I'm taking Ryanair through the small claims court

k3lvc

Markh5096 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Markh5096 said:

Of course I'm hoping that common sense and justice will prevail. I've paid £2,700 to Ryanair (which means a very significant profit for them),

The plane flew all the majority of the normal costs were incurred. Ryanair lost €815 million in their last financial year. With a further loss of €273 million in the quarter to 30th June. Any profit made on your booking pales into insignificance with figures of this magnitude. Reimbursement to customers as a principle would tip them over the edge I'd say. 

So I should be expected to forego £2,700 by way of my contribution to the "Save Ryanair fund"?

Not sure anyone's suggesting that but you should be prepared to accept the T&C's you signed up to and the pertaining situation at the time. Even in June '20 it was widely forecast that there would be significant further issues over the winter period and prudency would have suggested that you insured/mitigated your risk (or at least self-insured by being clear that the money might be lost)

As others have said there seems to be no wins yet from a consumer point of view - even with more 'customer facing' airlines so, whatever your thoughts of Ryanairs business practices you still chose to book with them and shouldn't be surprised at the lengths they'll go to defend/recoup costs

macman

I'm just astonished that they are even bothering to defend your claim. Their bill from their barrister for a wasted day at court, with junior counsel no doubt in attendance as well, will be more than the value of your claim, plus their solicitor's costs as well.

[Deleted User]

mattyprice4004 said:

I'm interested to see the outcome, but they wouldn't throw the resources they are at the case if they didn't think they'd win. 
Ultimately if Spain said you can't enter, that's not Ryanair's fault - so while £2,700 is a lot to lose, the airline aren't responsible for taking the hit either. 

Sorry, but while I'm not the biggest Ryanair fan I think you'll come away without your money. 

I don't think their contesting it indicates much. Royal Mail contested a lost package claim I put in against them, send someone to represent them. Even if they had won it would have cost more to defend than to just pay out.

eskbanker

macman said:

I'm just astonished that they are even bothering to defend your claim. Their bill from their barrister for a wasted day at court, with junior counsel no doubt in attendance as well, will be more than the value of your claim, plus their solicitor's costs as well.

In terms of the bigger picture, it's in their interests not to capitulate, i.e. if they visibly start coughing up in cases like this (even if it's not legal precedent as such) then everyone will go after them, so they'll see it as losing the battle (financially) but winning the war....

Markh5096

k3lvc said:

Markh5096 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Markh5096 said:

Of course I'm hoping that common sense and justice will prevail. I've paid £2,700 to Ryanair (which means a very significant profit for them),

The plane flew all the majority of the normal costs were incurred. Ryanair lost €815 million in their last financial year. With a further loss of €273 million in the quarter to 30th June. Any profit made on your booking pales into insignificance with figures of this magnitude. Reimbursement to customers as a principle would tip them over the edge I'd say. 

So I should be expected to forego £2,700 by way of my contribution to the "Save Ryanair fund"?

Not sure anyone's suggesting that but you should be prepared to accept the T&C's you signed up to and the pertaining situation at the time. Even in June '20 it was widely forecast that there would be significant further issues over the winter period and prudency would have suggested that you insured/mitigated your risk (or at least self-insured by being clear that the money might be lost)

As others have said there seems to be no wins yet from a consumer point of view - even with more 'customer facing' airlines so, whatever your thoughts of Ryanairs business practices you still chose to book with them and shouldn't be surprised at the lengths they'll go to defend/recoup costs

Thanks for your input, all appreciated. I took Thrugelmir's reporting of Ryanair's losses, and the 'insignificance' of the profit on my booking by comparison, to indicate sympathy for them. Maybe I misunderstood him/her/they.

eskbanker

Markh5096 said:
I took Thrugelmir's reporting of Ryanair's losses, and the 'insignificance' of the profit on my booking by comparison, to indicate sympathy for them. Maybe I misunderstood him/her/they.

