Ryanair cancellation help

Cityboy_2

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

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.

How vague does this sound (direct quote from AUC site in response to question regarding a cancellation more than 14 days in advance)?


"Flight cancellations

Under EU law you are entitled to

A refund of the full price you paid for your ticket within seven days for the part or parts of your journey not made (and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to your original travel plan) and a return flight to the departure airport as soon as possible.

or

Re-routing to your final destination as soon as possible or, if you agree, at a later date. (If the airline flies you to another airport in your destination city then they must pay for the transfer to the airport you were booked for or to another close-by point of your choice)".

You may question my competence to respond to such questions but you really are stretching the boundaries of your own credibility when you start to question and discredit the AUC's interpretation of the regulation!!

I refer you and others to the AUC site for questions regarding the duty of care (accommodation, meals etc). Again don't just take my word for it.

budgetflyer

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.

Absolutely brilliant read.thanks Cityboy

Although it was a US decision, the laws relating to the judgement were EU ie "EC regulation 261/2004" so I think they definetly could be used in a similar case here, with the possible exception of the "triple damages" bit.

PolishBigSpender

Cityboy wrote: »

How vague does this sound (direct quote from AUC site in response to question regarding a cancellation more than 14 days in advance)?


"Flight cancellations

Under EU law you are entitled to

A refund of the full price you paid for your ticket within seven days for the part or parts of your journey not made (and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to your original travel plan) and a return flight to the departure airport as soon as possible.

or

Re-routing to your final destination as soon as possible or, if you agree, at a later date. (If the airline flies you to another airport in your destination city then they must pay for the transfer to the airport you were booked for or to another close-by point of your choice)".

Look at the "or". There is absolutely no clarity in this - it says that under EU law, you are entitled to a refund or rerouting. It doesn't state explicitly whether or not the passenger can choose - which is why I say that the AUC isn't providing legal advice that backs up your claim that "passengers must be rerouted and have costs paid for" - even the AUC isn't backing up your blind statement.

As you say, you're not a lawyer, so how about leaving legal advice to those suitably qualified and trained?

You may question my competence to respond to such questions but you really are stretching the boundaries of your own credibility when you start to question and discredit the AUC's interpretation of the regulation!!

I'm questioning the fact that the AUC appear not to give a straight answer either - hence why legal advice is needed. Where do they state that the airline *has* to reroute you? They don't. They say that the airline is obliged to refund or reroute.

I refer you and others to the AUC site for questions regarding the duty of care (accommodation, meals etc). Again don't just take my word for it.

In other words, you've been giving misleading advice based on your own (flawed) interpretation of the directive and now you're attempting to put people elsewhere. Again, if you believe that there is a duty of care towards people who have flights cancelled more than 14 days in advance, then please provide it - I would be particularly interested to see any UK court decisions in favour of a claimant for a flight cancelled more than 14 days in advance.

The fact that you resort to providing proof of a judgement made in the US as "evidence" that people can take legal action says volumes about your ability to provide legal analysis.

budgetflyer wrote:

Although it was a US decision, the laws relating to the judgement were EU ie "EC regulation 261/2004" so I think they definetly could be used in a similar case here, with the possible exception of the "triple damages" bit.

Maybe, maybe not. This is where specialist legal advice is needed - as Cityboy has helpfully showed, there's no precedent in the UK legal system for claims - and anyone attempting to claim additional expenses from an airline may very well be met with a negative reaction from a court system, particularly if a refund has already been paid. For that reason, and given the utterly subjective nature of it - specialist legal advice is absolutely required if perusing a claim..

To claim that "the law is on your side" is frankly a subjective opinion and not at all factual.

budgetflyer

US magistrate + lawyers interpreted "or" to be the clients choice, so their legal mind was convinced thats what the wording meant, so I cant see why a British lawyer would interpret it any different.

'Im not a believer in "compensation "really, however, I do believe if you buy something, they take your money, then they should either provide it, or refund you + out of pocket expenses related to it.

PolishBigSpender

budgetflyer wrote: »

US magistrate + lawyers interpreted "or" to be the clients choice, so their legal mind was convinced thats what the wording meant, so I cant see why a British lawyer would interpret it any different.

It's impossible to say which way they would go - in the absence of a binding ruling, it really is difficult to interpret. It's an arcane law point - a UK judge may very well see it as "The airline must do one of the following" instead of "the customer chooses" - but in the absence of any qualified UK lawyers on this forum, it really is absolutely impossible to judge.

I would be very interested to know of any cases where a customer has won their claim for out of pocket expenses based on a cancellation more than 14 days in advance. Cityboy has spectacularly failed to do so (a US ruling doesn't mean a thing) - but I'm hoping someone else might be aware of it.

Cityboy_2

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

It's impossible to say which way they would go - in the absence of a binding ruling, it really is difficult to interpret. It's an arcane law point - a UK judge may very well see it as "The airline must do one of the following" instead of "the customer chooses" - but in the absence of any qualified UK lawyers on this forum, it really is absolutely impossible to judge.

I would be very interested to know of any cases where a customer has won their claim for out of pocket expenses based on a cancellation more than 14 days in advance. Cityboy has spectacularly failed to do so (a US ruling doesn't mean a thing) - but I'm hoping someone else might be aware of it.

Last words from me on this thread.

Article 8 of EC261/2004 states:

Article 8
Right to reimbursement or re-routing
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between (reimbursement or re-routing).

That suggests it is the passenger's choice. MSE also believes this right exists as the following link shows: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-delays#cancel.

MSE also advises approaching the AUC, something that I would also agree with but would also agree with PBS that they are a toothless tiger. Nevertheless they do promote passenger's rights but they cannot force an airline to do anything as they have no legal right to act on a claimant's behalf in court. That can only be done by the claimant themselves. Their advice (if you seek that from the AUC) can of course be used by a claimant as part of their case in court.

For clarity, I have never advocated a situation of a passenger claiming for 'Right to Care' expenses when their flight has been cancelled many weeks or months in advance. Article 8 provides for reimbursement of the ticket price or re-routing only in this situation.

PBS, since you are so fond of asking for proof of UK legal cases perhpas I could ask if you could produce any UK court cases where the airline has been granted the right to refuse to pay up expenses under Article 9!

jjl_jjl

Just wondered if anyone had anymore info on the cancelled Edinburgh - Zadar route, i am looking to travel in July and noticed that there are now flights on sale, how reliable will this be? I'm a bit wary as this route seems to cancelled one minute and available the next, can anyone help? Thanks