Easyjet Rip Off

[seylectric]

Dunno, but I think I'd better stick to parking tickets!

 

I do think he has a case if he wasn't charged or even challenged one way then is it reasonable to expect not to be later on.

 

 

Oops, better look into that "green" tax, flying in March and haven't even booked the flights yet! Been far too busy, need to get up to speed a bit on the latest regs, thanks for the inadvertent reminder!

 

Makes you wonder though, we have gone regulation daft and let's be honest, most of it is about gleaning a few more quid out of you. They have to impose regulations on luggage weight obviously but to punish you financially for going over the limit is just cashing in, in my opinion.

[Bookworm]

If you haven't booked the flights yet, you'll get charged it when you book, so no worries.

 

I, on the other end, booked my flight to Venice back in September, and am now being lumped with an extra £15 to pay, which works out as over 10% of the total cost, since I am flying out on Feb 15th. And I am really, really not happy about it.

[seylectric]

I'm with you, yet another "stealth" tax.

 

This is why I moan so much about all sorts of legislation, which at the end of the day is designed simply to relieve us all of more of our hard-earned. Parking tickets, speed cameras, bank charges, excess baggage charges, "green" tax, you name it! Just another government cash cow.

 

All these things will raise more revenue for the government and for private companies (which in turn means even more revenue for the government), and will solve what exactly?

 

I read somewhere that the UK is the fourth richest country in the world. That must surely make us the richest country in the world per square mile? So why are we the most heavily taxed, not only in government taxes but in charges by private companies too? You only need to go back to basics and the bank charges [problem]. This is just more of the same in my opinion.

[Bookworm]

It seems to me that there is a very simple, and much fairer, way to do this: If you fly once a year, no tax. Each time after that, tax. This way, the people who can only afford to go once a year don't get penalised. Let's face it, the tax is not going to affect the people who are jetting round the world, or the business travellers who will be able to incorporate it into their expenses/tax return.

 

What has caused this particular crisis is the decision by Mr Brown to apply the tax retrospectively, a very unusual step, and one that was not well too thought out, I must say... As the chaos amongst airlines proves...

[StudentInDebt]

Technically it isn't being charged retrospectively, an airline becomes liable for air passenger duty when it carries you not when you purchase a ticket.

[Movingon]

Technically it isn't being charged retrospectively, an airline becomes liable for air passenger duty when it carries you not when you purchase a ticket.

 

Does this mean that if you miss your flight and don't take another one, you could claim it back?

[Bookworm]

Actually, yes, Tom. Martin3030 posted on this, I think in the "holidays companies" section, have a look.

 

As for the "technically" issue, I can not think, at the top of my head, of any other circumstances where one purchases something, pays for it in full, and then gets charged more because of changes outside both parties' control. If someone can think of anything, let me know, it's been bugging me for a while now.

[tim2718281]

I must say that if the T&Cs were phrased the way OP describes inhis original posts, I would have understood it exactly the way he did, eg that paying £5 buys you additional luggage with the weight. The terms as written are ambiguous to say the least.

 

Here's an extract from Easyjet's Ts&Cs:

 

""Each passenger may take one item of standard checked-in hold baggage free of charge. Additional items are subject to a fee payable in advance or in the airport. Irrespective of the number of checked-in bags, each passenger has a free hold baggage weight allowance of 20kg, after which excess baggage charges apply."

 

Tim

[tim2718281]

Well as we all know legislation has made it legal for the police to fine on the spot, but there are many people who believe that this is in direct contravention of laws such as the Bill of Rights Act, which effectively says you can't be fined without a trial. The same argument applies to council controlled parking charges, you are effectively fined without a trial.

 

 

My understanding is the police can issue a fixed penalty notice. You are under no obligation to pay it.

 

If you do pay it, you will not be charged with an offence. If you do not pay, you may be prosecuted and be tried ... and if convicted, that will mean a criminal record.

 

Tim

[Movingon]

How can you come before a trial without being charged with an offence?

[seylectric]

This is where the whole law surrounding parking tickets is ridiculous. You're not charged with an offence if you pay up, but you can be if you don't. well you have either committed an offence, which must surely be recorded as such, or you haven't!

 

Not to mention the double standards issue - it's an offence in police controlled areas but not in council controlled ones! Surely the whole parking tickets issue is in breach of the human rights act, which says we all have the right to be treated equally by the law!

 

How do you even know if you are committing an offence by parking on a double yelllow line, you're not in council controlled areas and that being the case how can the council fine you? (OK it's not a fine it's a penalty charge until they go through the magistrates court then presumably it becomes a fine?) What I'm getting at is I fail to understand the legality of legislation that says you can be fined when you haven't committed an offence. Calling it a penalty charge doesn't make it any less of a fine in my opinion. After all, we have esptablished that the banks can't legally do it to all intents and purposes (i.e. there hasn't been a court case yet) so why should the local council be able to do it? By simple comparison with police controlled areas that is all the evidence you need to prove it is a fine in all but name, yet I repeat, you haven't committed an offence!

