Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

jsmac

Thanks jimcbob.

That would be very helpful. How would I send them to you? Can files be sent via PM? I'll look into it and try to get them to you in the next day or so.

Thanks, again. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter. I think that you'll find the logic of their defence rather scattershot and convoluted. At least that's my impression.

Dr_Watson

jimcbob wrote: »

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.

Jsmac and jimcbob,
Firstly jsmac I'm glad to see you posted your latest situation on here and that the replies have flooded in.
I struggle to see though how the More ruling cannot be relevant. This was a ruling in the ECJ, expressly about the two year to claim issue. Ryanair are quoting county court cases that do not set precedent. Was the More ruling quoted/ used by any of the claimants in the three cases Ryanair have quoted?
And if so maybe it was just a case as we have seen on here a few times where the airline has just got lucky with what would appear to be an ill informed judge.

In the alternative...
Ryanair's comment about Irish law being the law of the contract.....
What is the statute limitations for bringing such a claim ( for compensation not damages )under Irish law..I'll stand corrected but from what I have quickly tried to establish this too is six years?

And finally,
Do you have or know what Ryanair's T's and C's were at your time of booking especially with regard to any claim? I know they have changed recently to try and dissuade potential claimants and are their first line of defence in such ' timescale cases'. Were they as distinct then?

a16003

Hi.

There seems to be little talk of using the IAA (Irish Aviation Authority) as the next step once Ryanair fail to deal with claims. Lots of talk of going straight to court steps. Why is this?

I've recently referred my rejected claim to the IAA and after a month or so delay had it confirmed that Ryanair have now agreed to pay compensation and payment will be with me with 14 days. Obviously not a result until I receive payment but looks hopeful. Took very little effort other than sending copies of previous communications between myself and Ryanair and have dealt with the IAA via email throughout.

Dr_Watson

a16003 wrote: »

Hi.

There seems to be little talk of using the IAA (Irish Aviation Authority) as the next step once Ryanair fail to deal with claims. Lots of talk of going straight to court steps. Why is this?

I've recently referred my rejected claim to the IAA and after a month or so delay had it confirmed that Ryanair have now agreed to pay compensation and payment will be with me with 14 days. Obviously not a result until I receive payment but looks hopeful. Took very little effort other than sending copies of previous communications between myself and Ryanair and have dealt with the IAA via email throughout.

a16003,
Well done to you for that. Why don't more people use the IAA? Because the NEB can only 'help' if the delayed flight/ denied boarding occurs in their territory.
Any delay occurring using any airline departing anywhere other than Ireland and the IAA can't really help.
Good to hear your case was unusually straightforward to reach an end though.

jimcbob

Dr_Watson wrote: »

I struggle to see though how the More ruling cannot be relevant. This was a ruling in the ECJ, expressly about the two year to claim issue. Ryanair are quoting county court cases that do not set precedent. Was the More ruling quoted/ used by any of the claimants in the three cases Ryanair have quoted?

I doubt the More decision is relevant because they aren't claiming, as I understand it, that the 2 year time-bar in the Montreal Convention applies. They are saying that a contractual time bar applies. Although that happens to be 2 years as well, that doesn't mean that More applies: there could be a contractual time bar of 18 months or 3 years.

As a matter of English law, there is (usually) nothing to stop the parties agreeing a time limit for claims by way of contract. Nothing in More deals with the question of whether contractual time bars are effective.

In the alternative...
Ryanair's comment about Irish law being the law of the contract.....
What is the statute limitations for bringing such a claim ( for compensation not damages )under Irish law..I'll stand corrected but from what I have quickly tried to establish this too is six years?

This is irrelevant. Since the claim is not a claim for breach of contract, the Irish limitation period for claims in contract does not matter.

And finally,
Do you have or know what Ryanair's T's and C's were at your time of booking especially with regard to any claim? I know they have changed recently to try and dissuade potential claimants and are their first line of defence in such ' timescale cases'. Were they as distinct then?

I doubt they have changed significantly, but if the OP gives the date of the booking, we could probably pull them off web.archive.org

a16003

Dr_Watson wrote: »

a16003,
Well done to you for that. Why don't more people use the IAA? Because the NEB can only 'help' if the delayed flight/ denied boarding occurs in their territory.
Any delay occurring using any airline departing anywhere other than Ireland and the IAA can't really help.
Good to hear your case was unusually straightforward to reach an end though.

Ah, right. Didn't realise that. I thought it just referred to the country's aviation authority of where the airline is registered. Yes, my flight did leave from Dublin so that makes sense.

Dr_Watson

jimcbob wrote: »

I doubt the More decision is relevant because they aren't claiming, as I understand it, that the 2 year time-bar in the Montreal Convention applies. They are saying that a contractual time bar applies. Although that happens to be 2 years as well, that doesn't mean that More applies: there could be a contractual time bar of 18 months or 3 years.

As a matter of English law, there is (usually) nothing to stop the parties agreeing a time limit for claims by way of contract. Nothing in More deals with the question of whether contractual time bars are effective.



This is irrelevant. Since the claim is not a claim for breach of contract, the Irish limitation period for claims in contract does not matter.



I doubt they have changed significantly, but if the OP gives the date of the booking, we could probably pull them off web.archive.org

Hmm,
Jimcbob, I see your point entirely, so maybe the best form of attack is going down the unfair contract route as you noted in post 491.
I would be tempted to keep More in there as ' an alternative'.
And also state that county court judgments are not precedent.

Slightly off tangent ' breach of contact'. Ryanair accepted a booking to get jsmac from 'point A to B' at a set time.
They failed to do this - so breach of contract? And so a claim under the regulation that aims to protect passengers from delay/ denied boarding within the specified timescales of the law of the country of the air carrier concerned?

Might have gone too far off there.....

JPears

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Hmm,
Jimcbob, I see your point entirely, so maybe the best form of attack is going down the unfair contract route as you noted in post 491.
I would be tempted to keep More in there as ' an alternative'.
And also state that county court judgments are not precedent.

Slightly off tangent ' breach of contact'. Ryanair accepted a booking to get jsmac from 'point A to B' at a set time.
They failed to do this - so breach of contract? And so a claim under the regulation that aims to protect passengers from delay/ denied boarding within the specified timescales of the law of the country of the air carrier concerned?

Might have gone too far off there.....

I find it hard to believe that RA can lawfully simply ignore an EC law that is designed to protect passengers, simply because they have written their T&Cs to say so. I'd like to see my profession try such a thing when they are up before the beak!

dxc_chappie

JPears wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that RA can lawfully simply ignore an EC law that is designed to protect passengers, simply because they have written their T&Cs to say so.

They can't. Article 15 of EC261 prohibits carriers from trying that trick.

JPears

So this is where it gets really frustrating for the claimant as airlines try every angle including blatant lies and dishonesty, to get the claimant to give up.
So unprofessional, I wonder if they realise the impact on their business? Do they even care