Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

jsmac

I should also mention that in Ryanair's schedule of defence they wrongly refer to the date of my Claim. ie. the date they cite as the date of the Claim is not the the date of my claim.

Also, in my request for a default judgement because Ryanair had not responded in the 30 days required by the ESCP the judge stated that Ryanair had submitted an answer prior to my asking for a default judgement.

This is technically correct, however, I did contact the Court prior to Ryanair submitting a defence (I just didn't specifically ask for a default judgement in my first email). I have sent the Court two emails. The first one was several days prior to the Court receiving Ryanair's answer. I emailed the Court asking for advice as to what I should do since the Defendant's 30 day time period to respond had elapsed.

Surely the Judge can't maintain that Ryanair provided an answer prior to me contacting the Court when it is quite clear that I did contact them before they heard from Ryanair.

Vauban

jsmac wrote: »

I should also mention that in Ryanair's schedule of defence they wrongly refer to the date of my Claim. ie. the date they cite as the date of the Claim is not the the date of my claim.

Also, in my request for a default judgement because Ryanair had not responded in the 30 days required by the ESCP the judge stated that Ryanair had submitted an answer prior to my asking for a default judgement.

This is technically correct, however, I did contact the Court prior to Ryanair submitting a defence (I just didn't specifically ask for a default judgement in my first email). I have sent the Court two emails. The first one was several days prior to the Court receiving Ryanair's answer. I emailed the Court asking for advice as to what I should do since the Defendant's 30 day time period to respond had elapsed.

Surely the Judge can't maintain that Ryanair provided an answer prior to me contacting the Court when it is quite clear that I did contact them before they heard from Ryanair.

I think you're flogging a dead horse here. As has been said numerous times before, the courts do not like default judgements and their instinct seems always to allow a late defence - assuming it is credible - rather than not. So if I were you I would focus on the merits of the argument, rather than crying foul over the process. That's where you are going to win your case.

JPears

Vauban wrote: »

I think you're flogging a dead horse here. As has been said numerous times before, the courts do not like default judgements and their instinct seems always to allow a late defence - assuming it is credible - rather than not. So if I were you I would focus on the merits of the argument, rather than crying foul over the process. That's where you are going to win your case.

It would do no harm making the judge well aware if RA submitted their defence months after the due date. Couple of days is acceptable but months?
As to the legal aspects, it looks like they are claiming 2 year excuse. which we all know is rubbish.
I am not clear on the rules with ESC, is it the statute law that applies to the claimant's country of residence?
Ignore the cases re terms and conditions? Euro law/regs overide any terms and conditions implied by the air carrier, even if you agreed to them.

jsmac

Thanks, Vauban. That is my feeling too. I just wanted to point out the contradictions in the way that the Courts are applying EU 2004/261 with regard to the ESCP. It makes an already frustrating process even more stressful.

One final point: Can Ryanair cite 'extraordinary circumstances' in their defence if they hadn't cited it in any of the correspondence between ourselves? ie. this is their first mention of bad weather and extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, the flight was years ago and so I can't remember what the weather was like that day.

Vauban

jsmac wrote: »

Thanks, Vauban. That is my feeling too. I just wanted to point out the contradictions in the way that the Courts are applying EU 2004/261 with regard to the ESCP. It makes an already frustrating process even more stressful.

One final point: Can Ryanair cite 'extraordinary circumstances' in their defence if they hadn't cited it in any of the correspondence between ourselves? ie. this is their first mention of bad weather and extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, the flight was years ago and so I can't remember what the weather was like that day.

I don't think there is anything to stop them doing so, but clearly you are also able to point out that this is the first time they have used the argument.

You can use flightstats of course to check for possible weather delays. Simply look up how other flights were performing at you origin and destination airports on the day in question. Unless there were widespread delays at either airport, it would be difficult to substantiate that argument, in my view.

jr77

Hi

I'm at the end of my tether with what to do so am hoping someone on this forum can guide me in the right direction.

My family and I were caught up in the French Air Strikes back in June. We were on holiday in Majorca and were due to fly back on a Tuesday morning and couldn't get a return flight with Ryanair until late Friday night, arriving back in the UK on Saturday morning. We were put in a nearby hotel and were told to save our receipts to claim back food and drink allowances.

There was zero communication from Ryanair and all information we were given was third hand from someone else who knew someone else who had previously been stranded.

When we finally returned home, I completed the online claim form and waited for some sort of correspondence. I didn't receive any.

I took contact details for a couple of other passengers and they received correspondence and a cheque approximately a month after putting in their claim.

I waited and waited and nothing came.

I finally telephoned Ryanair and it was evident that the girl I was speaking to knew nothing about anything. She said there was no claim under my name and that the online claim form didn't work. I asked to speak to her supervisor which was when she cut me off.

