I'm taking Ryanair through the small claims court

bagand96

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....

The only issue I forsee with the argument about border restrictions in other countries is that has never been the airline's responsibility, even prior to Covid. Any country could (and from time to time do!) change entry requirements. 

The denied boarding may also be non starter given that if the Spanish Government had said foreign nationals cannot enter, that would be a valid reason for Ryanair refusing boarding. They'd have likely faced sanctions if they did transport the OP to Spain.

Markh5096

bagand96 said:

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....

The only issue I forsee with the argument about border restrictions in other countries is that has never been the airline's responsibility, even prior to Covid. Any country could (and from time to time do!) change entry requirements. 

The denied boarding may also be non starter given that if the Spanish Government had said foreign nationals cannot enter, that would be a valid reason for Ryanair refusing boarding. They'd have likely faced sanctions if they did transport the OP to Spain.

Some might well consider it a 'valid reason'. But I guess the issue is whether the possible sanctions they might face (from fulfilling the contract with the passenger) means that they are LEGALLY entitled to let the contract fail without reimbursing the passenger's prepayment.

bagand96

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

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....

The only issue I forsee with the argument about border restrictions in other countries is that has never been the airline's responsibility, even prior to Covid. Any country could (and from time to time do!) change entry requirements. 

The denied boarding may also be non starter given that if the Spanish Government had said foreign nationals cannot enter, that would be a valid reason for Ryanair refusing boarding. They'd have likely faced sanctions if they did transport the OP to Spain.

Some might well consider it a 'valid reason'. But I guess the issue is whether the possible sanctions they might face (from fulfilling the contract with the passenger) means that they are LEGALLY entitled to let the contract fail without reimbursing the passenger's prepayment.

If they'd transported you to Spain and you were refused entry then Ryanair would have had to repatriate you at their own expense and likely faced a large fine from the Spanish authorities.

Their view of course is that they honoured their part of the bargain by operating the flight you bought a seat on. The fact you couldn't use your seat is not their fault, and as you bought a non refundable ticket then that's that.

If your going at it from denied boarding, then the case hinges on your point of view that Ryanair stopped you using the service you paid for so should refund you. Ryanair will counter that they couldn't have carried you on the flight thanks to the Spanish Government. 

Markh5096

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

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....

The only issue I forsee with the argument about border restrictions in other countries is that has never been the airline's responsibility, even prior to Covid. Any country could (and from time to time do!) change entry requirements. 

The denied boarding may also be non starter given that if the Spanish Government had said foreign nationals cannot enter, that would be a valid reason for Ryanair refusing boarding. They'd have likely faced sanctions if they did transport the OP to Spain.

Some might well consider it a 'valid reason'. But I guess the issue is whether the possible sanctions they might face (from fulfilling the contract with the passenger) means that they are LEGALLY entitled to let the contract fail without reimbursing the passenger's prepayment.

If they'd transported you to Spain and you were refused entry then Ryanair would have had to repatriate you at their own expense and likely faced a large fine from the Spanish authorities.

Their view of course is that they honoured their part of the bargain by operating the flight you bought a seat on. The fact you couldn't use your seat is not their fault, and as you bought a non refundable ticket then that's that.

If your going at it from denied boarding, then the case hinges on your point of view that Ryanair stopped you using the service you paid for so should refund you. Ryanair will counter that they couldn't have carried you on the flight thanks to the Spanish Government. 

I very much doubt there was anybody from the Spanish authorities at the airport. So who (would have) prevented me from boarding? This is not a new line of thought. Ryanair specifically deny the claim of 'denied boarding', on the grounds that to be denied boarding I would have needed to check-in. But why would someone check-in, when they've been told in advance that they won't be allowed to board?

CKhalvashi

The CMA has dropped their case against Ryanair this morning citing the 'uncertain outcome'.

As this effectively changes their advice and it is your responsibility to meet any visa requirements required of you, this means Ryanair's handling agency were correct as you would have been denied entry at the other end.

I therefore believe this is a claim with very little chance of success. 

michael1234

The CEO of the CMA said:

We strongly believe people who are legally prevented from taking flights due to lockdown laws should be offered a full refund and we launched this investigation in the hope that we would be able to secure a positive outcome for consumers. However, after considering the relevant law and gathering evidence in our investigation, we have concluded that the length of time that would be required to take this case through the courts, and the uncertain outcome, can no longer justify the further expense of public money.

