Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

Locodice

Very high winds/ashcloud. Other flights were diverted.

richardw

The ash cloud was 'extraordinary circumstances' so no compensation is due. Did you claim food and hotel costs? Or did you just stay at home?

Locodice

We got a different flight the next day.

richardw

Locodice, if Ryanair didn't refund your Article 9 of EU reg 261/2004 Right to Care costs, then contact them with the details and proof of expenditure.

karenelainehughes

2013competitions wrote: »

I am just writing my 4th letter to Ryanair. My opening paragraphs are:

This is my 4th complaint letter to you asking for compensation.

I am unhappy that your first reply dated 21/01/2013 stated I could not be compensated as my claim was over 2 years old, so I replied and proved that legally I am entitled to claim (please see the reasons in the body of this letter below). Then your second reply dated 30/01/2013 changed tactics and stated that I cannot claim compensation as the “flight was delayed for reasons outside of the control of the airline (extraordinary circumstances)”. So please tell me why I was given the “over 2 year” reason first, then when Ryanair realised I was right to claim, they devised yet another excuse not to pay?

Please tell me what the extraordinary circumstances were?
Please tell me the reason for my flight being delayed.

I wonder what excuse they will come up with now after I have advised them of the press coverage of the ruling from 31/01/2013 as well as previously using some of the relevant information from post #61 above.

I have to say, thank you so much to everyone who has posted on this forum/board as it really helped me to add to the template letters and personalise my responses.

Hi 2013 competitions, I was considering whether it would be better to try and pursue my compensation through a 3rd party co. and lose a % of any possible payment, however reading your post has made me wonder whether it's worth going back to them in a similar vein to how you have... as the reply they gave me sounds the same as they gave you, ie. a delay of over 3.5 hours, June 2010, "... but you read our terms and conditions", "article 35 of the Montreal convention" etc etc. What was the content of your 2nd reply to them ... I'm guessing I go back and quote the ruling that says we have 6 years to claim, but I'm just not sure of the correct content for that letter... do you mind sharing what you wrote to them ..?

Locodice

richardw wrote: »

Locodice, if Ryanair didn't refund your Article 9 of EU reg 261/2004 Right to Care costs, then contact them with the details and proof of expenditure.

It was Ryanair who put us on the new flight, we didn't have to purchase another ticket or anything. We just had to travel for Glasgow to Manchester.

blondmark

This information has been redacted

Fletchasketch

This is encouraging. I'm tempted to go down this route myself.

Another poster suggested that we might have more gravitas by putting in a joint claim/forming a consumer group? Does anybody want to do this/know how we would go about it?

2013competitions

karenelainehughes wrote: »

Hi 2013 competitions, I was considering whether it would be better to try and pursue my compensation through a 3rd party co. and lose a % of any possible payment, however reading your post has made me wonder whether it's worth going back to them in a similar vein to how you have... as the reply they gave me sounds the same as they gave you, ie. a delay of over 3.5 hours, June 2010, "... but you read our terms and conditions", "article 35 of the Montreal convention" etc etc. What was the content of your 2nd reply to them ... I'm guessing I go back and quote the ruling that says we have 6 years to claim, but I'm just not sure of the correct content for that letter... do you mind sharing what you wrote to them ..?

Hi, of course I don't mind. To be honest, I just keep adding at the top of the original letter with the words "I quoted in my last letter:" then just have the previous' letters texts in. This is the whole of my 4th letter, but I have obviously deleted the names and details of passengers & myself. I CANNOT TAKE ANY CREDIT FOR THIS LETTER AT ALL, AS I JUST USED INFORMATION & TEMPLATES FROM THIS WEBSITE & FORUM TO WRITE THIS. :beer:

MY NAME
MY ADDRESS
MY POSTCODE

4th February 2013

Ryanair Ltd.
Registered Office:
Ryanair Corporate Head Office
Dublin Airport
Co. Dublin
Ireland

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Compensation claim for delayed flight
Ryanair Confirmation Number (or booking reference No): xxxxxx

Thank you for your second reply letter which I received via email. Yet again, I am asking that you please update your correspondence records as the address stated on your letter was my address from over 2 years ago. My current address is at the top of this letter. This is my 4th complaint letter to you asking for compensation.

