Ryanair and chargeback and new flights

powerful_Rogue

MSE_Laura_F said:

mit2 said:

Good evening, I recently started a chargeback process for £1192.11  with Ryanair, due to my flight still going at Christmas and being unable to fly due to restrictions in Spain. I had a further flight booked in May , which I requested to move to October last Sunday , they did this at a further cost of £300, no problem. Today I have found that I can not access the flight on the app, after speaking to customer service they say that I have an outstanding balance due to the chargeback of £1192.11.  On investigating the new charge for the flights and the move ii comes to  exactly £1192.11, they are saying that if I want to fly in October I have to pay a further £1192.11, Have I just been done over by Ryanair??? is this legal? What are the chances that the new flight and the charge back are the same amount?

mit2, I'd be very interested in hearing more about this from you. Thanks for sharing this on the Forum - it's a shame I didn't spot it earlier.

Please send me a private message if you're willing to chat.

Thank you,

MSE Laura F

Doubt you'll hear anything as that poster hasn't been online since April.

Pollycat

I've seen a number of similar threads about the same thing.

JGB1955

The flight went - you didn't.  You've claimed (erroneously) via a chargeback, so still owe them the money.  You should have claimed on your travel insurance.

michael1234

Pollycat said:

I've seen a number of similar threads about the same thing.

Yes and sadly the opinion seems always the same: Ryanair are right and the OP is wrong and needs to stump up.

Unless we are a legal professionals in that area how can we offer "advice" ? As a laymen, it doesn't seem obvious at all that if I buy a service from a company that I also possibly owe money to, that company can accept my money for the service making it clear it will provide that service but once I've paid not provide the service citing previous debts.

Presumably it hinges on the detail of Ryanair's contract and whether the terms are fair. However, a consumer making a purchase for a flight online and being told they _are_ to receive that service seems to me hard for Ryanair to get out of. Certainly and in no way at all can it be obvious that Ryanair should not provide the second flight due to previous alleged debts.

My guess is Ryanair should not have accepted the second payment for the second flight.

CKhalvashi

michael1234 said:

Pollycat said:

I've seen a number of similar threads about the same thing.

Yes and sadly the opinion seems always the same: Ryanair are right and the OP is wrong and needs to stump up.

Unless we are a legal professionals in that area how can we offer "advice" ? As a laymen, it doesn't seem obvious at all that if I buy a service from a company that I also possibly owe money to, that company can accept my money for the service making it clear it will provide that service but once I've paid not provide the service citing previous debts.

Presumably it hinges on the detail of Ryanair's contract and whether the terms are fair. However, a consumer making a purchase for a flight online and being told they _are_ to receive that service seems to me hard for Ryanair to get out of. Certainly and in no way at all can it be obvious that Ryanair should not provide the second flight due to previous alleged debts.

My guess is Ryanair should not have accepted the second payment for the second flight.

The issue is that in my understanding of the legislation, Ryanair are correct until a judge declares the legislation is in breach of consumer rights legislation.

The other issue is that this will now need to be a UK judgement, although I'm not aware of this being challenged yet in the EU either.

A Russian case is currently going through court, however this was a domestic flight during the lockdown and while the arguments may be as valid, any judgement won't.

The only other case I'm aware of involves a Ukrainian company for an international flight, however this hinges on a contractual term that hasn't been followed by the airline in relation to the paper ticket (I can personally confirm the ticket wording has changed between 2020 and 2021 which is where this issue lies). Ukrainian law is virtually identical to the UK/EU, so this one may provide a better understanding of how a UK judge may act, but again it's not in the UK jurisdiction and the case does have substantial differences.

I have read Ryanair's conditions over the course of the last year and there was nothing in there that would strike me as not being contractually sound. That said, I'm not a lawyer, but do have a lot of experience with contracts in the leisure sector.

If someone wants to fight this as an unfair contract term they are welcome to do so, however due to the amounts involved I'm not actually sure either a British or Irish judge would rule it as unfair based on my understanding of aviation case law. That said, it's not a certainty, and due to the low costs may be worth a try for someone.

Pollycat

michael1234 said:

Pollycat said:

I've seen a number of similar threads about the same thing.

Yes and sadly the opinion seems always the same: Ryanair are right and the OP is wrong and needs to stump up.

