I'm taking Ryanair through the small claims court

michael1234

From what you've said Mark, it looks like an open and shut case and I look forward to you letting us know when you've won. Do be careful though about posting too much before the hearing.

bagand96

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Ryanair will defend this robustly. Forgetting the fact that it's Ryanair for a moment, any airline would defend this robustly.

The case hinges on the question of whether an airline should be made to refund passengers who can't travel due to Government regulations outside of the airline's or passenger's control.

Whilst the Spanish Government's actions weren't your fault, they weren't the airline's either, so with a non-refundable ticket Ryanair have followed their T& C's.

It would usually be a travel insurance claim, but in the middle of the pandemic many policies did not cover this. 

It's been a much debated scenario and the CMA have made a lot of noise themselves although they don't seem to have the enforcement powers to back up their viewpoint.

To my knowledge I've not heard of any rulings/judgements anywhere that force an airline to refund in this case.  I'd speculate that if airline's had been forced I to refunds the last 18 months then we might have less airlines left now than we have energy suppliers.

It will be very interesting to follow the outcome of the case.

Thanks for taking the time to provide your input. What do you think of "the contract was frustrated" argument?

I think one of the problems is that we are faced with a "100% either way" scenario - either I lose out fully, or Ryanair do. The issue is compounded by the fact that we were flying at a particularly expensive time of year, so in my ticket price was a very large element of "demand driven profit", and much less covering of the actual costs Ryanair incurred.

Ryanair flatly refused to engage in mediation, at which point any sympathy I may have had evaporated.

The frustrated contract argument is one the CMA have been keen to argue. I’ve no idea if it would apply or be successful in your case, I don’t have any legal expertise to advise on that or understand it.

bagand96

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.

Easy. They see it as too important to not defend. If a judgement goes in favour of the OP then it has major ramifications not just for Ryanair but the whole industry. They don’t want to be forced to refund all passengers that couldn’t travel due to Covid restrictions.  For Ryanair it would be a multi million dent in their finances.  For other airlines it would likely be the difference between existing and not. 

The reason most airlines offered flexible policies and free date changes through the pandemic wasn’t to be charitable. It was to keep the cash in the business.

k12479

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Ryanair will defend this robustly. Forgetting the fact that it's Ryanair for a moment, any airline would defend this robustly.

The case hinges on the question of whether an airline should be made to refund passengers who can't travel due to Government regulations outside of the airline's or passenger's control.

Whilst the Spanish Government's actions weren't your fault, they weren't the airline's either, so with a non-refundable ticket Ryanair have followed their T& C's.

It would usually be a travel insurance claim, but in the middle of the pandemic many policies did not cover this. 

It's been a much debated scenario and the CMA have made a lot of noise themselves although they don't seem to have the enforcement powers to back up their viewpoint.

To my knowledge I've not heard of any rulings/judgements anywhere that force an airline to refund in this case.  I'd speculate that if airline's had been forced I to refunds the last 18 months then we might have less airlines left now than we have energy suppliers.

It will be very interesting to follow the outcome of the case.

Thanks for taking the time to provide your input. What do you think of "the contract was frustrated" argument?

I think one of the problems is that we are faced with a "100% either way" scenario - either I lose out fully, or Ryanair do. The issue is compounded by the fact that we were flying at a particularly expensive time of year, so in my ticket price was a very large element of "demand driven profit", and much less covering of the actual costs Ryanair incurred.

Ryanair flatly refused to engage in mediation, at which point any sympathy I may have had evaporated.

The frustrated contract argument is one the CMA have been keen to argue.

The CMA have announced the closure of their investigation into this today, taking 4 months to reach the conclusion many reached in 4 minutes:

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/covid-19-cancellations-airlines

bagand96

k12479 said:

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Ryanair will defend this robustly. Forgetting the fact that it's Ryanair for a moment, any airline would defend this robustly.

The case hinges on the question of whether an airline should be made to refund passengers who can't travel due to Government regulations outside of the airline's or passenger's control.

Whilst the Spanish Government's actions weren't your fault, they weren't the airline's either, so with a non-refundable ticket Ryanair have followed their T& C's.

It would usually be a travel insurance claim, but in the middle of the pandemic many policies did not cover this. 

It's been a much debated scenario and the CMA have made a lot of noise themselves although they don't seem to have the enforcement powers to back up their viewpoint.

To my knowledge I've not heard of any rulings/judgements anywhere that force an airline to refund in this case.  I'd speculate that if airline's had been forced I to refunds the last 18 months then we might have less airlines left now than we have energy suppliers.

It will be very interesting to follow the outcome of the case.

Thanks for taking the time to provide your input. What do you think of "the contract was frustrated" argument?

