Ryanair cancellation help

budgetflyer

Yes, but not your average customer. Eimear1981 was a journalist who had a direct contact into Easyjet Press Office, was able to throw some weight into the claim

Cityboy_2

budgetflyer wrote: »

Yes, but not your average customer. Eimear1981 was a journalist who had a direct contact into Easyjet Press Office, was able to throw some weight into the claim

Ok, budgetflyer, how about this one then: http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=779

Youngsj, the law is on your side.

Mr_Lahey

Handbags at dawn.

PolishBigSpender

Cityboy wrote: »

Ok, budgetflyer, how about this one then: http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=779

Youngsj, the law is on your side.

And that one was in a US court, which is very unlikely to be taken into account by a court in the EU. American courts are renowned for their weird judgements and interpretations - they're as bad as Poland!

I see you can't actually provide evidence of someone winning in a UK court with the directive.

Cityboy_2

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

And that one was in a US court, which is very unlikely to be taken into account by a court in the EU. American courts are renowned for their weird judgements and interpretations - they're as bad as Poland!

I see you can't actually provide evidence of someone winning in a UK court with the directive.

You are only too aware that a judgement in a court of first instance in the US or UK (or indeed Poland) is not binding nor does it set a precedent in any other case.

You are also very aware that judgements in courts of first instance are not routinely recorded.

I decline to answer who my legal advisors are as that is my business but I am certainly not reckless as my advice would be to anyone that they should always seek professional legal help if they are looking to take anyone to court.

Is that reckless enough for you!

PolishBigSpender

Cityboy wrote: »

You are only too aware that a judgement in a court of first instance in the US or UK (or indeed Poland) is not binding nor does it set a precedent in any other case.

Indeed, but they are taken into consideration, hence why I'm asking you for details of any case which has been won in any UK court on the basis of the EU directive that you're so fond of posting.

Still waiting...

Perhaps you should refrain from advising people to go to court, seeing as you can't provide names of any legal advisors that have allegedly advised you, nor can you provide any evidence that backs up your assertion that people will win on the basis of the directive.

Cityboy_2

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Indeed, but they are taken into consideration, hence why I'm asking you for details of any case which has been won in any UK court on the basis of the EU directive that you're so fond of posting.

Still waiting...

Perhaps you should refrain from advising people to go to court, seeing as you can't provide names of any legal advisors that have allegedly advised you, nor can you provide any evidence that backs up your assertion that people will win on the basis of the directive.

I suggest that anyone who wants guidance on this specific point, (or any other) regarding their entitlement under EC 261/2004, should have a look at the AUC's website (www.auc.org.uk). Under Air Travel Advice, Cancellations, one can see only too well that the AUC's own advice if your cancellation is made more than 14 days in advance is a refund or a re-route.

If anyone wants to argue that point, maybe they should take that up with the AUC!

I repeat my advice to Youngsj, the law is on your side!

PolishBigSpender

Cityboy wrote: »

I suggest that anyone who wants guidance on this specific point, (or any other) regarding their entitlement under EC 261/2004, should have a look at the AUC's website (www.auc.org.uk). Under Air Travel Advice, Cancellations, one can see only too well that the AUC's own advice if your cancellation is made more than 14 days in advance is a refund or a re-route.

Yet again, you fail to provide proof of a win in a UK court over a cancellation made more than 14 days in advance. You also fail to provide us with details of who gave you the so called legal advice. Absence of such evidence means that people should be very careful when thinking about legal action, particularly the consequences.

Cityboy clearly has an agenda in promoting misleading advice - as it stands, there is no evidence that the courts will agree that airlines have an obligation to reroute the passenger - even the AUC's advice can be read as " you must be given either...." rather than "you can have either...".

If anyone wants to argue that point, maybe they should take that up with the AUC!

I repeat my advice to Youngsj, the law is on your side!

The AUC aren't legal professionals, for a start. Their guidance is also very subjective - they say that you are entitled to "refund or reroute" - it doesn't state who decides. Yet again, you're giving legal advice without being qualified or indeed knowledgeable about the situation, and I urge you to cease and desist.

Are you simply posting this in an attempt to drive traffic to your own forum?

As it stands - the EU directive is up for interpretation, and anyone wishing to demand a reroute or additional costs refunded should take legal advice before proceeding. Claimaints certainly shouldn't attempt to take legal action on their own - it's a complex matter, and there appears to be no precedent in the UK when it comes to awarding a refund of hotels/etc against the airline.

Please also note that Cityboy isn't a legal professional and should be seen as someone with a motive - possibly someone driving traffic to his own forum.

Cityboy_2

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Yet again, you fail to provide proof of a win in a UK court over a cancellation made more than 14 days in advance. You also fail to provide us with details of who gave you the so called legal advice. Absence of such evidence means that people should be very careful when thinking about legal action, particularly the consequences.

Cityboy clearly has an agenda in promoting misleading advice - as it stands, there is no evidence that the courts will agree that airlines have an obligation to reroute the passenger - even the AUC's advice can be read as " you must be given either...." rather than "you can have either...".



The AUC aren't legal professionals, for a start. Their guidance is also very subjective - they say that you are entitled to "refund or reroute" - it doesn't state who decides. Yet again, you're giving legal advice without being qualified or indeed knowledgeable about the situation, and I urge you to cease and desist.

Are you simply posting this in an attempt to drive traffic to your own forum?

As it stands - the EU directive is up for interpretation, and anyone wishing to demand a reroute or additional costs refunded should take legal advice before proceeding. Claimaints certainly shouldn't attempt to take legal action on their own - it's a complex matter, and there appears to be no precedent in the UK when it comes to awarding a refund of hotels/etc against the airline.

Please also note that Cityboy isn't a legal professional and should be seen as someone with a motive - possibly someone driving traffic to his own forum.

Hahahaha! I do not own or have material interests in any forum.

The AUC may not be totally staffed by legal professionals but they are the UK body responsible for helping individual passengers with complaints and enquiries about air travel and promote the interests of passengers with industry, government and regulators. Their words not mine.

I guess that forum readers should make their own minds up about whether the AUC are in a position to offer guidance or an interpretation about passenger air travel or not.

PolishBigSpender

Cityboy wrote: »

Hahahaha! I do not own or have material interests in any forum.

Then I would hope that you cease from posting links to the forum which you've been spamming recently.

The AUC may not be totally staffed by legal professionals but they are the UK body responsible for helping individual passengers with complaints and enquiries about air travel and promote the interests of passengers with industry, government and regulators. Their words not mine

Are they giving legal advice? No? Then they shouldn't be relied upon as a basis to take an airline to court. I also notice that their own advice is vague and doesn't state categorically that you are entitled to choose between a refund and re-route - nor does it mention anything about an entitlement to have hotel/etc costs refunded - which is what you've been insinuating.

I guess that forum readers should make their own minds up about whether the AUC are in a position to offer guidance or an interpretation about passenger air travel or not.

Again, I recommend that no-one commences legal action without taking advice from a suitable qualified, legally trained individual. The AUC isn't that - indeed, there's enough reports online of them being more in favour of the airlines than the passengers.