Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

JPears

Medis111 wrote: »

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.

Is that the basis of their defence?
So weather conditions elsewhere cause an EC on whole fleet?
Sounds desperate, clerly they haven't digested reg 261/2004 fully.
Here's a quote fro razorsedge:
It's in preamble (14) of EU261/2004
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...4R0261:EN:HTML

(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

Perhaps you should pay your fee, start preparing your bundle and shoot RA down in flames in court. Or you may have to drop it and walk away. Doesn't prevent you from starting the claim again at a later date.

JPears

Myself and others would be happy to look at the defence cited by RA if you PM us with it?

Medis111

JPears wrote: »

Myself and others would be happy to look at the defence cited by RA if you PM us with it?

Don't remember the exact defense since its been so long ago but that's the idea behind it, they basically said the fog had a knock on effect on their fleet.


I can send it to you in PM once scanned in. I think I will pay the fee, write another letter to the court and see if they change their mind again. Even if I don't win at least I will waste some time for RA.

Thanks for your responses.

Dr_Watson

Medis111 wrote: »

Don't remember the exact defense since its been so long ago but that's the idea behind it, they basically said the fog had a knock on effect on their fleet.


I can send it to you in PM once scanned in. I think I will pay the fee, write another letter to the court and see if they change their mind again. Even if I don't win at least I will waste some time for RA.

Thanks for your responses.

Medis111,
Ok, thanks for that and now we have something to work with.
You firstly do have a legitimate case within the reasons as you described, the circumstances that Ryanair have described to you do not constitute an acceptable EC, regardless of the fact that meteorological events have been included in their defence.

Secondly, you sound unsure of Leeds County Court and the way the case has been handled thus far, I can’t blame you for that but it does sound like there has been some discrepancies in your submissions to court, and certainly some misunderstanding from them, firstly about the process you are trying to follow, and then, about some of the recently published high profile cases and whether this is relevant to your case or not.
You are left with a decision to make:
1. Carry on and attempt to firstly persuade the court that no oral hearing needs to be held.
2. Carry on and attempt to negotiate the oral hearing (and pay the further cost of this) on your own.
3. Not reply to the court or ask that the case be dropped (forfeiting your fee to date) and not carrying on.
4. Not reply to the court or ask that the case be dropped (forfeiting your fee to date) but with the intention of trying to resurrect your claim either through a NWNF company or through another court and one that does seem up to speed with the ESCP.

Option 4 I’m not sure of the validity of, your case hasn’t been heard, and the court are imposing another fee which they are stating you don’t have to pay if you don’t want to continue, so I believe just for this reason alone the option is valid but I’ll stand corrected.

Moving back to your case, Ryanair clearly do not have a valid EC, the wording of the regulation states at paragraph 14 where obligations on air carriers to pay compensation may be struck out, this includes the wording ‘meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned’ . As you have described RA’s defence to date, then this is clearly not applicable in your case as the weather was not an issue at your departing airport- and this is the basis of your response to RA’s ‘answer’ should you continue.
There are cases where this has been argued effectively, but your main concern at the moment is to weigh up your options and decide which way to go.
I feel sorry for you if you do not believe you can negotiate this further, personally I’d be looking at Option 4 and then giving the guys at Bott and Co a call, but, along with JPears I’d be happy to take a look at RA’s response to date and then guide you on how to tear it to bits.
Hope this helps
Over to you.

NoviceAngel

Dr_Watson wrote: »

I feel sorry for you if you do not believe you can negotiate this further, personally I’d be looking at Option 4 and then giving the guys at Bott and Co a call, but, along with JPears I’d be happy to take a look at RA’s response to date and then guide you on how to tear it to bits.
Hope this helps
Over to you.

Medis111, a good offer of help there from two very able guys.

I just wanted to add, I wonder rather than withdraw the case as an option, and start over with NWNF Sols, I think you could let a good NWNF solicitors like Bott take the case over ONLY if you feel you can't represent yourself effectively in Court.

Vauban

The frustrations over process are entirely justified; the Court does not come out of this looking good. However, from the way the case is described your claim is very likely to succeed. So I would simply continue as you are - pay the hearing fee in the reasonable expectation that you are going to get it back when you win.

Medis111

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Medis111,
Ok, thanks for that and now we have something to work with.
You firstly do have a legitimate case within the reasons as you described, the circumstances that Ryanair have described to you do not constitute an acceptable EC, regardless of the fact that meteorological events have been included in their defence.

Secondly, you sound unsure of Leeds County Court and the way the case has been handled thus far, I can’t blame you for that but it does sound like there has been some discrepancies in your submissions to court, and certainly some misunderstanding from them, firstly about the process you are trying to follow, and then, about some of the recently published high profile cases and whether this is relevant to your case or not.
You are left with a decision to make:
1. Carry on and attempt to firstly persuade the court that no oral hearing needs to be held.
2. Carry on and attempt to negotiate the oral hearing (and pay the further cost of this) on your own.
3. Not reply to the court or ask that the case be dropped (forfeiting your fee to date) and not carrying on.
4. Not reply to the court or ask that the case be dropped (forfeiting your fee to date) but with the intention of trying to resurrect your claim either through a NWNF company or through another court and one that does seem up to speed with the ESCP.

Option 4 I’m not sure of the validity of, your case hasn’t been heard, and the court are imposing another fee which they are stating you don’t have to pay if you don’t want to continue, so I believe just for this reason alone the option is valid but I’ll stand corrected.

Moving back to your case, Ryanair clearly do not have a valid EC, the wording of the regulation states at paragraph 14 where obligations on air carriers to pay compensation may be struck out, this includes the wording ‘meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned’ . As you have described RA’s defence to date, then this is clearly not applicable in your case as the weather was not an issue at your departing airport- and this is the basis of your response to RA’s ‘answer’ should you continue.
There are cases where this has been argued effectively, but your main concern at the moment is to weigh up your options and decide which way to go.
I feel sorry for you if you do not believe you can negotiate this further, personally I’d be looking at Option 4 and then giving the guys at Bott and Co a call, but, along with JPears I’d be happy to take a look at RA’s response to date and then guide you on how to tear it to bits.
Hope this helps
Over to you.

Thanks for the answer. I think I will continue with the case, I have a lot of time to prepare and as you say RA does not have a valid EC. I will find the response from the RA either today or Friday (not sure which house its in) and send it across to you. I guess I will have to pay the fee now, but I will write another letter to the court to see what they have to say.

Medis111

Where can I find that paragraph 14 of the regulation please? I will add this to the letter that I will be sending next week. I think I have mentioned it before, but I want to be sure this time. thanks

JPears

We're ready to rip!
Well its paragraph 14 of reg 261/2004
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1417614608217&uri=CELEX:32004R0261
Previous link was defunct (bloody EU!)

Dr_Watson

Medis111 wrote: »

Where can I find that paragraph 14 of the regulation please? I will add this to the letter that I will be sending next week. I think I have mentioned it before, but I want to be sure this time. thanks

Medis111,
Pm'd you with some detail.