Hi, I am a long term newsgroup user, having started with skiing groups
(hence my handle) 25 odd years ago and quickly finding
UK.media.radio.archers which I think some of the regulars here frequent.
So I hope you don't mind me butting in over here with a couple of questions
I am in dispute with Easyjet about a delayed flight last summer. I have
been through Aviation ADR dispute resolution where they found against me
but completely ignored my case (this is subject to a second complaint regarding process but not what I am asking about).
I first asked for compensation because the flight was delayed by over 4
hours because a crew change was necessary and I claimed it was
unreasonable for an airline in the peak season with lots of French ATC strikes to schedule 4 flights into French airspace for the same crew
with only 85 minutes of slack time, plus they should have had standby
crews at airports so they can be available immediately.
In EasyJet's reply they tried to baffle me with bullshit and provided
lots of detailed flight logs full of arcane abbreviations, but did not
know I was once briefly an RAF pilot and am somewhat bloody minded so
was able to read through it and find some very interesting facts, which
led to me making my case as follows:
1. Easyjet knew they had a crew problem very early on at 15.05 according
to their logs, but apparently did nothing at that time (no evidence
supplied anyway).
2. The standby crew were not available to work until 21.00, i.e. almost
6 hours later according to Easyjet's own statement.
3. The earlier sectors were indeed delayed, but there was no evidence supplied of any further ATC restrictions after 18.56 and if a crew had
been available to meet the take-off time for that slot it would have
been less than 3 hours late.
4. When the crew was available it only took 2h8m to load the aircraft
and complete the flight when the normal flight time alone is 2h5m so no further delays there.
So in my opinion it was not the ATC problems that were the direct cause
of the more than 3 hour delay, but that it took more than 6 hours for a standby crew to arrive and I maintain that this is unreasonable and it
would not be an intolerable burden for the airline to have policies and procedures in place to ensure that standby crews are available for duty
at 3 hours notice.
Questions:
First does a Small Claims Court (not an actual thing aiui - what term
should I use?) consider cases like this which hinge on what is
reasonable or not ? If not, which Court should I be looking at to
reclaim the mandated £880 compensation for the 4 passengers ?
Second, what can Easyjet do to contest the case ? Presumably they can
supply evidence to counter my claim, but can they counter-sue in any way
as someone at CAB seemed to suggest ?
Finally, what happens when the court decides ? If I lose fair enough,
all it costs is the court fee. If I win though, what are Easyjet's
options - can they appeal and if they do would I be liable for their
costs ?
I like the principle of pursuing this and £880 would be nice, but not if
I risk losing much more in the long run.
TIA Roger (my full name is in my valid reply-to address)
Full details of the case I will make:
1. It was clear that there was a problem with crew hours at 15.05 when
flight EZY2432 LYS-LTN was given a new CTOT (calculated take off time)
of 16.36, already 1h26 later than the STD (scheduled time of departure)
of 1510. EasyJet Operations should have realised there was a problem at
that time.
2. It was only at 21.00 that the standby crew were ready to work.
3. There was no evidence provided of any Air Traffic restrictions after 18.56. The worst case ATFD (not sure but essentially an air traffic
forecast departure time) was at 17.27 with a CTOT of 19.52. If a crew
had been available and with normal flight times the estimated arrival
would have been 21.46, only 2h17m late, well within the 3 hours that
triggers compensation and with some slack time for further ATC restrictions. 4. In fact the ATFD at 18.56 pulled forward the CTOT to 19.21 with
estimated arrival at 21.26, only 1h46m late if a crew had been available
and with even more slack time.
5. The standby crew completed their safety briefing and were ready to
fly according to EasyJet evidence at 22.00. The flight took off 12
minutes later and arrived at 00.08, so there were clearly no further ATC restrictions after 22.00 and in fact the flight was shorter than
normally scheduled.
6. So the cause of the delay being more than 3 hours was not "further
ATC restrictions" but actually because of the time taken for the
standby crew to be available. In my opinion a delay of almost 6 hours
for standby crew to arrive is not reasonable.
7. If the crew had reported for duty 3 hours after the problem was first identified at 15.05 they would have been ready to fly at 19.05 and could
have met either the 19.52 or 19.21 CTOTs without any further delays. It
would not place an intolerable burden on Easyjet to have procedures and policies in place to ensure that standby crews are available for duty at
3 hours notice.
First does a Small Claims Court (not an actual thing aiui - what term
should I use?) consider cases like this which hinge on what is
reasonable or not ? If not, which Court should I be looking at to
reclaim the mandated £880 compensation for the 4 passengers ?
