Ryan Air delayed flight compensation dispute taken to small claims court

moneysavingwelshman

Hi all.

I've read a lot of these posts before for ideas on how to get my 250 euros compensation for a delayed flight, but now I need some serious advise. Any help on this kind of thing would be greatly appreciated.

In Sept 2012 I requested compensation from Ryan Air about a flight delay from Madrid to Stanstead of more than 3hrs. Ryan Air said it was because of a technical fault and they weren't to blame. They never gave me details of this 'fault' despite numerous letters. I then contacted the Civil Aviation Authority, The Commision for Aviation Regulation in Ireland, The Irish Aviation Authority and Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aerea in Spain. The AESA in Spain have written 2 letters to me, the last stating that they have investigated my claim and determined that Ryan Air should pay this compensation. Both the AESA and I wrote to Ryan Air again to tell them this but they still said they weren't at fault. So I took the matter to the small claims court.

Since then I've received a letter from 'Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants Ltd' telling me that my claim is invalid as I issued it online with MCOL. They went on to say that it would have been valid if I'd issued it either by the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC) or under the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The letter continues to explain the extraordinary circumstances that caused my flight delay - the details which until now have never been explained to me despite a year of asking.

The last paragraph states that they "believe there can be no winners in litigation of this nature" and advises me not to pursue my invalid claim and refrain from initiating proceedings elsewhere. There's also a name and number I can call at this company if I wish "to discuss the matter further on a without prejudiced basis".

So I guess my questions are:
- Has anyone else got to this star with Ryan Air compensation claim and if so what did they do?
- Has anyone ever had dealings with 'Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants Ltd'?
- Why would Ryan Air wait until now to explain what the extraordinary circumstances were?
- Why would they get these people to contact me if they are in the right and I'm wrong?
- Should I be scared off or should I hold my ground and wait for a court date?

Thanks for reading and hope someone out there can advise me.

Cheers

C

Caz3121

you will find the Ryanair thread here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4384705

Dr_Watson

Moneysavingwelshman,
Firstly as Caz3121 says post this on the Ryanair thread and have a good read while you are there.
I'm surprised that you have been able to start a claim using MCOL I thought that because Ryanair are obviously an Irish company with head offices in Dublin, Ireland,you would have had to put their address in Ireland on the MCOL form and this would then have been rejected?
I haven't got a clue who Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants Ltd are but find their response puzzling.
I believe they may be correct in saying your claim via MCOL is invalid but check this first. ESCP is the way to sue Ryanair. See blondmarks posts on the Ryanair thread as to why and how to do this.

So what are Ryanair's reasons for the delay? Post this on here so we can help further.
The fact that Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants Ltd are telling you to stop now speaks volumes. Do exactly the opposite I'd say.
You say that AESA have investigated your case and determined that compensation should be paid, do you know if Ryanair actually responded to AESA when they will have asked them to? If so and AESA have recommended that compensation should be paid this could be a useful tool in your favour.

JPears

moneysavingwelshman wrote: »

Hi all.

I've read a lot of these posts before for ideas on how to get my 250 euros compensation for a delayed flight, but now I need some serious advise. Any help on this kind of thing would be greatly appreciated.

In Sept 2012 I requested compensation from Ryan Air about a flight delay from Madrid to Stanstead of more than 3hrs. Ryan Air said it was because of a technical fault and they weren't to blame. They never gave me details of this 'fault' despite numerous letters. I then contacted the Civil Aviation Authority, The Commision for Aviation Regulation in Ireland, The Irish Aviation Authority and Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aerea in Spain. The AESA in Spain have written 2 letters to me, the last stating that they have investigated my claim and determined that Ryan Air should pay this compensation. Both the AESA and I wrote to Ryan Air again to tell them this but they still said they weren't at fault. So I took the matter to the small claims court.

Since then I've received a letter from 'Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants Ltd' telling me that my claim is invalid as I issued it online with MCOL. They went on to say that it would have been valid if I'd issued it either by the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC) or under the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The letter continues to explain the extraordinary circumstances that caused my flight delay - the details which until now have never been explained to me despite a year of asking.

The last paragraph states that they "believe there can be no winners in litigation of this nature" and advises me not to pursue my invalid claim and refrain from initiating proceedings elsewhere. There's also a name and number I can call at this company if I wish "to discuss the matter further on a without prejudiced basis".

So I guess my questions are:
- Has anyone else got to this star with Ryan Air compensation claim and if so what did they do?
- Has anyone ever had dealings with 'Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants Ltd'?
- Why would Ryan Air wait until now to explain what the extraordinary circumstances were?
- Why would they get these people to contact me if they are in the right and I'm wrong?
- Should I be scared off or should I hold my ground and wait for a court date?

Thanks for reading and hope someone out there can advise me.

Cheers

C

Hmm I wonder how many posts you read if you went thru MCOL as the Ryanair thread has consistently shown that ESCP is the only way forward.

moneysavingwelshman

Thanks Caz3121 - I'll post on that Ryan Air specific thread you mentioned.

