alexg32

I was planning on taking the position that I'm absolutely owed EU261 compensation, and that I was treated so poorly that it's a separate issue which needs to be addressed. I don't want to drop it, because honestly it offends me and should never have happened. It wasn't just a low level employee enforcing a bad policy, it was someone who was fully aware of her actions blatantly breaking the law out of anger and spite. She should not be employed by easyJet, and I'm going to see to it that they fix that. And it wasn't a guess. In the middle of her physically preventing me from taking back my passport, she pulled out her phone, said she was going to take a picture, and I saw her open the camera, press the shutter, and then say to me "I got it, here's your passport back." What I'm unsure of is how clear the picture was, but she absolutely took a picture.


My exact statement to her was "We obviously don't agree about this, but I have the law right here and know I'm correct. What can I do in the future to get reimbursed for my flight and hotel when I prove I was unfairly denied boarding?" I mean, maybe she thinks the law didn't apply, but obviously it does, and I asked her specifically what to do in that situation. I don't know how her opinion is relevant, if the law applies and I'm due compensation, the entire law applies. She would have been in violation of that section, whether she thought she was or not.

I do understand that, I was obviously emotional when I wrote the post. I'm going to run anything I write by a lawyer friend before I send it anyway.

Thanks, I will.

o mikros

Actually, it's not so obvious that EU261 applies here. You should have been allowed to board, sure, but the denied boarding legislation was written for a different set of circumstances. There is no law that explicitly spells out what a passenger is due when an airline makes a mistake in interpreting immigration law.

She is required to tell you what you're due if the law applies. The "if" is where her opinion is relevant -- it's not black-and-white as to whether the law applies. You claim it is; she claims it's not. She doesn't have an obligation to tell every passenger that s/he might be due compensation, depending on the reading of the law.

Basically, while you were in the right, I can also see where she's coming from in not responding to your demands for being informed as to your rights. She didn't believe you had any, so what is she supposed to tell you?

irishguy28

Don't get sidetracked by this non-issue. As far as the agent was concerned, you did not have valid travel documents, so of course she was not going to give you any printed EU261/2004 information as she believed you had no right to such compensation.

And, to be honest, the vast majority of airlines don't hand out this information either, even when they know that the customer actually has a case.

A notice showing the travellers' rights under EU261/2004 is to be displayed in all EU airports - though to be fair, it's difficult to verify if that's the case in large airports (such as LGW), but I have seen these info posters in a number of other airports.



You're not going to get anything "additional" on this point - so if you bring a case under EU261/2004, I wouldn't even refer to this fact at all.

But I would pursue a claim against them - first of all, you should have a full refund, and then you should also get the amount (it's not a lot, but probably more than you paid for your ticket anyway) as mandated in EU261/2004 for not being allowed to travel despite having a valid ticket and no valid reason not to be allowed to board.

Good luck!

IanFromHKG

While others above take the view that she was justified in refusing a copy of your rights on the basis that she believed the law didn't apply, my own view is (a) that her grasp of the law is clearly a bit shaky anyway, and (b) I think EU261 does apply. The courts have been quite activist on EU261, construing it pretty broadly to cover situations that the drafters may well not have intended. But a simple reading of the rule quoted above does not restrict IDB to particular situations or provide exceptions (such as "unless the airline is mistaken about the law"). However, I have heard in the past that BA take the approach that by having a copy of the notice pasted on to their check-in desks, where you are bound to "see" it (even if you don't read it or notice what it is) then they have fulfilled their obligation. Although I don't know if easyjet take the same approach, I would not be surprised if their argument was that copies were "available" to you and so they satisfied their obligation in this regard. Having said that, when a passenger who was IDBd specifically asks for a copy to take away and is refused, that to me borders on sharp practice.

I'm not sure I agree with this either. It is definitely a double-edged sword in that it might make easyjet more defensive, but on balance I think that the egregious conduct of the staff member concerned would be more likely to put them on the back foot. One option would be to mention it in the original claim, and if it gets bounced back then go into further detail (perhaps asking the awkward questions I raised above) in order to put more pressure on them. However, ultimately, it is OP's call - and if s/he has a lawyer friend reviewing the claim, no doubt said friend will advise.

Good luck!

Nikko5

As a bit of an aside, and seeing you are based in BCN, would a 3hr each way coach trip up to Andorra have worked to "check out" and "check back in" to Schengen?!

David-A

I'd drop the 261 bit, it will side track the issue.

It's not so much that you were denied boarding - and then how they have dealt with it was more, it is more a case that you have been denied what you contractually entered into outright.

Often1

I would not drop the EC 261/2004 claim. It is the centerpiece of the issue and it is binary. OP was either properly documented and thus ought to have been boarded, or he was not, in which case he was properly denied boarding. The rest of this is background noise and won't help OP in the least. Moreover, it is close to a certainty that the entire incident has been fully documented with the other 4 employees all writing statements which, you may be certain, back up the supervisor and make OP out to be a dangerous villain.

Same with the CC chargeback. That just goes into the same mess about whether OP was properly documented and banks aren't going to muck around in immigration law of other nations.

The EC 261/2004 complaint should be short (3-4 sentences maximum) and to the point. E.g., "I was properly documented for my flight to BCN, the carrier wrongly determined that I was not and denied boarding. Thus, I am owed compensation...."

CloudGazer

Just came across this thread from a Google search. alexg32, curious to hear what happened.

duchy

The photographing of the passport is a possible data protection issue especially if a personal phone was used. That however should be dealt with as a separate complaint.

Often1

Well, OP never reported back. I suspect that if he had been compensated, he would have gleefully reported that he had beat the carrier out of some money. The he has said nothing speaks volumes about the facts.

Remember, we only know what he says happened.

warakorn

After some rant, a human being quickly looses interest in a case like that. Airlines know that and almost always get away.
I would pushed for the lady to be fired and having her airport clearance revoked.