Airport tax refund rip off?

Thailand

In earlier posts I thought I had accepted this wasn't a penalty?

Admin fees cover admin, they can't profit from it. If I was to challenge on this basis, on what grounds do you think it would fail?.

dmg24

Thailand wrote: »

I'm not going to force the issue like that, and like I've said, I suspect it is still challengable - I'm not sure as you put it. People have challenged and won, but there isn't much information to go on.

I will of course be doing just that if I find myself in that situation in the future.

Can you quote the cases where people have challenged and won please? I'm not saying that there aren't any, but I am not aware of them?

neil9313

Thailand wrote: »

From Ryanair's travel questions:




Easyjets £17.50?

One month before? what's the point if they aren't going to refund anyway!!

easy jet do not charge a fee! :mad: you simply claim APD after the flight departs! Just got back £18, this time on a sunday is a good time to ring, it took 4 mins,ring 01582 7000036 at no cost if you get free landline line calls!

Thailand

No,DMG, I can't (and I having been looking for ages) but I know I have seen them!

I'll keep looking and post them up if I can find them.

Thailand

neil9313 wrote: »

easy jet do not charge a fee! :mad: you simply claim APD after the flight departs!

I know.

I meant why do Ryanair refer to it as if they do.

Incapuppy

Awww, Thailand - I'm not knocking you for trying to get to the bottom of this - but its Sunday - put the roast on and chill out with a glass of wine!

Thailand

Incapuppy wrote: »

Awww, Thailand - I'm not knocking you for trying to get to the bottom of this - but its Sunday - put the roast on and chill out with a glass of wine!

Lol! I will... It's going to take time to read up on UTTCR 99 5/5 schedule 2, the new CPUT regs and my dickie bird tells me there is possibly something in the penalties argument after all, 'if levied in terrorem'.

:j

dmg24

Thailand wrote: »

Lol! I will... It's going to take time to read up on UTTCR 99 5/5 schedule 2, the new CPUT regs and my dickie bird tells me there is possibly something in the penalties argument after all, 'if levied in terrorem'.

:j

Can you explain how the charge is in terrorem? I would be careful of using terms that you don't understand.

I am still very interested in the case law that you have found.

Thailand

http://www.droit.fundp.ac.be/langues/com/dunlop.html

I certainly do not understand it, legalese makes my head hurt. It is just an angle that we may have.

It was put to me this way:

Even if it is not described as a penalty, it can still be deemed so if levied in terrorem ( = as a deterrent). It it is meant to deter you from reclaiming it, since it will cost you more to reclaim than not

I don't pretend to know what's going on, I just hope this or the unfair route has some use to stop them keeping our money.

dmg24

One thing I always consider when looking at potentially unfair situations, is whether anybody has previously challenged it. If there is any legal basis for challenge, you will practically always get someone who will have done it just for fun, usually someone like me!

Whilst I am not saying that it applies to all situations, where the practice is well established (as this one is), I would use this as a benchmark as to whether it is worth proceeding with a complaint or not.

Again, if you are able to provide the cases where it has already been challenged, I would be happy (and quite intrigued) to read them.