I am unhappy that your first reply dated 21/01/2013 stated I could not be compensated as my claim was over 2 years old, so I replied and proved that legally I am entitled to claim (please see the reasons in the body of this letter below). Then your second reply dated 30/01/2013 changed tactics and stated that I cannot claim compensation as the “flight was delayed for reasons outside of the control of the airline (extraordinary circumstances)”. So please tell me why I was given the “over 2 year” reason first, then when Ryanair realised I was right to claim, they devised yet another excuse not to pay?

Please tell me what the extraordinary circumstances were? Please tell me the reason for my flight being delayed.

Do you have an email I could email these letters to instead of paying expensive postal costs for recorded delivery to Ireland please, as I do not want to give Ryanair any possible excuse that they haven’t received my letters.

I have found these web pages online which stated that on 31st January 2013, The European Court of Justice reaffirmed rules which state airlines face an obligation to provide care, even in such "extraordinary circumstances". :

(as I am a forum newbie, I am unable to post links in threads yet, but I just Googled this info then copied the web addresses into my letter)


I originally wrote the below in my second and third letters to Ryanair:

After seeking advice, I would like to bring to your attention that the UK law of a claim period of 6 years is still in effect for this claim.

Below is some further information to further support my claim.

The Judgement of the Court in the third chamber dated 22/11/2012, specifically read and quote under regulation no:261/2004 item 14 copied verbatim:-

"Regulation no 261/2004 contains no provision fixing a time-limit for bringing actions to enforce the rights guaranteed by that regulation."

The statutory time limit in the UK is 6 years from the occurrence.

See also the Opinion of the Advocate General BOT publication delivered on 15/5/2012 case C-581/10 & C-629/10 where the airlines tried to impose a temporal affect, i.e. trying to block earlier cases. Quoted from page 12 of 14, items 73 & 74 copied below:-

73 The Court did not, in that judgement, limit the temporal effects of the judgement.

74 Consequently, there is no need, in my view, to limit the temporal effects of the judgement to be given in the present cases.

See also the final outcome of the above two cases C-581/10 & C-629/10 issued by the president of the Court dated 30/11/2012 see articles copied verbatim below:-

39 As to the actual principle of compensation of air passengers whose flight has been delayed by at least three hours, since nothing new which might call into question the interpretation that the court gave of those provisions in Sturgeon and Others has been presented by the parties to the disputes in the main proceedings, I do not see why the court should reconsider that interpretation.

49 Consequently, in the light of all these considerations, I take the view that articles 5,6 & 7, of that regulation are to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed and rely on the right to compensation laid down in article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a delayed flight, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is to say, they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.

73 The Court did not, in that judgement, limit the temporal effects of the judgement.

74 Consequently, there is no need, in my view, to limit the temporal effects of the judgement to be given in the present cases.

The Actual Judgement was issued on the 23rd October from the Grand Chamber case C-581/10 & C-629/10.(15 pages). see from the full document the following articles; 33,34,40,52,68,72,77,78,82,92,93,94.
Articles No 92, 93.94 copied verbatim below:

92. The interpretation requested by the high court of justice of England and Wales, Queens bench division (Administrative Court) in case C-629/10 concerns the right to compensation under regulation no 261/2004 payable to air passengers where they suffer, as a result of a delay to their flight, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. In that regard, it is clear from paragraph 61 of Sturgeon and others that air passengers enjoy such a right.

93 It must be stated that, in that judgement, the Court did not limit the temporal effects of the interpretation of Regulation no 261/2004 concerning the right to compensation referred to in 92 above.

94 Accordingly, there is no need to limit the temporal effects of the present judgement.

See page 14 & 15 final judgement statement in articles 1 & 2.

