RYANAIR, wont pay my baggage costs back to me.

samizdat

milly229,

Ignore the free-marketeers on these forums. I think you are right to be annoyed and it is at least arguable that you are legally due a refund. Whether it is worth pursuing is doubtful, however, given the sum involved and the effort required to research the matter.

If Ryanair genuinely sought to provide low-cost services by passing on the true cost of optional extras such as hold baggage, then this would be a great way of doing business. However, Ryanair actually concentrates far too much on gaming its own customers in order to try to extract as much revenue from them as possible. If you don't have the time or inclination to play these games, it is probably best to avoid flying with Ryanair, unless the actual flight is particularly convenient for you.

Lally

Remember if you put your luggage in the hold you can pack toiletries and other things which you would be unable to carry on.

Justin_Scotland

Here's your guidelines on hand baggage for Ryan Air.

Each passenger (excluding infants) is permitted to carry one piece of cabin baggage on board (free of charge). Strictly one item of cabin baggage is permitted per passenger (excluding infants). Your handbag, briefcase, laptops, shop purchases, camera etc must be carried within your permitted 1 piece of cabin baggage. It should weigh no more than 10kg and not exceed the maximum dimensions of 55cm x 40cm x 20cm.

and link to stuff not accepted in handbaggage

daveyjp

"If you don't have the time or inclination to play these games, it is probably best to avoid flying with Ryanair"

This advice works for us.

I do pity the passengers flying back from Murcia a couple of weeks ago who had to fly back on a plane which had vomit all down the centre aisle. As Ryanair don't have seat back pockets with sick bags, or employ cleaners the best cabin staff could do was remove what they could then cover the area in paper towels which passengers were asked to walk over to soak up the mess.

Disgusting. Wait until they charge for toilets!

whatmichaelsays

milly229 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies. Guess thats what you get for booking budget airlines. Never used them before. Wont use them again.

You'd have exactly the same problem with any other carrier unless you'd paid a significant premium for a fully flexible ticket.

DrScotsman

samizdat wrote: »

I think you are right to be annoyed and it is at least arguable that you are legally due a refund.

No. It is not arguable in any way.

I look forward to seeing this valid legal argument you claim exists.

Pollycat

samizdat wrote: »

milly229,

Ignore the free-marketeers on these forums. I think you are right to be annoyed and it is at least arguable that you are legally due a refund. Whether it is worth pursuing is doubtful, however, given the sum involved and the effort required to research the matter.

If Ryanair genuinely sought to provide low-cost services by passing on the true cost of optional extras such as hold baggage, then this would be a great way of doing business. However, Ryanair actually concentrates far too much on gaming its own customers in order to try to extract as much revenue from them as possible. If you don't have the time or inclination to play these games, it is probably best to avoid flying with Ryanair, unless the actual flight is particularly convenient for you.

Freemarketeers?
Don't be silly.

The OP decided she wanted something that was chargeable (hold baggage), she paid for it, now she's changed her mind - and wants her money back.

Milly might (in your opinion) be 'right to be annoyed' but that doesn't mean she's entitled to a refund.

If she'd bought a pair of shoes from a shop (NOT M&S, Next etc who allow refunds over and above what they are legally requested to give) and changed her mind, would she get a refund.

Err, that'll be a 'No' then.

I said this in my earlier post:
Budget airlines can be great if you play by their rules - but you need to make sure you understand how each company works.
Unfortunately, the OP didn't.

samizdat

There seems to be a widely held assumption in these forums that "freedom of contract" is such a universal principle that anything at all can be included in the terms of a contract and automatically be valid and enforceable.

This is not true in law and, moreover, even if a particular term of a contract is found to be legally enforceable, that does not mean that one has no right to be annoyed by it, object to it, or otherwise seek by political means or moral pressure to overturn it.

From a legal standpoint, I think it is arguable (I say no more than that) that the OP has paid for luggage space and luggage check-in on this flight, whereas she no longer requires the luggage space and no longer requires to check it in. In these circumstances, she could argue that she is entitled to a refund of that part of the cost of her flight.

But even if that legal argument would not be upheld, she is perfectly entitled not to like it and to be annoyed by it, in spite of the fact that it was included in the T&Cs.

