Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

EasyJet and Luton airport missed flight complaint


farmlama
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 953 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

On Monday I had a flight to Naples from Luton airport at 17:40.

We arrived at the airport and went through security with plenty of time and checked the boards right away and they advised that our gate information would be available at 17:05.

 

We checked the boards at this time and it advised that our flight was at gate 1 (this is the furthest away gate if you don’t know the lay out).

 

We made our way there and arrived at 17:30 as I was with my mum who has back issues so has a stick to help her walk

(she can walk and is very independent but cannot rush so it took a few extra minutes to walk down there).

 

When we arrived at the gate they told us that they stop boarding 20 minutes before the flight time and were refused entry onto the plane so classed as missing our flight.

 

Now the Luton airport website advises that it is a 15 minute walk to gate 1 meaning that there was no jiggle room from the gate being released until they refused boarding unless you ran down there or rushed.

Also I have checked online and the plane didn’t leave the gate until 17:47 so it did not go early or anything like that.

 

I explained that the gate info arrived late and that it was a long walk and that we couldn’t have gotten there quicker, while we were there other people also arrived and were refused so we weren’t the only ones.

 

I had to rebook our flight for the next morning and pay for the flights again.

I booked them with special assistance so we wouldn’t risk missing the flight which meant my mum was made to feel like an invalid and upset as she is very independent.

 

We would have made our flight if the gate information was released with more warning, or if the flight staff allowed the extra time to board considering that only 15 minutes was allowed from gate number being released until they stopped boarding when it is a 15 minute walk.

 

I have emailed easyJet with my complaint and they offered a £25 gift card as a goodwill gesture, but this does not cover the cost of the new flights or the loss of a big chunk of our holiday or the stress.

 

Also I should add that when we were refused entry and I explained my mum couldn’t walk fast for long distances, the staff acknowledged this and told us about the special assistance, then sent us to gate 30 to be escorted out, this turned out to be on the other side of the airport and my mum struggled and was in pain from the extra walking, no assistance was offered despite them being aware of her issues.

 

I have written back to easyJet to say £25 isn’t good enough but they have not replied (£25 wouldn’t even cover the flight tax that they should be returning anyway).

 

Is there anything else I can do as I feel that we have missed out on a big part of our holiday, had to pay for additional flights and my mum was made to struggle walking an extra long distance after telling staff she struggled with this.

 

Thank you for any help.

 

Oh also I should add that the next day when we got the next flight, the gate info was again only released 35 minutes before the flight (we had the special assistance this time so we made it) but also people were still boarding that flight 5 minutes before the flight time, so the 20 minute rule was not being strictly enforced.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty standard for any flight to stop boarding at least 20 minutes ahead of official departure time.

 

Usually in most airports there are constant announcements for passengers, so they know a gate is going to be closed.

 

Not sure you have any come back here. Perhaps check with airport management about the issues you faced.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is though that they stopped boarding 15 minutes after the gate number was given, despite it being a 15 minute walk to the gate for an average person.

It took us more than 15 minutes to walk there so didn’t have any chance.

When we arrived at the gate the board still said final call too and not gate closed.

 

The next day when we got our flight, they still were allowing people to board 5 minutes before so this clearly isn’t a strict rule and they could have allowed us to board along with the other passengers that were turned away especially as they were aware that only a 15 minute window was given to get to the gate and board which was so far away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not get distracted by the fact that, on another occasion, they did not enforce the 20 mins gate closure rule. Stick to what happened in your case, which - as you describe it - is that the period between the gate being first advertised, then boarding opened, and then the gate closed was only 15 mins - and that this did not allow you enough time (by the airport's own admission) to get to the gate.

 

If this is what happened, then you would have a good case for "involuntary denied boarding" under EU Regulation 261/04 (the flight delay compensation rules). You would be owed 250 euros per passenger, plus the difference in fare between the new flights and what you paid.

 

Have you made a claim citing 261/04? If not, do so. And if the airline refuses you should then open up a case with Easyjet's arbitration scheme - which is run by CEDR. You can google it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So from what I can understand, the eu regulations article 3.2 say we will have been denied boarding as we had checked in (and passed security) over 45 minutes before departure and it was only the unreasonable operational reasons (limited gate information time) that we struggled to make it to the gate, and therefore the regulations apply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

open

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to update on this for anyone interested that may have experienced similar.

 

following the kind advice about the European consumer files on denied boarding, I decided to issue proceedings.

 

initially I contacted bracers easyJet to go through their complaints procedure, their initial response was to blame Luton airport on the short gate announcement time.

 

i then made complaint to Luton airport who advised they had followed EasyJet’s instructions on the timeframe to announce the gates. I returned to easyJet with my complaint and they admitted that it was their decision to have a short gate window but they rely on their terms and conditions that say customers need to be at the gate 30 minutes before the flight time.

 

i issued proceedings and the claim was due to be heard on paper at the start of June, this has been delayed due to covid19 and I am awaiting a new date, I called the court recently and have been told they are very busy right now so cannot provide a timeframe, but the case is still currently scheduled to be heard on paper only.

 

easyjets defence is that they did not deny boarding and that their terms and conditions state passengers must be at the gate 30 minutes before the flight and should aim to arrive at the gate 40 minutes before the flight.

 

i have claimed denied boarding due to the unreasonable short timeframe that the gate was open. I have also claimed that the terms and conditions are unfair as they state a set time for passengers to be at the gate, but do not place any responsibility on easyJet to announce the gate time to allow sufficient time for customers to reach the gate comfortably. In my case they only announced the gate that was located a 15 minutes walk away, 5 minutes before the terms require passengers to be at the gate and so would be unrealistic and unreasonable to hold passengers to that term.

 

I have also stated a breach of contract on easyJet’s side as the terms state that passengers should arrive at the gate 40 minutes before the flight, which implies the gate should be announced with enough time to allow this, as the gate was only announced 35 minutes before the flight, they have broken the implied term here.

 

i will provide a further update once the claim has been heard as it may help others that have experienced similar.

 

I have covered most of my defence in my witness statement, I have tried to attach screen shots of this and have tried to avoid the bits with any personal info so the start and end are missed, but you kinda get the idea

 

I have also quoted Niall Caldwell vs easyJet as case law too

docs1.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
jpg files now pdf
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Open

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has taken a long time as the hearing was delayed due to COVID, but this was finally heard this morning by District Judge Abraham at luton court. 


the judge found that there was not a case for denied boarding, however he found that there was a case for negligence as there was not sufficient time allowed for all passengers to arrive at the gate and the gate closed too early.  The cost of flights for the following day was awarded along with the application fee and hearing fee


No compensation was awarded for the denied boarding and we missed a day of our holiday, but still a win as I got my additional costs back and it’s hopefully a lesson for EasyJet and maybe they will review procedures to allow more notice of the gate number in future.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...