![]() |
Compensation for cancellation of EZY6546 on 9 June
On 9 June easyJet did two returns LGW-HAM-LGW: EZY6485+EZY6486 and EZY6545+EZY6546.
* EZY6485 departed LGW 12 min late and arrived at HAM 11 min late * EZY6486 departed HAM 11 min late and arrived at LGW 1 min early * EZY6545 should've departed LGW at 18:40, but was delayed, and due to HAM's overnight curfew, eventually moved to the next evening under a different flight number; * Therefore, my flight, EZY6546, scheduled to depart HAM at 21:50, was postponed last-minute to 21:10 the next day under a different flight number I opted for a full refund as per my rights, and have received it, but have also claimed cancellation compensation as the new flight number means it counts as a cancellation rather than a mere delay. In their rejection, easyJet state ATC restrictions across Europe caused a slot delay for EZY6545, too much to suit the allowed traffic hours at HAM, thus postponing EZY6545+EZY6546 to the next evening. However, I'm told the latest strike ended 36 hours prior, and secondly the first return on the relevant day, EZY6485+EZY6486, was barely delayed at all. So not sure this makes much sense. I asked easyJet for detailed proof of extraordinary circumstances PLUS all reasonable measures having been taken, but only got a duplicate/copy-paste of the original rejection. What's your take on it? How likely is easyJet to be telling the truth, or, more to the point, is this likely to be genuine extraordinary circumstances? I've heard slot delays can also be caused by things like staff shortage, which AFAIK wouldn't be extraordinary circumstances (correct me if I'm wrong). I've preliminarily launched an OCMC (UK online court) claim which is pending a Help with Fees assessment and thus hasn't actually been issued. However, I just discovered Help with Fees doesn't absolve you from up to £10000 in legal fees if you lose, so I'm considering giving my claim to Bott & Co instead. So again, any input would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance |
My understanding is that when you apply for and accept a refund, their obligations end.
Furthermore I believe they didn't need to write anything other than that |
Originally Posted by lfc84
(Post 35346639)
My understanding is that when you apply for and accept a refund, their obligations end.
Furthermore I believe they didn't need to write anything other than that |
Originally Posted by lfc84
(Post 35346639)
My understanding is that when you apply for and accept a refund, their obligations end.
Originally Posted by lfc84
(Post 35346639)
Furthermore I believe they didn't need to write anything other than that
|
Originally Posted by jomala05
(Post 35346990)
... The tricky bit is, as I said: do I continue myself through OCMC or do I leave it with Bott & Co, for the reasons in my original post? If the case is too murky and thus financially risky, I'll go with the latter.
|
EZY is lying in 3 recent cases I had with them. Use ADR, SÖP and after that those legal mercenaries.
|
Originally Posted by estrela
(Post 35347804)
EZY is lying in 3 recent cases I had with them. Use ADR, SÖP and after that those legal mercenaries.
|
Not really but every case costs them 90€ and increases your chance of winning. I would thereafter also consider small claims. Just need to be a bigger pain in the ... than U2 is for its passengers.
|
Originally Posted by jomala05
(Post 35346633)
I've preliminarily launched an OCMC (UK online court) claim which is pending a Help with Fees assessment and thus hasn't actually been issued. However, I just discovered Help with Fees doesn't absolve you from up to £10000 in legal fees if you lose, so I'm considering giving my claim to Bott & Co instead.
If you use Bott & Co, their fees come out of your damages if you win. https://england.shelter.org.uk/profe...nd_multi_track |
Thanks everyone, found an excellent middle ground. Cancelled my Bott & Co claim, and my OCMC was just issued (this time Help with Fees went through immediately, without having to send my bank statement) but Bott & Co said they'll happily offer free legal advice on any defence I may receive.
Btw, if I get a Directions Questionnaire, should I consent to the Small Claims Mediation Service? I've read that courts have a favourable view of parties demonstrating willingness to settle, but I know Ryanair's solicitors, Oracle Solicitors, routinely tick "No" to that (not sure about IUNO, who represent easyJet). |
Originally Posted by jomala05
(Post 35353070)
Thanks everyone, found an excellent middle ground. Cancelled my Bott & Co claim, and my OCMC was just issued (this time Help with Fees went through immediately, without having to send my bank statement) but Bott & Co said they'll happily offer free legal advice on any defence I may receive.
Btw, if I get a Directions Questionnaire, should I consent to the Small Claims Mediation Service? I've read that courts have a favourable view of parties demonstrating willingness to settle, but I know Ryanair's solicitors, Oracle Solicitors, routinely tick "No" to that (not sure about IUNO, who represent easyJet). I have had success with SCMS before. |
Originally Posted by jomala05
(Post 35347901)
Is SÖP more consumer-friendly than AviationADR? Read horror stories about AviationADR blindly accepting airlines' claims and dismissing passengers' evidence to the contrary as "unofficial", with a court subsequently ruling in the passenger's favour
Easyjet send in long defences full of irrelevant stuff and the adjudicators side with them. I have had success with Aviation ADR twice regards Wizzair and TAP, but only because Wizzair put in a woeful defence of about a paragraph in badly written English, and in TAP's case they did not even bother to reply at all. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:40 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.