***
[Edit: Sorry, was moving computer so had to cut things short]

Just to expand the legal point a bit, an ordinary consumer is not in a position to negotiate the terms of a contract with a commercial counterparty - he must take it or leave it. In these circumstances, the "contra proferentem" principle applies and contractual terms will be construed against the interests of the proferens (in this case Ryanair). Therefore, you could say that the main purpose of the agreement was to agree the cost of the flight and that the baggage charge was incidental and its price should be deemed to reflect the cost in terms of administration and fuel to Ryanair of such baggage. Whereas, if the baggage is not in fact carried and Ryanair is notified in good time, then Ryanair is under a duty to mitigate any losses arising from the change of plan and its loss should be assessed as close to zero, therefore the passenger is entitled to a refund of the baggage charge.

Also, within the European Union, since 1994 there has been an interpretive presumption in favor of consumers. The 93/13/EC Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts has a provision to this effect: “Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favorable to the consumer shall prevail.” If the Ryanair contract is silent on the question of whether refunds will be given in these circumstances, or if there is any ambiguity on this point, then I submit that the contract should therefore be construed in favour of the complainant.

DrScotsman

samizdat wrote: »

From a legal standpoint, I think it is arguable (I say no more than that) that the OP has paid for luggage space and luggage check-in on this flight, whereas she no longer requires the luggage space and no longer requires to check it in. In these circumstances, she could argue that she is entitled to a refund of that part of the cost of her flight.

Ignoring the fact you seem to be using "I think it is arguable" to avoid any criticism of your argument, the OP paid for a service. The supplier is not liable in any way if she decides she no longer needs this service. You are talking as if a consumer has a right to disolve the contract so long as they don't cause the supplier a loss, but that's not true in the slightest. There are exceptions such as contracts that come under the Distance Selling Regulations, but this is not one.

But even if that legal argument would not be upheld, she is perfectly entitled not to like it and to be annoyed by it, in spite of the fact that it was included in the T&Cs.

And I'm entitled to be annoyed if I step in gum. Your point?

Pollycat

samizdat wrote: »

There seems to be a widely held assumption in these forums that "freedom of contract" is such a universal principle that anything at all can be included in the terms of a contract and automatically be valid and enforceable.

This is not true in law and, moreover, even if a particular term of a contract is found to be legally enforceable, that does not mean that one has no right to be annoyed by it, object to it, or otherwise seek by political means or moral pressure to overturn it.
Nobody is denying that the OP has a right to be annoyed by paying for something that she did want then didn't want.

From a legal standpoint, I think it is arguable (I say no more than that) that the OP has paid for luggage space and luggage check-in on this flight, whereas she no longer requires the luggage space and no longer requires to check it in. In these circumstances, she could argue that she is entitled to a refund of that part of the cost of her flight.
You can think anything is "arguable" - but it doesn't make you right.

But even if that legal argument would not be upheld, she is perfectly entitled not to like it and to be annoyed by it, in spite of the fact that it was included in the T&Cs.
Of course she's perfectly entitled not to like it and be annoyed about it, it doesn't mean that she is entitled to a refund.
And, in fact, Ryanair have told her this.

***
[Edit: Sorry, was moving computer so had to cut things short]

Just to expand the legal point a bit, an ordinary consumer is not in a position to negotiate the terms of a contract with a commercial counterparty - he must take it or leave it. In these circumstances, the "contra proferentem" principle applies and contractual terms will be construed against the interests of the proferens (in this case Ryanair). Therefore, you could say that the main purpose of the agreement was to agree the cost of the flight and that the baggage charge was incidental and its price should be deemed to reflect the cost in terms of administration and fuel to Ryanair of such baggage. Whereas, if the baggage is not in fact carried and Ryanair is notified in good time, then Ryanair is under a duty to mitigate any losses arising from the change of plan and its loss should be assessed as close to zero, therefore the passenger is entitled to a refund of the baggage charge.

Also, within the European Union, since 1994 there has been an interpretive presumption in favor of consumers. The 93/13/EC Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts has a provision to this effect: “Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favorable to the consumer shall prevail.” If the Ryanair contract is silent on the question of whether refunds will be given in these circumstances, or if there is any ambiguity on this point, then I submit that the contract should therefore be construed in favour of the complainant.
Maybe you should represent the 'complainant' given all that you 'submit' on this subject.

Actually, if the OP should be getting annoyed at anybody - it should be herself for not reading that she was entitled to 10kg free hand luggage.