 

Sorry, slightly off topic I know but it's an interesting issue regarding charges especially by councils and private companies, although in the easyjet case it is effectively a charge for a service.

 

My head hurts....

[MARTIN3030]

Does this mean that if you miss your flight and don't take another one, you could claim it back?

 

 

Yes true if your flight is paid for then you are entitled to the tax back if you cancel. They do not advertise it tho.!

If you pay be card it is refunded back there if other means then a refund is by cheque.

[rosiecotton]

But Easyjet's baggage charge isn't an "on the spot" fine or charge!

 

If you were to get on a train, you'd have to pay for your ticket "on the spot" or you wouldn't get to travel - you wouldn't expect the train ticket office to give you a notice to pay.

 

If you turn up at an airport with excess baggage, then you pay for the service of carrying the excess baggage.

 

It's not a fine, it's a payment for a service. Nothing illegal in asking for payment at the time the service is provided.

[buzby]

Yes true if your flight is paid for then you are entitled to the tax back if you cancel. They do not advertise it tho.!

If you pay be card it is refunded back there if other means then a refund is by cheque.

 

Not as easy as that. Ryanair to not refund anything - even the unised part of the tax. (In the USA it is against Federal law NOT to refund monies received for taxes).

 

However, many other airlines adopt a cancellation policy that will either refund the tax or a % of the travel fee and tax..... BUT impose a £30 service or processing change, making your cost to get the £10 back, a further £20!

[Bookworm]

Here's an extract from Easyjet's Ts&Cs:

 

""Each passenger may take one item of standard checked-in hold baggage free of charge. Additional items are subject to a fee payable in advance or in the airport. Irrespective of the number of checked-in bags, each passenger has a free hold baggage weight allowance of 20kg, after which excess baggage charges apply."

 

Tim

 

when I looked back on the web site, it had changed since I had booked it, but it was quite similar and extremely ambiguous, “Your hold baggage weight allowance is 20kg, and you may check in one hold bag per person free of charge. Additional hold bags may be carried subject to a charge of €7.50 per bag per flight when paying in advance (€15.00 if paid at the airport).”

 

OP quite clearly stated that the terms have been changed from when he first booked, you are quoting from the current T&Cs. If OP had a copy of the previous ones, the very fact that they have now removed the ambiguity would stand him in very good stead to help him in his case. But how many of us print a copy of T&Cs when booking online?

[tim2718281]

OP quite clearly stated that the terms have been changed from when he first booked, you are quoting from the current T&Cs. If OP had a copy of the previous ones, the very fact that they have now removed the ambiguity would stand him in very good stead to help him in his case. But how many of us print a copy of T&Cs when booking online?

 

I don't think he was citing the Ts and Cs, I think he was citing the paragraph from the on-line booking form. However, that does mean I was wrong to state he must have read the Ts & Cs; the information the OP presented was probably taken from the booking form.

 

I've just tried booking a flight, and I saw no reference to the Ts & Cs. If the Ts & Cs are not mentioned when booking, I assume that legally they are not part of the contract.

 

The company will have records of all changes made to its computer systems, so if the case does go to court, he could ask for details of changes made to the booking web page since the date he booked.

 

I'm still not sure a judge will regard it as ambiguous though, especially as the excess weight charge is £5 per kilogram, and the extra bag charge is £5 per bag.

 

Tim

[jimmurphy666]

Just to let you know I did read the Ts & Cs, as I did not want to have to pay for the extra baggage allowance that’s why, I paid for the extra bag of fresh air. Like I said I did or tried to do it all in good faith, and wanted to make sure I had paid for the bag before we set out. But my main qualm was the fact that they did not tell me I was carrying excess baggage on the way out, this I could have dealt with as I had the car parked outside. But on return when I spoke to easy jet person on there customer services desk she informed me that they keep a record of who takes what out therefore in my opinion they set a president when they let me take that amount of extra out and made me pay for it on the way back. Its not been bitter its just I tried my best to make sure I had done everything correctly, but felt like they had "bent one into me" on the other side when I had no alternative but to stump up the cash.

 

And they did change the wording on the Ts & Cs, and they gave me back the money I had paid them for the extra bag as I was told that the rules or whatever had change and that the system should not have aloud it???? And if that had happened in the first place I would not have take the extra bag.

[Bookworm]

 

I've just tried booking a flight, and I saw no reference to the Ts & Cs. If the Ts & Cs are not mentioned when booking, I assume that legally they are not part of the contract.

 

 

You assume wrong. The T&Cs ARE the contract:

Article 19

 

 

Choice of Law and Jurisdiction

Unless otherwise provided by the Convention or any applicable law, Government regulations, orders or requirements:

(a) these Terms and Conditions and any carriage which we agree to provide you with (in respect of yourself and/or your Baggage) shall be governed by the laws of England; and,

(b) any dispute between you and us concerning or arising out of such carriage in any way whatsoever shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales.