Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

Spiceislander

Dr Watson, Thanks very much for the information. I'll have a look and submit a claim to Ryanair.
My only concern was that I may be wasting my time as they have already replied 18 months ago and denied liability.
The problem with a denial of liability due to unexpected safety/technical problems is that the Lay Person doesn't know whether or not he is being lied to as one would expect them to tell the truth.
Is if reasonable to expect the company to give more precise details of the cause of the delay?

Dr_Watson

Spiceislander wrote: »

Dr Watson, Thanks very much for the information. I'll have a look and submit a claim to Ryanair.
My only concern was that I may be wasting my time as they have already replied 18 months ago and denied liability.
The problem with a denial of liability due to unexpected safety/technical problems is that the Lay Person doesn't know whether or not he is being lied to as one would expect them to tell the truth.
Is if reasonable to expect the company to give more precise details of the cause of the delay?

Spiceislander,
Don't be concerned about your previous dialogue with RA, from what I can gather from what you have wrote, you asked the question and they gave you their standard answer.
You are right in what you say, the average person does not know whether RA are telling the truth, take a guess at my opinion if you like...
Is it unreasonable to expect some more details about the delay and the causes so you can determine if this is a genuine case?
Of course not, but this is the world of 261/2004 claims and reasonable and honest is not what you are dealing with.
You can get to the facts though- but only by following the process and taking RA to court, then and only then will you get answers, but even then these have been known to be a 'little bit' shy of the truth.
But at this point you'll know what you are up against, and the good people on here will guide you in your response to this.
If you haven't already, have a good read of the case law that surrounds this, Huzar, Wallentin and Dawson for starters, then you'll know when RA submit their answer to your claim whether or not they are telling the truth....
Good luck and keep going

Medis111

Hi all,

Its been almost a year since I filled in all the forms and took Ryanair to court in the UK. I've received a letter yesterday saying that there will be a hearing on the 20th of April 2015. I was under the impression that there is no oral hearing using European Small Claims Procedure and that the judge decides the outcome of the case with a paper determination?
I rang the court today but they are more useless than Aquaman! They told me that it is up to the judge to decide if there will be a hearing or not, they also want me to pay another £80 for this hearing that I did not ask for! I really don't want to waste my time and taking a day off work.

Is there anything I can do to change this? I've been told by the court many times that my case is being passed on for the decision to the judge, but it was always sent back for some stupid reason. They never told me anything about a hearing.

Do you think Ryanair will actually waste their time and attend this? Should I actually go? It does say that I don't have to if I don't want to.

Thanks in advance!

Dr_Watson

Medis111 wrote: »

Hi all,

Its been almost a year since I filled in all the forms and took Ryanair to court in the UK. I've received a letter yesterday saying that there will be a hearing on the 20th of April 2015. I was under the impression that there is no oral hearing using European Small Claims Procedure and that the judge decides the outcome of the case with a paper determination?
I rang the court today but they are more useless than Aquaman! They told me that it is up to the judge to decide if there will be a hearing or not, they also want me to pay another £80 for this hearing that I did not ask for! I really don't want to waste my time and taking a day off work.

Is there anything I can do to change this? I've been told by the court many times that my case is being passed on for the decision to the judge, but it was always sent back for some stupid reason. They never told me anything about a hearing.

Do you think Ryanair will actually waste their time and attend this? Should I actually go? It does say that I don't have to if I don't want to.

Thanks in advance!

Medis111,
ESCP is a process that should be determined by a written hearing, but there are exceptions to this.
One is if the litigant requests an oral hearing, a simple check box on Form A asks this question - are you sure you declined this?
Secondly is if the Judge feels that representation from each party would help him/her reason the arguments that are being presented.
I can't see any reason, especially now after Huzar and Dawson why this would be needed from any district judge, the Supreme Court has spoken on the two most argued reasons for airlines determination not to pay compensation in line with 261/2004, and as we all know the rulings didn't favour the airlines.

So why has the judge decided on an oral hearing in your case? Again I must be presumptuous as to why and I can only think that it is because your case (I think ) had weather elements that you are arguing against and Ryanair are including as part of their defence.
So a meteorological event, which can be argued as an EC by Ryanair.

I may be wrong with this, I did send you a PM (at your request to look
into your case) but I received no reply.
I still don't know the details regarding your claim, or the issues surrounding this so I'm struggling to make a decent fist of this.

If a meteorological EC is been argued by Ryanair in their defence then I can see the reasons why the Judge has requested an oral hearing. Any decent judge should still know that this could be a valid reason to deny your claim, but also that it needs to be proven, and not just said and that the reverse burden is on Ryanair to prove that this was a genuine EC.
The judge may feel that written representation alone may not be enough for him/her to determine this and so has requested the oral hearing.
Of course just because RA say it was doesn't mean it was, your job is to disprove this.

Regarding the £80 extra fee, I would be speaking to the court to firstly confirm the oral hearing, and if not at your request, ask as to why you have to pay any further fees for an oral hearing that you don't want.

Will RA turn up? You bet they will, they are desperate to get ESCP litigants into court or at least the threat of it, so they can bully you and intimidate you into giving up.

How this continues is up to you.

JPears

Medis111 wrote: »

Hi all,

Its been almost a year since I filled in all the forms and took Ryanair to court in the UK. I've received a letter yesterday saying that there will be a hearing on the 20th of April 2015. I was under the impression that there is no oral hearing using European Small Claims Procedure and that the judge decides the outcome of the case with a paper determination?
I rang the court today but they are more useless than Aquaman! They told me that it is up to the judge to decide if there will be a hearing or not, they also want me to pay another £80 for this hearing that I did not ask for! I really don't want to waste my time and taking a day off work.

Is there anything I can do to change this? I've been told by the court many times that my case is being passed on for the decision to the judge, but it was always sent back for some stupid reason. They never told me anything about a hearing.

Do you think Ryanair will actually waste their time and attend this? Should I actually go? It does say that I don't have to if I don't want to.

Thanks in advance!

Medis, was this case subject to a stay? If not why has it taken so long (year?) Guides would suggest this whole process should have taken no more than 3-4 months maximum, as there are clear 30 day time periods for each process step, including judgement.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/protection_of_consumers/l16028_en.htm

Medis111

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Medis111,
ESCP is a process that should be determined by a written hearing, but there are exceptions to this.
One is if the litigant requests an oral hearing, a simple check box on Form A asks this question - are you sure you declined this?
Secondly is if the Judge feels that representation from each party would help him/her reason the arguments that are being presented.
I can't see any reason, especially now after Huzar and Dawson why this would be needed from any district judge, the Supreme Court has spoken on the two most argued reasons for airlines determination not to pay compensation in line with 261/2004, and as we all know the rulings didn't favour the airlines.

So why has the judge decided on an oral hearing in your case? Again I must be presumptuous as to why and I can only think that it is because your case (I think ) had weather elements that you are arguing against and Ryanair are including as part of their defence.
So a meteorological event, which can be argued as an EC by Ryanair.

I may be wrong with this, I did send you a PM (at your request to look
into your case) but I received no reply.
I still don't know the details regarding your claim, or the issues surrounding this so I'm struggling to make a decent fist of this.

If a meteorological EC is been argued by Ryanair in their defence then I can see the reasons why the Judge has requested an oral hearing. Any decent judge should still know that this could be a valid reason to deny your claim, but also that it needs to be proven, and not just said and that the reverse burden is on Ryanair to prove that this was a genuine EC.
The judge may feel that written representation alone may not be enough for him/her to determine this and so has requested the oral hearing.
Of course just because RA say it was doesn't mean it was, your job is to disprove this.

Regarding the £80 extra fee, I would be speaking to the court to firstly confirm the oral hearing, and if not at your request, ask as to why you have to pay any further fees for an oral hearing that you don't want.

Will RA turn up? You bet they will, they are desperate to get ESCP litigants into court or at least the threat of it, so they can bully you and intimidate you into giving up.

How this continues is up to you.

Sorry for not replying to your message, I haven't been on these forums for a long time. The weather conditions were irrelevant as the bad weather appeared in Stockholm on in London, so basically the Stockholm flight could not return to London and go to Copenhagen. RA just took our plane and flew it to Copenhagen instead, therefore we had to wait for it to come back for our flight. I argued that the weather conditions in Stockholm had nothing to do with our flight as our plane was already waiting in London and it was RA's decision to take our plane and delay the flight.