And thanks to you too Dr Watson. Here's the extract from the Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants Ltd letter about Ryanair's reasons for the delay:

"I would also take this opportunity to refer, on a 'without prejudice' basis, to the delay in the operation of flight FR5997 on 301h August 2012 from Madrid to London-Stansted which was caused, as a fact, "by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken" despite AESA's letter to you recommending the payment of "compensation" under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 ('the Regulation'). This was not a matter of "mechanical failure" but the unprovoked - and unforeseeable - failure of the refuel manifold on the aircraft originally scheduled to operate flight FR5997 that afternoon leading to a fuel leak, this being an event of the type specifically set out in points 24 and 26 of the European Commission's recent Guidance Document (copy enclosed for ease of reference) as being indicative of "extraordinary circumstances" under which the air carrier concerned would decline to pay "compensation" under Article 7 of the Regulation, despite AESA's 'recommendation'."

Dr_Watson

Moneysavingwelshman,
So a failure of the refuel manifold. So a technical reason for delay, nothing extraordinary about that, so ignore what Aviation & Tourism Law Consultants are saying and continue.
Disregard their spin about the recent 'guideline document' -this is not legally binding and carries no weight. The ECJ ruling in the Wallentin case is and is the basis of your argument.
AESA being the authority charged with investigating these cases have recommended in your favour regarding compensation. This piece of evidence should also be presented to court.
You haven't said if you know whether or not Ryanair responded to AESA- if they did then your recommendation from AESA is extremely useful.

moneysavingwelshman

I'm not sure if Ryan Air replied to AESA but they got their recommendation letterand told me this in their last letter:

"I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 02/07/2013.
Ryanair are now in receipt of the AESA's recommendation for the above claim.
I regret that on this occasion, Ryanair cannot comply with the board's recommendation, as we believe that their decision is outside the scope of the EU Regulation 261/2004."

Dr_Watson

Hmm, seen that before somewhere.....
Ryanair are trying to use the recently published guidelines ( and they will in court too) to argue that AESA are wrong.
These guidelines are worthless and you should argue this strongly when the time arrives.
AESA are no mugs and although they can't make the airlines pay up,they are a highly respected authority and their decision should be brought to attention to the judge to respectfully consider.

Maddyisretired

I have reached the same stage as "Moneysavingwelshman". My case is listed in the Reading County Court under the ESCP procedure for 10th Jan 2014 and I need to pay the court fee of £80 by 18th Nov in order to continue. My delay was over 13 hours on a flight from Granada to Stanstead. The reason given was mechanical failure which Ryanair are claiming was an exceptional circumstance as a sealed unit on the landing gear, not subject to normal maintenance, was leaking. We were treated very badly, by the Ryanair staff ;no food, no hotel; no information, nothing offered. My claim dates back more than two years so they are also claiming that because I ticked the box on their terms and conditions Para 15.2 I have waived my right to claim under EC regulation No. 261/2004. I have had a protracted correspondence with Ryanair over some five months...I send a letter in hard copy paying postage and they take at least a month to send a reply by email with stock excuses and no answers to my queries. It was not until I started the ESCP that I got any answers on the "technical fault".
Ryanair's case includes two County Court judgements relating to the two years; Clissold and R. and Joerg and R.. the latter refers to the More v KLM case but does not discuss Article 15 of 261/2004 nor the distinction between damages and compensation, so I still believe I have a case to argue.
All the information on this forum is very useful in defending my case so many thanks to contributors.
The Judge had suggested that mediation would be appropriate in my case but Ryanair declined this and yesterday I received a letter from a solicitor authorised for Ryanair. He continues to state that my case is out of time but adds the following paragraph;
"Whilst I earnestly believe that there can be "no winners" in litigation of this nature, I am personally concerned that this was a particularly long overnight delay for you both at Granada and accordingly if you would care to call me on my direct U.K telephone line prior to 18th November to discuss, on a "without prejudice" basis the possibility of an ex-gratia resolution of this matter, please do not hesitate to do so."
I propose to telephone them next week but would appreciate any further advice in the meantime.
Many thanks
Maddyisretired

Dr_Watson

Maddyisretired,
Personally I'd give them a ring and see what they have to offer, it may be diddly squat or it may be a resolution that suits you. If you don't ask you don't know.
If you don't accept it, do take notes of the conversation you have- this further proves despite RA's refusal of mediation that you have accepted their offer to try to settle but what was on offer you couldn't accept.
If you don't accept tell their solicitor that you will be paying the £80 court fee and start to prepare your written submission for court.
You have obviously done your homework and are going down the right route as to the basis of your arguments to support your claim.
The reason for delay is a tech fault - nothing extraordinary there.
Wallentin is your base to counter this
The two year limitation claim is also nonsense. See some of the earlier posts on here about Clissold (blondmarks posts) and the More ruling counteracts this. As you rightly state article 15 of 261/2004 needs ramming down their necks.
Last thing put this on the dedicated Ryanair thread.

Maddyisretired

Just an update. I spoke to RA's Solicitor, who was very reasonable and helpful, not at all intimidating, and I have settled out of court.
Many thanks again to all the helpful posts