You have had a comprehensive reply from Simon Parker, but I can just think of one question. What if Easyjet reply that they started the day with a reasonable supply of reserve crew, but that delays due to ATC action "used up"
their available reserve crew, and they had no more until crew arriving earlier
had had their statutory rest period? In other words, they did make all reasonable provision, but the earlier action depleted this provision? I don't
know the law on this, but perhaps you need advice from someone who does?
Yes, I think some FOI requests to easyjet are in order:
4. Any and all communications between EasyJet and AADR concerning my
case that is not documented on the AADR website.
I think it is likely, (but not guaranteed), that the case would be
allocated to the Small Claims Track.
EasyJet have a reputation for fighting cases even when they ought to pay compensation. Every person that walks away because EasyJet have made
things difficult for them increases EasyJet's profits. (The firm of solicitors mentioned in my previous post will invariably have a page detailing cases they've won against EasyJet if you have a look around on their web-site. You'll see from those cases that EasyJet had a weak
case, but fought on regardless.)
That's not to say I think your claim is strong, or that you're due compensation. (I proffer no opinion on the strength or validity of your claim.) Just that EasyJet aren't known for folding early.
(3) Use a firm with a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) (aka "no win no
fee") in place so you aren't liable for costs whatever happens but
you need to pay them a portion of your compensation if they are
successful in claiming for you.
Very interesting so I will be looking into this.
You would do well to ask them if they will consider a single fee or
reduced fee for issuing four claims under a single action. Their answer
may tip the scales in a different direction.
I think some FOI requests to easyjet are in order:
On 08/04/2024 09:52, BrritSki wrote:
On 05/04/2024 13:05, Simon Parker wrote:
On 04/04/2024 12:46, BrritSki wrote:
You would do well to ask them if they will consider a single fee or
reduced fee for issuing four claims under a single action. Their
answer may tip the scales in a different direction.
Interesting idea that I will suggest if I go with them. I'm not too
worried about the fee - it's the principle as much as the money.
Received wisdom is "Never launch an action 'as a matter of principle'." :-)
I also agree with his statement that you should make a Data Subject
Access Request (DSAR / SAR) to EasyJet for a copy of all information
they hold on you relating to the original flight, your request for
compensation and the subsequent ADR process and anything else that
may be considered relevant to the claim. Information on how to do
this is available on the website of the Information Commissioner's
Office (ICO). Â Â They have recently added a new service that creates
an e-mail automatically for you which you may wish to use:
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/make-a-subject-access-request/
However, I respectfully disagree with Mark's statement that there is
no other way to obtain the information you need without a Court Order.
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) contain a Practice Direction on
Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PDPAC) which can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
Of particular note is Paragraph 3 which sets out the court's
expectations for parties concerning exchange of information before
commencing proceedings, specifically points (b), (c) and (f).
If EasyJet have documents that are relevant to the litigation you are
contemplating against them, you are within your rights to request
them prior to commencing proceedings, bearing in mind the contents of
paragraph five of the PDPAC.
Per para six, you and EasyJet are expected to exchange correspondence
and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph 3.
The steps to do this are set out but I draw to your attention section
(c) in paragraph six which expects "the parties disclosing key
documents relevant to the issues in dispute".
If EasyJet have a smoking gun, it is for them to produce it during
the PDPAC rather than in court, especially if you would not have
engaged in the litigation if you were aware of the document(s).
Therefore, you would be within your rights to contact EasyJet, per
the PDPAC, using a typical "Letter Before Action" (aka "Letter of
Claim", "Letter Before Claim") setting out your claim and asking for
any relevant documents they hold that fall under standard disclosure
rules, including but not limited to, the items you previously listed.
They are obliged to disclose any documents upon which they would rely
in defending the claim, any documents which advances their position
and any documents adverse to their position. If they will not
disclose such documents under PDPAC, that is the time to consider a
Court Order requiring disclosure but they may well disclose without a
court order.
Which? have a standard LBA including a request for disclosure which
you can use as a template here:
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim-aSFAC8Q6Jqan
That is all really interesting. Should I do the SAR first and then the
Letter Before Action, or just go straight in with the latter as it
would seem to cover the same information ?
Perhaps the SAR would produce some info that the LBA would not elicit
though.
The SAR has a 28 day response window whereas the LBA has 14 [^1]. You
could send the SAR followed by an LBA 14 days later so both responses
ought to arrive around the same time.
[^1] Strict adherence the PDPAC requires a response within 14 days, even
if you give them longer, say 28 days.
Of course if I do all this then perhaps Botts would reduce the feeYou can but ask.
even further as I've done some lf the work for them :)
Regards
S.P.
The SAR has a 28 day response window whereas the LBA has 14 [^1]. You
could send the SAR followed by an LBA 14 days later so both responses
ought to arrive around the same time.