Why it has been going on for a year? Well, the court seems to be useless and ignored my letters and could not answer my questions on the phone. I have received a letter from the court eventually stating that the my case will not be passed for judgement until the Huzar vs Jet2 outcome is known. I wrote to the court saying that these 2 cases are completely different, in mine RA is blaming meteorological conditions and in Huzar's, Jet2 were blaming technical problems. But my letters once again were ignored and they told me I will have to wait for the outcome of Huzar Vs jet2.

Once Huzar won I thought "Great news for me, I should be receiving a letter from the court soon". Oh boy I was naive, after ringing them for months some rude women told me that my case is being passed for judgement, but obviously it dint.

After Huzar won, RA wrote a letter to the court saying that this case is completely irrelevant and it seems this worked for them. I weren't bothered at first as obviously they thought Jet2 would win.

So my question is why my letters were ignored about the irrelevance of that case but as soon as RA sends one it completely changes everything.

I rang them yesterday and they said I have to pay the £80 for the hearing which obviously I don't want for obvious reasons (I'm not a lawyer and I don't stand a chance against RA's representatives).

Thanks,

Dr_Watson

Medis111 wrote: »

Sorry for not replying to your message, I haven't been on these forums for a long time. The weather conditions were irrelevant as the bad weather appeared in Stockholm on in London, so basically the Stockholm flight could not return to London and go to Copenhagen. RA just took our plane and flew it to Copenhagen instead, therefore we had to wait for it to come back for our flight. I argued that the weather conditions in Stockholm had nothing to do with our flight as our plane was already waiting in London and it was RA's decision to take our plane and delay the flight.

Why it has been going on for a year? Well, the court seems to be useless and ignored my letters and could not answer my questions on the phone. I have received a letter from the court eventually stating that the my case will not be passed for judgement until the Huzar vs Jet2 outcome is known. I wrote to the court saying that these 2 cases are completely different, in mine RA is blaming meteorological conditions and in Huzar's, Jet2 were blaming technical problems. But my letters once again were ignored and they told me I will have to wait for the outcome of Huzar Vs jet2.

Once Huzar won I thought "Great news for me, I should be receiving a letter from the court soon". Oh boy I was naive, after ringing them for months some rude women told me that my case is being passed for judgement, but obviously it dint.

After Huzar won, RA wrote a letter to the court saying that this case is completely irrelevant and it seems this worked for them. I weren't bothered at first as obviously they thought Jet2 would win.

So my question is why my letters were ignored about the irrelevance of that case but as soon as RA sends one it completely changes everything.

I rang them yesterday and they said I have to pay the £80 for the hearing which obviously I don't want for obvious reasons (I'm not a lawyer and I don't stand a chance against RA's representatives).

Thanks,

Medis111,
I'm really struggling with this.
I still have no idea of your flight, where from, where to, and a logical explanation of why RA are saying your flight was delayed.
London, Stockholm, Copenhagen? I have no idea. So for the last time, give us a clue.

Huzar and Jet2 may be irrelevant in your case and any similarities -they may be none. But there are other cases that have been argued around the defence of meteorological conditions, and you should be finding these and using these as a template for your defence.
But if you feel you can't win then maybe not bother..

JPears

Medis111 wrote: »

Sorry for not replying to your message, I haven't been on these forums for a long time. The weather conditions were irrelevant as the bad weather appeared in Stockholm on in London, so basically the Stockholm flight could not return to London and go to Copenhagen. RA just took our plane and flew it to Copenhagen instead, therefore we had to wait for it to come back for our flight. I argued that the weather conditions in Stockholm had nothing to do with our flight as our plane was already waiting in London and it was RA's decision to take our plane and delay the flight.

Why it has been going on for a year? Well, the court seems to be useless and ignored my letters and could not answer my questions on the phone. I have received a letter from the court eventually stating that the my case will not be passed for judgement until the Huzar vs Jet2 outcome is known. I wrote to the court saying that these 2 cases are completely different, in mine RA is blaming meteorological conditions and in Huzar's, Jet2 were blaming technical problems. But my letters once again were ignored and they told me I will have to wait for the outcome of Huzar Vs jet2.

