Luton fire refund

[Watershed]

I've followed Watershed's advice and submitted the Gatwick fare claim to Easyjet. But I'm expecting a rejection, as my wife's name does not - as demanded - appear on the Thameslink receipt. I could see no text box to explain the circumstances, or mention escalation.
Regarding last year's EC261 flight delay claim, this was rejected by both Easyjet and ADR.
A specialist claim company declined to take the case, on the basis that Easyjet had provided a hotel and a flight the next day. I thought they were obliged to do that anyway, in addition to the scheduled compensation. They'd also said that the inbound flight suffering a weather delay was a valid excuse for our own (fine weather) flight being delayed. But that some company boasts in their adverts that they'd established in Court that this selfsame excuse was not valid. I remain confused.
Anyway, this airline aspect is maybe getting a bit OT

As you say, the obligations to provide overnight accommodation and food/drink, as well as to re-route you at the earliest opportunity, apply regardless of the reason for a delay or cancellation.

Complying with this obligation doesn't negate easyJet's liability in terms of compensation. However, eligibility for compensation does depend on the reason for delay/cancellation. The inbound flight suffering a weather delay may constitute exceptional circumstances, but that only satisfies the first part of the eligibility criteria.

The second part of the criteria is that the delay could not have been avoided or mitigated even if all reasonable measures had been taken - this means that airlines are expected to have spare aircraft and crew at their operating bases, for example. With Gatwick/Luton being some of easyJet's biggest bases, they have no excuse for not having and using a spare aircraft and/or crew to operate your flight punctually.

Obviously you may not be up for pursuing this in Court, but based on the information you've provided, it does sound like you have a reasonable case. Anyway, as you say, further discussion of EU261 matters can continue in the Aviation section of this forum; the main thing to note here is that you're unfortunately not entitled to any refund from GTR and they're unlikely to give you anything by way of a gesture of goodwill.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The second part of the criteria is that the delay could not have been avoided or mitigated even if all reasonable measures had been taken - this means that airlines are expected to have spare aircraft and crew at their operating bases, for example. With Gatwick/Luton being some of easyJet's biggest bases, they have no excuse for not having and using a spare aircraft and/or crew to operate your flight punctually.

Except in this case they weren't allowed to, because the airport was on fire. I'm not quite sure how EZY could be blamed for that.

 

[Haywain]

Except in this case they weren't allowed to, because the airport was on fire. I'm not quite sure how EZY could be blamed for that.

I think @Watershed was referring to the earlier weather delay that the OP had suffered.

 

[spag23]

I think @Watershed was referring to the earlier weather delay that the OP had suffered.

Haywain is right; that case was in the Canaries. I'd only mentioned it as an example of Easyjet's past reluctance to accept reimbursement claims, perhaps to be repeated in their response to any claim for our recent train trip diversion to Gatwick.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2023 ==

A positive update. As mentioned, I'd half-heartedly followed Watershed's excellent advice, and claimed for the extra train fares off Easyjet.
To their credit, Easyjet have just told me they are reimbursing these.
So I have withdrawn all the claims on Thameslink; ie the SAC>LTN leg, and Gatwick.
I am still disappointed that GTR wouldn't themselves refund the unused SAC to LTN leg, on the grounds that the return had been used. In response to the implied question "So how did you get to LTN?", my answer would have been "We took the long route, via Gatwick, Cyprus, and LUA".
And Customer Services won't comment on the absence of any notifications on the SAC platform in the early hours that travel to Luton Airport was impossible.
At the end of the day, the incident left Easyjet out of pocket, GTR made a profit, and I'm cost neutral (aside from five hours of effort )

 

[Watershed]

Haywain is right; that case was in the Canaries. I'd only mentioned it as an example of Easyjet's past reluctance to accept reimbursement claims, perhaps to be repeated in their response to any claim for our recent train trip diversion to Gatwick.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2023 ==

A positive update. As mentioned, I'd half-heartedly followed Watershed's excellent advice, and claimed for the extra train fares off Easyjet.
To their credit, Easyjet have just told me they are reimbursing these.
So I have withdrawn all the claims on Thameslink; ie the SAC>LTN leg, and Gatwick.
I am still disappointed that GTR wouldn't themselves refund the unused SAC to LTN leg, on the grounds that the return had been used. In response to the implied question "So how did you get to LTN?", my answer would have been "We took the long route, via Gatwick, Cyprus, and LUA".
And Customer Services won't comment on the absence of any notifications on the SAC platform in the early hours that travel to Luton Airport was impossible.
At the end of the day, the incident left Easyjet out of pocket, GTR made a profit, and I'm cost neutral (aside from five hours of effort )

I'm glad to hear this

It could be seen as harsh on easyJet, but this is the way the law is written so I'm glad to hear they've not quibbled about reimbursing you.