Jump to content


Jet2.com - £110.50 for name change


pcr1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6297 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

Then they've really shot themselves in the foot. Admitting it's a deterrent is admitting that it does not represent their true loss, and admitting it is in fact a penalty. Nice of them to prove your case for you. :-D

 

 

This is what I'm thinking. :D

 

Served the documents on which I'll rely during my case on the court (by hand) and defendant (by first class post) today.

 

I'm putting together all the stuff this weekend ready for my argument on the big day and will post up on here how I intend to go about it.

 

The other main point here is the condition in their T&Cs that allows for name changes and the charge thereon, says no refund will be given if the fare decreases. I'm also arguing this (as making it an unfair term - imbalance in parties' rights) as an additional argument to the penalty charge/unreasonable charge for service argument. More details when I've put it all together in one place!!!

 

Thanks for the help so far. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Claim failed. They argued it was a transfer of the contract, and therefore a new contract with new consideration and this was successful. The judge would not accept it was a penalty as there was no breach of contract and I did not fail to perform my obligations under it; I merely transferred it to another person.

 

The s15 SOGSA1982 argument failed because it was "described in words in the contract and therefore not left in a manner to be determined, for example by an assessment by a third party".

 

Claim that the term was void because it provided for payment of additional fare if it had increased but no refund if it decreased was rejected because I had an option to not make the change; it was not forced upon me.

 

Ordered to pay £175 in costs. At least I've got the rest of the day off work... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claim that the term was void because it provided for payment of additional fare if it had increased but no refund if it decreased was rejected because I had an option to not make the change; it was not forced upon me.

 

That doesn't prevent it from being an unfair term!

 

I'd be very disappointed if I were you.

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...