Once Huzar won I thought "Great news for me, I should be receiving a letter from the court soon". Oh boy I was naive, after ringing them for months some rude women told me that my case is being passed for judgement, but obviously it dint.

After Huzar won, RA wrote a letter to the court saying that this case is completely irrelevant and it seems this worked for them. I weren't bothered at first as obviously they thought Jet2 would win.

So my question is why my letters were ignored about the irrelevance of that case but as soon as RA sends one it completely changes everything.

I rang them yesterday and they said I have to pay the £80 for the hearing which obviously I don't want for obvious reasons (I'm not a lawyer and I don't stand a chance against RA's representatives).

Thanks,

Have you received a full defence and any witness statements from RA? Or a copy of any correspondance from RA to the Court?
I think you need to send a full and detailed letter to the court explaining, once again that your delay was due to an operational choice by RA to send your aircraft elsewhere. This is clearly NOT an EC, so irrespective of Huzar you have a valid and seemingly indefencable claim.
Ask for precise reasons why a hearing is considered necessary given the facts of the case.
Might be cheeky but valid to send a copy of those time frames in that document to the court asking why these have not been adhered to?
Possibly seek transfer to a court that knows what its doing?

Medis111

I will try to explain this, it is a bit confusing though.

I am making the cities up as this won't make any difference to you.

Here it goes.

We were to fly from London to Malta at 10 a.m but the flight was delayed until 4p.m. RA claims that our flight was delayed due to fog in Stockholm. My first question was, what does fog in Stockholm has to do with our flight? We are not flying anywhere near Stockholm and our aircraft wast coming from Stockholm to go to Malta as it was already in London. RA had another flight scheduled for 9 A.M - London-Copenhagen. This was delayed due to the fact that the Aircraft that was stranded in Stockholm could not get back on time. So RA instead of letting us board our plane chose to fly it to Copenhagen instead. Therefore we had to wait for that aircraft to go to Copenhagen and back to London and only then we were allowed to board it.
My argument was that RA have deliberately chosen to delay our flight since we were not directly affected by the fog in Stockholm. Furthermore the aircraft from Stockholm came back to London at approximately 2p.m but RA for some reason made us wait for the aircraft to come back from Copenhagen.

There is 4 pages from RA just talking about this.

You say Huzar and Jet2 may be irrelevant and I do agree. It was the Court that decided that in fact in was relevant for some reason and they made us wait for the outcome. The court made it clear on several occasions that as soon as Huzar and Jet2 is done our case will be passed for judgement. But it wasnt and they will not tell me why. they made us wait for a year and now they have changed their mind.

You must think why I even bother taking them to court since I can't even explain the reason for the delay and I fully agree. I know I am not really coherent (I have dyslexia) but it was my friend who replied to all the letters and he is much more coherent than I am.

I do feel I can win if there was no oral hearing.

I hope this makes sense and if not I will try one more time.

Thank you for you patience.

Medis111

JPears wrote: »

Have you received a full defence and any witness statements from RA? Or a copy of any correspondance from RA to the Court?
I think you need to send a full and detailed letter to the court explaining, once again that your delay was due to an operational choice by RA to send your aircraft elsewhere. This is clearly NOT an EC, so irrespective of Huzar you have a valid and seemingly indefencable claim.
Ask for precise reasons why a hearing is considered necessary given the facts of the case.
Might be cheeky but valid to send a copy of those time frames in that document to the court asking why these have not been adhered to?
Possibly seek transfer to a court that knows what its doing?

I have received a response from RA and they have admitted making amendments to the schedule and taking our plane elsewhere. In RA's defense it doesn't matter that we were not affected by the fog directly, their fleet was and therefore it is EC.

I completely agree with all your points. I would recommend avoiding Leeds county court, I dont understand how these people have jobs. They just keep repeating themselves over and over again. I have until 10th of December to pay the fee or the case is dropped completely. If I write a letter it will go past due date and the case will be dropped. They didn't give me a reason on the phone, just said the judge has decided, that's all they have to say.