The SAR can be extended to 3 months if the body claims the request is 'complex'. Complex can mean anything of course.
On 08/04/2024 09:52, BrritSki wrote:
That is all really interesting. Should I do the SAR first and thenthe Letter Before Action, or just go straight in with the latter as it
would seem to cover the same information ?
Perhaps the SAR would produce some info that the LBA would not elicit
though.
Of course if I do all this then perhaps Botts would reduce the fee
even further as I've done some lf the work for them :)
Any suggestions on which to do first will be gratefully accepted !
Yesterday I heard an old William story on the readio which reminded me
of Violet-Elizabeth Bott - I wonder if she was a founding partner ? :) Anyone here who remembers Just William (or Biggles) might enjoy this
little fiction I wrote some years back:
<https://rtilbury.wordpress.com/2023/02/22/william-the-oap/>
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
On 11/04/2024 17:05, JNugent wrote:
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
    In my old age, I have occasionally taken to re-reading some of
the books of my childhood. They split roughly 50-50 between those that
are still readable and those that, frankly, aren't, and probably couldn't
be published today. Three that surprised me are Biggles [which is much better than I expected/remembered], Dan Dare [much worse] and Dr Dolittle [also much worse].
On 11/04/2024 17:05, JNugent wrote:
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
    In my old age, I have occasionally taken to re-reading some of
the books of my childhood. They split roughly 50-50 between those that
are still readable and those that, frankly, aren't, and probably couldn't
be published today. Three that surprised me are Biggles [which is much better than I expected/remembered], Dan Dare [much worse] and Dr Dolittle [also much worse].
On 11/04/2024 17:05, JNugent wrote:
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
    In my old age, I have occasionally taken to re-reading some of
the books of my childhood. They split roughly 50-50 between those that
are still readable and those that, frankly, aren't, and probably couldn't
be published today. Three that surprised me are Biggles [which is much better than I expected/remembered], Dan Dare [much worse] and Dr Dolittle [also much worse].
On 12-Apr-24 14:48, Andy Walker wrote:
On 11/04/2024 17:05, JNugent wrote:
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,In my old age, I have occasionally taken to re-reading some of
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
the books of my childhood. They split roughly 50-50 between those that
are still readable and those that, frankly, aren't, and probably couldn't
be published today. Three that surprised me are Biggles [which is much
better than I expected/remembered], Dan Dare [much worse] and Dr Dolittle
[also much worse].
If you get a chance to listen to any "Navy Lark" episodes - avoid doing
so at all costs.
I honestly liked it WIWAL... Best to leave it as a distant memory.
On 12/04/2024 14:48, Andy Walker wrote:
On 11/04/2024 17:05, JNugent wrote:
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
     In my old age, I have occasionally taken to re-reading some of
the books of my childhood. They split roughly 50-50 between those that
are still readable and those that, frankly, aren't, and probably couldn't
be published today. Three that surprised me are Biggles [which is much
better than I expected/remembered], Dan Dare [much worse] and Dr Dolittle
[also much worse].
I didn't read any of those. Did anyone here read the Jennings books? Or
"How to be Topp?" And of course "1066 And All That" is probably aimed at adults. The children's fiction written by E Nesbit is quite fun, but set
in Victorian times when everyone had a cook and a housemaid. I think I
read most of the William books back in the day. And the best comics were
the Dandy, the Beano and the Beezer. Times have changed and nobody
yearns for the days when the highlight of a comic strip was a child
being spanked by an adult.
"1066 And All That" is probably aimed at
adults
On 11/04/2024 17:05, JNugent wrote:
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
In my old age, I have occasionally taken to re-reading some of
the books of my childhood. They split roughly 50-50 between those that
are still readable and those that, frankly, aren't, and probably couldn't
be published today. Three that surprised me are Biggles [which is much better than I expected/remembered], Dan Dare [much worse] and Dr Dolittle [also much worse].
Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 17:05, JNugent wrote:
It takes me back 60+ years to Kensington Library in Liverpool L7,
where getting hold of the Biggles, Just William or Billy Bunter books
was always problematic because they were in such high demand [...].
In my old age, I have occasionally taken to re-reading some of
the books of my childhood. They split roughly 50-50 between those that
are still readable and those that, frankly, aren't, and probably couldn't
be published today. Three that surprised me are Biggles [which is much
better than I expected/remembered], Dan Dare [much worse] and Dr Dolittle
[also much worse].
I remember reading most of the Dr Dolittle books. They are far too racist
for modern tastes from what I remember.
The Narnia books also have a theme that the bad guys are brown skinned men who use curved swords unlike the pale skinned good guys with straight
swords.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:56:07 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,274 |