As I have quoted these articles, Ryanair cannot legally dispute the judgement of the Grand Chamber of the ECJ. Where an airline such as Ryanair claims that Article 35 of the Montreal Convention means that claims should be brought within 2 years of the date of delay, this commentary from 2 solicitors at Stephenson Harwood has been brought to my attention: (as I am a forum newbie, I am unable to post links in threads yet, but I just Googled this info then copied the web addresses into my letter)

Clearly I have a full six years to make a claim form the date of the incident via the UK's MCOL.
This is the link to take you straight to the InfoCuria - Case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) on the 22 November 2012.
(as I am a forum newbie, I am unable to post links in threads yet, but I just Googled this info then copied the web addresses into my letter)

Where an airline such as Ryanair claims that Article 35 of the Montreal Convention means that claims should be brought within 2 years of the date of delay, this commentary from 2 solicitors at Stephenson Harwood has been brought to my attention:

(as I am a forum newbie, I am unable to post links in threads yet, but I just Googled this info then copied the web addresses into my letter)

In case this article is withdrawn from public view the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

It is anticipated that the delivery of the present judgment will prompt a flood of claims by passengers in relation to flights delayed for 3 hours or more going back to 17 February 2005.

That raises the question of how far back passengers can claim compensation for delayed flights. There is no guidance on this point from either the CJEU or the Regulation. It may be possible to defend old claims for compensation on the basis that they are time-barred under the laws of limitation or prescription that apply to those claims. By way of example, if a claim is brought before the English courts by a passenger for compensation on a flight that was delayed for more than 3 hours in March 2006, the carrier can argue that that claim should not proceed, because the relevant limitation period for bringing such claims – 6 years – has expired. (We may have more clarity on this point soon when the CJEU rules in the case of More v KLM on whether the limitation period for claims under the Regulation should be two years as per the Montreal Convention, but as the CJEU has ruled that claims under the Regulation fall outside the scope of Montreal, this is unlikely).

As the article states, there is a current ECJ case (Cuadrench More v KLM Case C-139/11) where the judgment is due to be handed down on 22nd November which will clarify the time limit issue with respect to the Montreal Convention but I believe the ECJ will rule as they have in the recent judgment that it is the Member States legal process which will determine the time limit for claims which in the UK is 6 years from the date of delay before a legal claim becomes time barred.
As I complained in writing back in 2008 and again last month (30/12/2012), without a satisfactory response, I have decided to contact the CAA. My recorded delivery letter (dated 30/12/2012 ) which was received by Ryanair stated:

“I am writing regarding flight (xxxxx) on dd/mm/20yy from (AIRPORT NAME AND AIRPORT CODE) to (AIRPORT NAME & AIRPORT CODE) with the scheduled departure time of (hh:mm). This flight arrived over (x) hours late at (AIRPORT NAME & AIRPORT CODE).

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Tui & others v CAA confirmed the applicability of compensation for delay as set out in the Sturgeon case. As such, I am seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004 for this delayed flight.

The (No of passengers) passengers in the party were (listed full names of passengers)

My scheduled flight length was 1220 km kilometres; therefore I am seeking €250 per delayed passenger in my party. The total is €1000 for all passengers.

During the delay the passengers in my party were not provided with any refreshments hotel accommodation which meant we incurred a cost of purchasing our own. Please reimburse/compensate us for this, especially as there was a child in our party.

I look forward to a full response to this letter within 14 days. If I do not receive a satisfactory response I intend to pursue my complaint further, which could mean taking it to court.”


Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

AS I SAID, I HAVE REALLY COPIED ALL THE INFORMATION FROM OTHERS AND JUST KEPT REPEATING MYSELF WITH EACH REPLY ADDING MORE CURRENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS EACH TIME.

I can appreciate that some people are not pleased :mad: that people like myself are claiming as it could potentially increase the price of future airline tickets, and respect everyone's opinion. However, we are all entitled to exercise our rights, and I for one, will learn from my mistakes and might wait to save up more to afford a more reputable airline or holiday in England instead of paying peanuts to get a monkey service :idea:

blondmark

This information has been redacted