easyJet has agreed to refund the fare for a seat after a passenger complained that a neighbouring traveller’s size prevented him from using the space he paid for during a flight from Faro to Luton.
The passenger, identified only as A.E. of High Wycombe, told a consumer advice columnist that he spent much of the 2 hour 50 minute flight standing at the rear of the aircraft after being unable to sit comfortably in an exit-row seat because the occupant of the adjacent seat encroached on his space. He said cabin crew logged his complaint and offered free drinks before the airline initially refused to refund the seat cost but later issued a goodwill voucher of £50.
Documents and a photo provided to the columnist show the neighbour’s torso and leg intruding into A.E.’s seating area, and A.E. said the neighbour had difficulty fastening a regular seat belt and raised an armrest that allowed further spread into his space. Cabin crew told A.E. they had been sympathetic and that their only requirement for a passenger seated in an emergency-exit row was the ability to do up a normal seat belt.
easyJet initially reiterated that customers who require more than one seat for personal comfort should purchase the additional seat in advance because additional seats cannot be guaranteed on the day of travel. "We suggest to customers who require the use of more than one seat for personal comfort to purchase this in advance of travel as we cannot guarantee additional seats will be available on the day of travel, and we ensure that the second seat will never be more expensive than the first," a spokesman said.
After the columnist forwarded the photo showing the encroachment, easyJet told the passenger it would “be happy to refund A.E. the price he paid for his seat” as a further gesture of goodwill. The columnist had argued that being unable to use a paid-for seat was similar to sitting in a broken seat and merited a refund or voucher.
The airline also noted safety rules governing exit-row seating. Passengers occupying exit rows are required to be able to fasten a standard seat belt; while extension seat belts exist for some customers, those who need them are generally not permitted to sit in exit rows because of the safety responsibilities associated with those seats.
In a separate consumer case, Marks & Spencer refunded a customer who ordered four items online on April 21 but received only three after the retailer was affected by a cyber-attack. The customer’s account initially showed the missing item as "awaiting dispatch" and then the item disappeared from the order history. After the columnist intervened and contacted M&S, a human staff member phoned the customer and processed a refund.
The cases underline tensions for carriers and retailers dealing with a mix of operational constraints, safety rules and customer expectations. Airlines increasingly tell customers to book additional seats in advance when extra space is required, while some safety rules restrict seating options for passengers who need seat-belt extensions. Retailers continue to handle fallout from IT incidents such as cyber-attacks that disrupted order processing. In both instances consumer complaints were resolved after the intervention, with easyJet reversing its initial decision after photographic evidence was submitted and M&S issuing a refund after direct contact from a company representative.