I'm taking Ryanair through the small claims court

Thrugelmir

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"!!!

The email wasn't sent to you personally would be generic. Would have been sent to all passengers reminding them of the current status. 

Markh5096

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.

EU regulation 261/2004 covers many things, including denied boarding. Trust me, Ryanair's defence specifically targeted this regulation, and how they didn't "deny boarding" (under the definition of the Regulation) because I didn't present for check-in. Not sure their solicitors would have put that in if it was irrelevant.

Markh5096

The email wasn't sent to you personally would be generic. Would have been sent to all passengers reminding them of the current status. 

Really? I thought Michael had typed it out to me personally....and that's why it had so many typos 🤣🤣

bagand96

Markh5096 said:

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.

EU regulation 261/2004 covers many things, including denied boarding. Trust me, Ryanair's defence specifically targeted this regulation, and how they didn't "deny boarding" (under the definition of the Regulation) because I didn't present for check-in. Not sure their solicitors would have put that in if it was irrelevant.

(j) "denied boarding" means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation;


Not meeting the entry requirements of the destination country would be reasonable grounds to deny boarding. 

Markh5096

Not meeting the entry requirements of the destination country would be reasonable grounds to deny boarding. 

I didn't say it was an easily winnable argument, I just said it wasn't irrelevant!

michael1234

CKhalvashi said:

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. 

Did he? He enter into the contract (bought the ticket) at a time when he met those regulations. So what did the buyer _fail_ to do ? You talk as though he bought a ticket to North Korea and only then started looking into getting a visa.

If you had come on here and said something like well maybe there are some doubts here and there and outlined them then perhaps your view would be more credible. The fact that you are all guns blazing certain he is going to fail in astonishing. I would give it 80:20 in favour.

Finally, since you like to engage with me in debate quite frequently, do you mind if I make it public who you represent?

eskbanker

Markh5096 said:

EU regulation 261/2004 covers many things, including denied boarding. Trust me, Ryanair's defence specifically targeted this regulation, and how they didn't "deny boarding" (under the definition of the Regulation) because I didn't present for check-in. Not sure their solicitors would have put that in if it was irrelevant.

What's the main legal basis of your claim?  Perhaps I'm adding two and two to make five but the above post seems to imply that you weren't citing EC 261/2004 but that it was Ryanair who unilaterally introduced that subject, but if that was the case, which law or regulation is it that you're accusing them of breaching, or is it a more general contract frustration argument that you're running?

Markh5096

or is it a more general contract frustration argument that you're running?

Something along those lines - it's as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University😂

MiserlyMartin

End of the day, when the flight was booked OP met entry requirements. It is only common sense and consumer law that if entry to the flight was denied due to some draconian 'pandemic' restrictions that he should be refunded in full. Service ie flight wasn't delivered due to no fault of the customer = refunded. No judge in the land  and even the crap EU would not award a refund

CKhalvashi

michael1234 said:

CKhalvashi said:

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. 

Did he? He enter into the contract (bought the ticket) at a time when he met those regulations. So what did the buyer _fail_ to do ? You talk as though he bought a ticket to North Korea and only then started looking into getting a visa.

If you had come on here and said something like well maybe there are some doubts here and there and outlined them then perhaps your view would be more credible. The fact that you are all guns blazing certain he is going to fail in astonishing. I would give it 80:20 in favour.

MiserlyMartin said:

End of the day, when the flight was booked OP met entry requirements. It is only common sense and consumer law that if entry to the flight was denied due to some draconian 'pandemic' restrictions that he should be refunded in full. Service ie flight wasn't delivered due to no fault of the customer = refunded. No judge in the land  and even the crap EU would not award a refund

Would one of you in this case like to point out where in any legislation this magical right to a refund in these circumstances lies? I sadly must have missed something in the 'consumer law' that MeserlyMartin mentioned that would give an 80:20 chance of success as Michael believes. Just the title of the legislation and the appropriate sections would be perfect.

I view this as nothing more than a contractual dispute between OP and Ryanair, where OP has purchased a cheap flight in exchange for tight conditions in relation to changes and refunds and now wishes to dispute the terms of the contract.

Governments are allowed to change their entry requirements as they wish for any reason, they definitely don't need the permission of Ryanair or the OP to do so. There is still undoubtedly an ongoing requirement for the OP to meet the entry requirements of the country they wish to travel to, which they failed to do so on the date of their flight.

If you think I'm wrong, please come up with specific legislation to prove this.

michael1234 said:

CKhalvashi said:

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. 

Finally, since you like to engage with me in debate quite frequently, do you mind if I make it public who you represent?

I'd love to know who I represent, as last time I looked I was a free thinking individual.

I'm not (and never have been) an employee of any company in Ryanair's umbrella, I'm currently not a Ryanair shareholder and no business I have an interest in supplies Ryanair. I believe I can therefore answer the question with a true opinion based on current legislation, industry practice and known court rulings.