I think one of the problems is that we are faced with a "100% either way" scenario - either I lose out fully, or Ryanair do. The issue is compounded by the fact that we were flying at a particularly expensive time of year, so in my ticket price was a very large element of "demand driven profit", and much less covering of the actual costs Ryanair incurred.

Ryanair flatly refused to engage in mediation, at which point any sympathy I may have had evaporated.

The frustrated contract argument is one the CMA have been keen to argue.

The CMA have announced the closure of their investigation into this today, taking 4 months to reach the conclusion many reached in 4 minutes:

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/covid-19-cancellations-airlines

Not sure that will make the OP's job any easier, especially as they mentioned they've quoted the CMA in their case. 

GingerTim

bagand96 said:

k12479 said:

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Ryanair will defend this robustly. Forgetting the fact that it's Ryanair for a moment, any airline would defend this robustly.

The case hinges on the question of whether an airline should be made to refund passengers who can't travel due to Government regulations outside of the airline's or passenger's control.

Whilst the Spanish Government's actions weren't your fault, they weren't the airline's either, so with a non-refundable ticket Ryanair have followed their T& C's.

It would usually be a travel insurance claim, but in the middle of the pandemic many policies did not cover this. 

It's been a much debated scenario and the CMA have made a lot of noise themselves although they don't seem to have the enforcement powers to back up their viewpoint.

To my knowledge I've not heard of any rulings/judgements anywhere that force an airline to refund in this case.  I'd speculate that if airline's had been forced I to refunds the last 18 months then we might have less airlines left now than we have energy suppliers.

It will be very interesting to follow the outcome of the case.

Thanks for taking the time to provide your input. What do you think of "the contract was frustrated" argument?

I think one of the problems is that we are faced with a "100% either way" scenario - either I lose out fully, or Ryanair do. The issue is compounded by the fact that we were flying at a particularly expensive time of year, so in my ticket price was a very large element of "demand driven profit", and much less covering of the actual costs Ryanair incurred.

Ryanair flatly refused to engage in mediation, at which point any sympathy I may have had evaporated.

The frustrated contract argument is one the CMA have been keen to argue.

The CMA have announced the closure of their investigation into this today, taking 4 months to reach the conclusion many reached in 4 minutes:

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/covid-19-cancellations-airlines

Not sure that will make the OP's job any easier, especially as they mentioned they've quoted the CMA in their case. 

An 'open and shut case', indeed!

eskbanker

Obviously all moot now anyway, but the CMA investigation wasn't relevant to OP's claim in any case, as it related to passengers being prevented specifically by UK lockdown laws from boarding operating flights, rather than for broader reasons such as border controls in other countries - the fact that both scenarios ultimately manifested themselves as not being able to travel doesn't mean that both were within the scope of the CMA's review....

Markh5096

eskbanker said:

Obviously all moot now anyway, but the CMA investigation wasn't relevant to OP's claim in any case, as it related to passengers being prevented specifically by UK lockdown laws from boarding operating flights, rather than for broader reasons such as border controls in other countries - the fact that both scenarios ultimately manifested themselves as not being able to travel doesn't mean that both were within the scope of the CMA's review....

Indeed. Although they've decided not to pursue it, it's clear from the CMA's statement that their opinion remains unchanged. In any event, I always thought my case different to those unable to travel due to UK lockdown laws - I doubt (but don't know for a fact, and happy to be corrected) that those passengers received an email from the airline the day before effectively warning them that they would not be able to board the plane.

eskbanker

Markh5096 said:
In any event, I always thought my case different to those unable to travel due to UK lockdown laws - I doubt (but don't know for a fact, and happy to be corrected) that those passengers received an email from the airline the day before effectively warning them that they would not be able to board the plane.

What did your email actually say - was it 'you won't be allowed to board' or something more like 'passengers who don't meet the latest admittance criteria at their destination won't be allowed to board'?

Markh5096

eskbanker said:

Markh5096 said:
In any event, I always thought my case different to those unable to travel due to UK lockdown laws - I doubt (but don't know for a fact, and happy to be corrected) that those passengers received an email from the airline the day before effectively warning them that they would not be able to board the plane.

What did your email actually say - was it 'you won't be allowed to board' or something more like 'passengers who don't meet the latest admittance criteria at their destination won't be allowed to board'?

It said...“Dear passenger, Please be advise(sic) that only Spanish and Andorran nationals, foreign nationals with Spanish or Andorann (sic) residence are allowed to board flights to Spain from United Kingdom with a PCR Covid 19 test. The test must be performed 72h prior departure. Non nationals or residents will not be allowed to board flights from the UK to Portugal (sic)”