I'm not convinced that anyone is sympathetic to Ryanair as such, but it's usually best to understand the situation in the round, rather than being too heavily swayed by the inevitably biased views of an irritated out-of-pocket consumer - it's not uncommon for posters in your position to welcome the supportive "go you" posts but to dismiss any that highlight aspects of a case that may appear to be less helpful to the claimant (or to perceive these as defending the defendant).

In terms of profit, your assertion that they were making "a very significant profit" from your booking, even if true, is ultimately irrelevant as it has no influence on their legal obligations (or lack thereof) to refund you, which is all that really matters when taking them to court, so it'll generally be in your interests to focus on what is relevant....

Markh5096

eskbanker said:

Markh5096 said:
I took Thrugelmir's reporting of Ryanair's losses, and the 'insignificance' of the profit on my booking by comparison, to indicate sympathy for them. Maybe I misunderstood him/her/they.

I'm not convinced that anyone is sympathetic to Ryanair as such, but it's usually best to understand the situation in the round, rather than being too heavily swayed by the inevitably biased views of an irritated out-of-pocket consumer - it's not uncommon for posters in your position to welcome the supportive "go you" posts but to dismiss any that highlight aspects of a case that may appear to be less helpful to the claimant (or to perceive these as defending the defendant).

In terms of profit, your assertion that they were making "a very significant profit" from your booking, even if true, is ultimately irrelevant as it has no influence on their legal obligations (or lack thereof) to refund you, which is all that really matters when taking them to court, so it'll generally be in your interests to focus on what is relevant....

Hi eskbanker. There are two parallel strains to this matter I suppose, the legal one, and the moral one. The point about the profit made on my booking is certainly not relevant to the legal side of things, I know. But similarly the point regarding Ryanair's losses isn't either, which is why I linked the two in my previous comment. I know that sympathy for me, or Ryanair, is largely irrelevant until the case gets heard.

.

eskbanker

Markh5096 said:
I know that sympathy for me, or Ryanair, is largely irrelevant until the case gets heard.

It's irrelevant then too

As you say, it's possible to consider both legal and moral aspects, but the latter aren't taken into consideration by a court, so you obviously need to ensure that you have enough ammunition on the legal position if you hope to see any or all of your money again, hence my comment last night about constructing a case based specifically on Ryanair's obligations under EC 261/2004.

Markh5096

eskbanker said:

Markh5096 said:
I know that sympathy for me, or Ryanair, is largely irrelevant until the case gets heard.

It's irrelevant then too

As you say, it's possible to consider both legal and moral aspects, but the latter aren't taken into consideration by a court, so you obviously need to ensure that you have enough ammunition on the legal position if you hope to see any or all of your money again, hence my comment last night about constructing a case based specifically on Ryanair's obligations under EC 261/2004.

Mmm....so the notion of, and preference for, having a sympathetic judge is a fallacy? I guess I'll have to take your word on that 😉

The 261/2004 regulations aren't much help I'm afraid. They didn't 'cancel the flight', as defined, nor did they "deny me boarding", as defined (the latter because I would have needed to check-in for them to "deny me boarding", which of course I didn't do, because they'd told me I wouldn't be able to board!).

eskbanker

Markh5096 said:

Mmm....so the notion of, and preference for, having a sympathetic judge is a fallacy? I guess I'll have to take your word on that 😉

Obviously judges are human beings with emotions and will often have to make subjective decisions about, for example, relative credibility of contradictory witnesses, but their court judgments will be driven by law rather than opinions about a side issue of whether or not a company has made a profit from a transaction, or that company's reputation, etc.

Markh5096 said:

The 261/2004 regulations aren't much help I'm afraid. They didn't 'cancel the flight', as defined, nor did they "deny me boarding", as defined (the latter because I would have needed to check-in for them to "deny me boarding", which of course I didn't do, because they'd told me I wouldn't be able to board!).

If they specifically told you in advance that you couldn't board then that seems a stronger line of argument than some of the other stuff....