Unless we are a legal professionals in that area how can we offer "advice" ? As a laymen, it doesn't seem obvious at all that if I buy a service from a company that I also possibly owe money to, that company can accept my money for the service making it clear it will provide that service but once I've paid not provide the service citing previous debts.

Presumably it hinges on the detail of Ryanair's contract and whether the terms are fair. However, a consumer making a purchase for a flight online and being told they _are_ to receive that service seems to me hard for Ryanair to get out of. Certainly and in no way at all can it be obvious that Ryanair should not provide the second flight due to previous alleged debts.

My guess is Ryanair should not have accepted the second payment for the second flight.

I was simply pointing out to MSE Laura - who seemed to want to get further information from the OP - that if she didn't get a response from the OP (who apparently hasn't logged on since April) there are other threads that she could follow up.

sheramber

michael1234 said:

Pollycat said:

I've seen a number of similar threads about the same thing.

Yes and sadly the opinion seems always the same: Ryanair are right and the OP is wrong and needs to stump up.

Unless we are a legal professionals in that area how can we offer "advice" ? As a laymen, it doesn't seem obvious at all that if I buy a service from a company that I also possibly owe money to, that company can accept my money for the service making it clear it will provide that service but once I've paid not provide the service citing previous debts.

Presumably it hinges on the detail of Ryanair's contract and whether the terms are fair. However, a consumer making a purchase for a flight online and being told they _are_ to receive that service seems to me hard for Ryanair to get out of. Certainly and in no way at all can it be obvious that Ryanair should not provide the second flight due to previous alleged debts.

My guess is Ryanair should not have accepted the second payment for the second flight.

And your 'guess' has no more value than anybody else's opinion.

[Deleted User]

delete 123

CKhalvashi

[DELETED USER] said:

MattMattMattUK said:

mit2 said:

I paid 1192.11 for the xmas flights and received £1192.11 via charge back. I then paid £892.11 for the original May flights, then on Sunday moved them to October at a cost of £300 , so have paid in total for October £1192.11 ( only noticed that tonight)  . They were all paid by the same payment method. The flights for May were originally booked after the chargeback. 

The fact that the amounts are the same is irrelevant. The most recent payments of £892.11 and £300 are for thr new flights. The Christmas flights were not eligible for a refund and the charge back was incorrect, as you received the money back via the chargeback process you still owe Ryan Air £1,192.12 for the Christmas 2020 flights, this is a debt, Ryan Air are within their rights to pursue you for this amount and to refuse you boarding or access to flights until you have paid them in full.

It's fraud. Just because he owed them money doesn't make it right.

It's an accepted practice that there is the right to offset money held in one account against a debt in another.

This has traditionally been in the context of banking, but I see no legitimate reason why it can't be applied to other areas. OP chose to book a non-refundable flight, was unable to go and then complained when the booking was non-refundable. If you want flexibility, you pay for it. I'm happy to not have flexibility in exchange for £20 flights across Europe, but not with Ryanair.

You cannot defraud a company of more than £1000 and then expect to use that company as though nothing has happened. If OP wants to change this, the correct method is clearly the courts (who may or may not agree, I have given more information on my thoughts above), not to mislead a financial institution to ensure funds are incorrectly returned.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi said:

[DELETED USER] said:

MattMattMattUK said:

mit2 said:

I paid 1192.11 for the xmas flights and received £1192.11 via charge back. I then paid £892.11 for the original May flights, then on Sunday moved them to October at a cost of £300 , so have paid in total for October £1192.11 ( only noticed that tonight)  . They were all paid by the same payment method. The flights for May were originally booked after the chargeback. 

The fact that the amounts are the same is irrelevant. The most recent payments of £892.11 and £300 are for thr new flights. The Christmas flights were not eligible for a refund and the charge back was incorrect, as you received the money back via the chargeback process you still owe Ryan Air £1,192.12 for the Christmas 2020 flights, this is a debt, Ryan Air are within their rights to pursue you for this amount and to refuse you boarding or access to flights until you have paid them in full.

It's fraud. Just because he owed them money doesn't make it right.

It's an accepted practice that there is the right to offset money held in one account against a debt in another.

Not as if it's a different account. The individual being the account holder not the booking itself.