3 weeks ago, I sent a letter with all the receipts to Ryanair and I sent it guaranteed delivery and it was signed for and accepted. In the letter I stated I wanted a reply within 14 days and this time has obviously now lapsed.

What do I do next? I have never even received a letter or anything from Ryanair and don't know what avenue to go down now.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

111KAB

jr77 wrote: »

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I had the same experience (stuck in Mallorca during ash cloud) .... RA initially refused to compensate ..... submitted claim to Irish Court (15€ cost) and then chased up with Court Clerk ..... he tells me he had a quiet word with someone at Ryanair and 7 days later a cheque arrived!

jimcbob

jsmac wrote: »

I also pointed out that Article 7(3) states that 'If the court of tribunal has not received an answer from the relevant party within the time limits laid down in Article 5(3), it shall give a judgement on the claim'.

Anyway, the response from the Court was that my "request for judgement in default is not with proper form and in any event an answer was filed before his request".

I am not sure, in fact, that Article 7(3) provides for judgment in default: I think it requires the court to decide the case based on the materials available. So, technically, I think the Court should have just proceeded to determine your claim after 30 days. Anyhow, that opportunity has clearly been missed. It is pretty bad that the English courts just ignored the ESCP Regulation.

Anyway, Ryanair has cited in their defence "Theime v Ryanair", "Pickard v Ryanair" and "Serradilla v Ryanair" all of which were dismissed on the fact that the claimants had agreed to Ryanair's T&Cs pertaining to the contractual limitation clausefor bringing proceedings of 2 years.

Have they provided copies of these cases? I have never seen or heard of them. I doubt very much that they relate to claims under EC Regulation 261; they are probably straightforward breach of contract claims that can, indeed, be limited by the time-bar clause in Ryanair's General Terms and Conditions of Carriage.

I would have thought that the simple answer to a contractual time-bar argument is that it is invalid under Article 15(1) of Regulation 261, since your rights cannot be limited by prior contractual agreement, and reducing the time in which you can claim necessarily "limits" those rights. You may also be able to argue that the limitation clause is an unfair contract term and/or that the time-bar does not (on its true reading) apply to claims under Regulation 261.

The Counsel for Ryanair also makes a convoluted argument stating that "the contract of carriage is a matter of Irish law, being the proper law of the contract as the contract for carriage is formed only when the Defendant, in Dublin, accepts a request for seats from a passenger. Here I was thinking that the statutory limit applies to the person buying the product not the person selling it.

They are probably right that the contract of carriage is governed by Irish law. I don't know what it said at the relevant time, but the terms now contain an express choice of law, which would be effective. However, I don't see where this gets them since Regulation 261 would still be applicable.

jsmac

Thanks again jimcbob.

The counsel for Ryanair has provided copies of the cases. Whether they are complete copies of the cases is difficult to ascertain. They all appear to pertain to EC Regulation 261 and each case has been found in favour of Ryanair on the basis of the 2 year time bar to bring cases. ie. Ryanair's dodgy T&C's. All of these cases were lodged in the past several months (March, June and August 2013) so why the Courts chose to ignore More v KLM is very curious. Perhaps this is just another example of the Courts not being very clued up on the ESCP and EU 2004/261.

It is worth noting that in two of the cases that I was provided the Claimant was ordered to pay for the Defendant's travel expenses and Court fees, which is very discouraging. I thought that this did not happen in Small Claims Court? Indeed my local Court couldn't tell me if this could happen in my case, only telling me that "it is up to the judge who is present at the oral hearing".

I find the whole thing very tiresome. If the Courts can't do their bit without prodding and being spoon fed the relevant pieces of case law and particulars of the ESCP then what chance do we have to make the airlines accountable.

Sorry for being a miserable guts. I really do appreciate the ongoing support. It's just that I'm staring at about 50 pages legalese and finding it all rather overwhelming...

jimcbob

jsmac wrote: »

Thanks again jimcbob.

The counsel for Ryanair has provided copies of the cases. Whether they are complete copies of the cases is difficult to ascertain. They all appear to pertain to EC Regulation 261 and each case has been found in favour of Ryanair on the basis of the 2 year time bar to bring cases. ie. Ryanair's dodgy T&C's. All of these cases were lodged in the past several months (March, June and August 2013) so why the Courts chose to ignore More v KLM is very curious. Perhaps this is just another example of the Courts not being very clued up on the ESCP and EU 2004/261.

I don't think More is relevant: I assume they are saying that there is a contractual timebar, rather than that the Montreal Convention applies per se. If you want to send me over the cases (which I can't find, so I assume they are unreported County Court cases) I will have a look and give you some thoughts.