thanks for finding that, I think Cityboy's last sentence sums it up. Put yourself in an airline's shoes, do you:

a. Give everyone all compensation and rights due under 261/2004 without question because it is the correct thing to do and you are an honest and honourable operator.

or

b. Give no-one the compensation they are due, and 'dumb-down' the rights under Articles 8 & 9 to minimise costs, in the full knowledge that the vast majority of punters will either never be the wiser, be apathetic and not bother claiming, or will give up claiming for what they are entitled to through frustration, fear or exhaustion.

No surprise that the answer seems overwhelmingly to be b!

The case is very interesting and supports my case absolutely, but I guess it couldn't be cited in any witness statement as it is from a foreign court (albeit the same EC law being applied).

Have filed N244 and amended N1, will file Allocation Questionnaire later in the week. All observations, info and advice is of course very much appreciated.

Kathryn

Hi Kathryn,

Its interesting you mention the word honesty-a tricky little word.

Some while ago I was daydreaming and pondering that tricky little word and other words such as "fraud".

I was idly musing on those subjects on this thread
http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152

I never did get an answer to some of those questions I asked myself.

I was thinking recently of the situation of the supermarket check-out operator.

Now and again the check-out person might give you the wrong change-and you think-"how clumsy".

You go back a second or third time and the same thing happens and you start to think-is that really just clumsiness?

Then you look along the check-out row-and the other shoppers are questioning their change as well.

It all then becomes rather perplexing.

Then the store manager comes along and gives you some old pony about obscure contract law regarding change giving-and mentions seeing you in court and points to the exit.

If there was a "happy shopper enforcement officer" I'd wonder if I should not give them a call and ask them what they made of it.

[Kathryn70]

Hi Again

Received EZ's copy of the allocation questionnaire today. They are asking for the court to strike out the claim on the grounds of me naming the defendant incorrectly and me representing my husband and son through the claim (see earlier posts in this thread). Are also asking for hearing to be in Luton rather than Newcastle.

I filed an application for an order to amend the claimants and defendant (N244) and amended claim form N1 a week ago, but no word as yet. I guess what happens now will depend on what the court takes into consideration. It matters very little, in that if it is struck out I will simply start all over again. If that happens, the difference will be that the claim will be much larger, in that I will claim all the costs of re-routing including the full hotel and klm flight costs (as I haven't received any refund for the unused ticket), adding approximately £500 altogether. Any thoughts on what the court is likelty to say from knowledge or experience?

Kathryn

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Kathryn70

Hi Again

Received EZ's copy of the allocation questionnaire today. They are asking for the court to strike out the claim on the grounds of me naming the defendant incorrectly and me representing my husband and son through the claim (see earlier posts in this thread). Are also asking for hearing to be in Luton rather than Newcastle.

I filed an application for an order to amend the claimants and defendant (N244) and amended claim form N1 a week ago, but no word as yet. I guess what happens now will depend on what the court takes into consideration. It matters very little, in that if it is struck out I will simply start all over again. If that happens, the difference will be that the claim will be much larger, in that I will claim all the costs of re-routing including the full hotel and klm flight costs (as I haven't received any refund for the unused ticket), adding approximately £500 altogether. Any thoughts on what the court is likelty to say from knowledge or experience?

Kathryn

Kathryn,

You were flying from Switzerland to the UK.

How do you know the identity of the contracting carrier?

http://www.easyjet.com/en/Book/conditions.html

"easyJet" say
Terms and Conditions for Passengers and Baggage relating to carriage where easyJet Airline Company Limited or easyJet Switzerland S.A., as applicable, is the Carrier.

Therefore if you had named easyjetAirline Company Limited as defendent what was stopping "easyjet" saying that "the applicable" carrier was not in fact "easyjet Switzerland S.A,"?

This is taken from the "easyJet" web site

easyJet Airline Company Limited Registered in England with Registered number 3034606;
subsidiary of easyJet Plc Registered in England with registered number 3959649 Registered Office: Hangar 89, London Luton Airport, Luton, Bedfordshire LU2 9PF

I note there is no mention of "easyjet Switzerland SA". (and whether that corporate entity is not itself a subsiduary of "easyJet plc").

Is easyjet Switzerland-which may or not have been been the contracting carrier-because you dont know whether they are "the applicable carrier"-also a subsiduary of "easyjet plc"?

In these circumstances-where the carrier appears reluctant to be too specific as to who is the precise contracting carrier-on particularly certainground in subsequently challeneging a passenger-whounderstandably takes a precautionary view of namimng the ultimate holding company as defendent ( as conveyed to the public on the carriers web site)?

If easyJet wish to argue the point let the judge decide.

Let the judge decide regarding the named claimants point-you have been quite specific on this point in your prior correspondence. If easyJet regard this aspect as being more important than dealing with the merits of the case-well again let the Judge decide.

Also let the judge decide regarding moving the case to Luton.

Maybe it would be good for easyjet and their advisers to see a bit more of the country.

(What's the worry-have they seen "Get Carter" recently and are afraid that the North East is too lawless for their liking-they can submit those fears to the Judge in Newcastle-perhaps get a local reporter to record that for the local populace).