Given the importance of this to many passengers who have unfairly lost out, we hope that the law in this area will be clarified.

This isn't exactly Mark's situation as has been pointed out up thread, but it seems to me "uncertain" does not mean "very little chance". I think he will win it because ultimately where the law isn't clear, Judges will fall back on what a reasonable person would do or conclude or what the intention of the relevant law was. There is no doubt (indeeed the CMA's quote above) leaves little doubt that a reasonable person and the intention of the law would be to refund in this case.

CKhalvashi

michael1234 said:

The CEO of the CMA said:

We strongly believe people who are legally prevented from taking flights due to lockdown laws should be offered a full refund and we launched this investigation in the hope that we would be able to secure a positive outcome for consumers. However, after considering the relevant law and gathering evidence in our investigation, we have concluded that the length of time that would be required to take this case through the courts, and the uncertain outcome, can no longer justify the further expense of public money.

Given the importance of this to many passengers who have unfairly lost out, we hope that the law in this area will be clarified.

This isn't exactly Mark's situation as has been pointed out up thread, but it seems to me "uncertain" does not mean "very little chance". I think he will win it because ultimately where the law isn't clear, Judges will fall back on what a reasonable person would do or conclude or what the intention of the relevant law was. There is no doubt (indeeed the CMA's quote above) leaves little doubt that a reasonable person and the intention of the law would be to refund in this case.

What they believe and what they can prove in court are completely different things.

The reality is that this is advice from the British government. An Irish (and therefore EU) company is not going to take 'advice' from a non-EU state that is not legally binding.

A reasonable person would therefore consider it to be the responsibility of the buyer of the ticket to meet immigration requirements. The buyer failed to do so and therefore is ineligible for entry to the country. This is not on the airline. 

bagand96

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

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....

The only issue I forsee with the argument about border restrictions in other countries is that has never been the airline's responsibility, even prior to Covid. Any country could (and from time to time do!) change entry requirements. 

The denied boarding may also be non starter given that if the Spanish Government had said foreign nationals cannot enter, that would be a valid reason for Ryanair refusing boarding. They'd have likely faced sanctions if they did transport the OP to Spain.

Some might well consider it a 'valid reason'. But I guess the issue is whether the possible sanctions they might face (from fulfilling the contract with the passenger) means that they are LEGALLY entitled to let the contract fail without reimbursing the passenger's prepayment.

If they'd transported you to Spain and you were refused entry then Ryanair would have had to repatriate you at their own expense and likely faced a large fine from the Spanish authorities.

Their view of course is that they honoured their part of the bargain by operating the flight you bought a seat on. The fact you couldn't use your seat is not their fault, and as you bought a non refundable ticket then that's that.

If your going at it from denied boarding, then the case hinges on your point of view that Ryanair stopped you using the service you paid for so should refund you. Ryanair will counter that they couldn't have carried you on the flight thanks to the Spanish Government. 

I very much doubt there was anybody from the Spanish authorities at the airport. So who (would have) prevented me from boarding? This is not a new line of thought. Ryanair specifically deny the claim of 'denied boarding', on the grounds that to be denied boarding I would have needed to check-in. But why would someone check-in, when they've been told in advance that they won't be allowed to board?

There would be Spanish authorities at the Spanish airport, and that's where the problem would arise if the airline were to transport you.  The Governments make the rules, and the airlines have to follow them.  You would have had to prove your status at check-in and/or the boarding gate with documentary evidence.  That's how it's still works today.

I agree with you their denial of denied boarding because you didn't check-in is an odd argument, and likely irrelevant.  If you had presented at check-in you would have been denied at that point on the grounds you did not have the necessary documentation to board the flight (the documentation in this case being a Spanish Passport or Spanish residency)

Markh5096

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

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....

The only issue I forsee with the argument about border restrictions in other countries is that has never been the airline's responsibility, even prior to Covid. Any country could (and from time to time do!) change entry requirements. 

The denied boarding may also be non starter given that if the Spanish Government had said foreign nationals cannot enter, that would be a valid reason for Ryanair refusing boarding. They'd have likely faced sanctions if they did transport the OP to Spain.

Some might well consider it a 'valid reason'. But I guess the issue is whether the possible sanctions they might face (from fulfilling the contract with the passenger) means that they are LEGALLY entitled to let the contract fail without reimbursing the passenger's prepayment.

If they'd transported you to Spain and you were refused entry then Ryanair would have had to repatriate you at their own expense and likely faced a large fine from the Spanish authorities.

Their view of course is that they honoured their part of the bargain by operating the flight you bought a seat on. The fact you couldn't use your seat is not their fault, and as you bought a non refundable ticket then that's that.

If your going at it from denied boarding, then the case hinges on your point of view that Ryanair stopped you using the service you paid for so should refund you. Ryanair will counter that they couldn't have carried you on the flight thanks to the Spanish Government. 

I very much doubt there was anybody from the Spanish authorities at the airport. So who (would have) prevented me from boarding? This is not a new line of thought. Ryanair specifically deny the claim of 'denied boarding', on the grounds that to be denied boarding I would have needed to check-in. But why would someone check-in, when they've been told in advance that they won't be allowed to board?

There would be Spanish authorities at the Spanish airport, and that's where the problem would arise if the airline were to transport you.  The Governments make the rules, and the airlines have to follow them.  You would have had to prove your status at check-in and/or the boarding gate with documentary evidence.  That's how it's still works today.

I agree with you their denial of denied boarding because you didn't check-in is an odd argument, and likely irrelevant.  If you had presented at check-in you would have been denied at that point on the grounds you did not have the necessary documentation to board the flight (the documentation in this case being a Spanish Passport or Spanish residency)

The cynic in me wonders if part of the point of sending me the email the night before was to discourage me from attending for check-in, so they could deny having "denied me boarding"!!!

bagand96

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

Markh5096 said:

bagand96 said:

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....

The only issue I forsee with the argument about border restrictions in other countries is that has never been the airline's responsibility, even prior to Covid. Any country could (and from time to time do!) change entry requirements. 

The denied boarding may also be non starter given that if the Spanish Government had said foreign nationals cannot enter, that would be a valid reason for Ryanair refusing boarding. They'd have likely faced sanctions if they did transport the OP to Spain.

Some might well consider it a 'valid reason'. But I guess the issue is whether the possible sanctions they might face (from fulfilling the contract with the passenger) means that they are LEGALLY entitled to let the contract fail without reimbursing the passenger's prepayment.

If they'd transported you to Spain and you were refused entry then Ryanair would have had to repatriate you at their own expense and likely faced a large fine from the Spanish authorities.

Their view of course is that they honoured their part of the bargain by operating the flight you bought a seat on. The fact you couldn't use your seat is not their fault, and as you bought a non refundable ticket then that's that.

If your going at it from denied boarding, then the case hinges on your point of view that Ryanair stopped you using the service you paid for so should refund you. Ryanair will counter that they couldn't have carried you on the flight thanks to the Spanish Government. 

I very much doubt there was anybody from the Spanish authorities at the airport. So who (would have) prevented me from boarding? This is not a new line of thought. Ryanair specifically deny the claim of 'denied boarding', on the grounds that to be denied boarding I would have needed to check-in. But why would someone check-in, when they've been told in advance that they won't be allowed to board?

There would be Spanish authorities at the Spanish airport, and that's where the problem would arise if the airline were to transport you.  The Governments make the rules, and the airlines have to follow them.  You would have had to prove your status at check-in and/or the boarding gate with documentary evidence.  That's how it's still works today.

I agree with you their denial of denied boarding because you didn't check-in is an odd argument, and likely irrelevant.  If you had presented at check-in you would have been denied at that point on the grounds you did not have the necessary documentation to board the flight (the documentation in this case being a Spanish Passport or Spanish residency)

The cynic in me wonders if part of the point of sending me the email the night before was to discourage me from attending for check-in, so they could deny having "denied me boarding"!!!

Again I'm not sure that's relevant.  Denied Boarding doesn't automatically trigger compensation or rights to a refund.  It's only when the airline are at fault.

UK citizens require a visa to visit China.  If I booked a flight to China and turned up at Heathrow without a visa I would be denied boarding.  I would have no recourse against the airline as it would be my fault for not having the correct documentation.

Your situation isn't much different.  At a base level you didn't meet the requirements to enter the destination country so the airline could not carry you.  I'm not being unsympathetic, I completely see that you were in an impossible situation with the travel restrictions changing so quickly and so close to your flight departing.  It's not your fault and there was nothing you could have done.  I can fully see that you don't want to bear the loss.  But unfortunately Ryanair don't either and I've yet to see any judgement, ruling, case or policy that forces an airline to refund.  Not just in the UK, haven't heard of it anywhere.