I think it may also be a good idea to make a specific complaint to Swiss Regulatory authority-specifically regarding breaches of the Regulation-( or indeed any other breaches, they perceive, of Swiss Law).

Let me post a link for delivering such a complaint. They can be invited to do their own investigation pending the ongoing litigation in Newcastle.

[Kathryn70]

Hi Hugh

I think you might be right about them being scared of coming up to Newcastle. After all, we are all heathens after all!

I think that if you book a flight in sterling on their UK website, the contracting carrier must be Easyjet Airline Company Limited, though I agree it is a bit vague.

Just waiting to see what a judge decides about the amendments I requested and the requests to strike out in their allocation questionnaire. The cheque for the application for order to amend has been cashed, so I presume someone is looking at my request. Either way, as I said earlier for them the problem won't go away, but their unwillingness to face up to the arguments in court willingly doesn't strike me as being the actions of someone who is confident of a result.

Thanks Again
Kathryn

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Kathryn70

Hi Hugh

I think you might be right about them being scared of coming up to Newcastle. After all, we are all heathens after all!

I think that if you book a flight in sterling on their UK website, the contracting carrier must be Easyjet Airline Company Limited, though I agree it is a bit vague.

Just waiting to see what a judge decides about the amendments I requested and the requests to strike out in their allocation questionnaire. The cheque for the application for order to amend has been cashed, so I presume someone is looking at my request. Either way, as I said earlier for them the problem won't go away, but their unwillingness to face up to the arguments in court willingly doesn't strike me as being the actions of someone who is confident of a result.

Thanks Again
Kathryn

Easyjet has confirmed who the contracting carier was within the easyjet empire-so that bit is no longer in any doubt.

Hopefully the District Judge will avoid slapping on the usual amount of wode when the easyjet crew appear-to avoid upsetting any Southern sensibilities.

Could the "Toon Army" give them a welcome/bodyguard when they arrive to keep them out of harm's way?

[Kathryn70]

Hi

Looks like G&P & EZ will need Toon Army protection after all. Judge has rejected both their request to have the claim struck out and to have the hearing transferred to Luton. Will start preparing the witness statement and gathering relevant documentation now, but may try once more to persuade EZ that they cannot win in court and should settle now and cut their losses.

Kathryn

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Kathryn70

Hi

Looks like G&P & EZ will need Toon Army protection after all. Judge has rejected both their request to have the claim struck out and to have the hearing transferred to Luton. Will start preparing the witness statement and gathering relevant documentation now, but may try once more to persuade EZ that they cannot win in court and should settle now and cut their losses.

Kathryn

Hi Kathryn,

So its Geordie Justice after all. Why am I not surprised by that?

Make sure you see Roma's thread-some similarities there

http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1042

Now all this time you are doing with these works of authorship and other form filling has no doubt used up your valuable time and diverted you from productive enterprise elsewhere.

In some respects you have already shown that your time is more valuable than a fee earner in a Solicitors' office. After all your view has been preferred by a judge to that taken by easyJet and their appointed Solicitors-and the time taken to express that view before a court.

If it went to an eventually assessment of what somebody's time was worth-no doubt you could put forward some justification as to what your time is worth-it may well be worth more than-say a Solicitor working for a Solictors firm in central London/City of London.

If it was me-and I thought that my time had been royally wasted-I might go back and say-sure easyjet you can settle with me now-but what about my own time being reimbursed for all this form-filling-that I have already done.

Here is my schedule of my time-let's talk about a calculation of those hours-based upon what you pay your own solicitors. If not I'll produce my own calculation of what my own time is worth-and include that within any talk of compromise.

[Kathryn70]

Hi Hugh

The comments in Roma's thread about mitigating the claim are very interesting. At the time we booked KLM flights back to the UK, the cost of a KLM single fare GVA to NCL via AMS on 10/01/10 was over 1050 CHF (about £650) per person, so we booked a return ticket instead, at approx 472 CHF (about £300) per person. The return leg on 23/1/10 was of course never used, but by booking the return tickets it kept costs to a minimum, both for us and, ultimately, for EZ. This I of course will explain in court, and use it to further highlight the reasonability of the amount of my claim.

Kathryn

[chorltonian]

Originally Posted by Kathryn70

Hi Hugh

The comments in Roma's thread about mitigating the claim are very interesting. At the time we booked KLM flights back to the UK, the cost of a KLM single fare GVA to NCL via AMS on 10/01/10 was over 1050 CHF (about £650) per person, so we booked a return ticket instead, at approx 472 CHF (about £300) per person. The return leg on 23/1/10 was of course never used, but by booking the return tickets it kept costs to a minimum, both for us and, ultimately, for EZ. This I of course will explain in court, and use it to further highlight the reasonability of the amount of my claim.

Kathryn

Hi Kathryn (and anyone else) - in the light of your experience can you offer any advice for me about to commence a MCOL claim on behalf oy myself, my wife and 3 kids all of whom suffered cancellation of EasyJet Liverpool to Geneva (see other thread).

Specifically should I be sole claimant, or do I need to act as co-claimant with my wife? Do we have to name the kids as well?

Any progress with your claim?