Ryanair have Cancelled my Flight

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

Yes, it does. You are right. 

Unfortunately in this forum people often quote things off the top of their head or on the basis of a quick Google or partial misunderstanding of laws.

I've been reading this forum for a long time, not related to this thread but in general, some advice is what posters think is right based on their views/experience/morals rather than what is factually correct.

If I'm unsure on something I'll always (try to) say, if I Google for a bit info again I'll say, I'd rather be transparent about a lack of knowledge than mislead someone looking for help and I'm always happy to be corrected where wrong.

PHK said: I think they sometimes forget that people come here for advice not for speculation. 

Indeed but if the advice given is incorrect that doesn't help either, hence the discussion part of a discussion forum

eskbanker said:

If a UK/EU airline cancels a flight, then there's a regulatory obligation for them to remedy this by either replacing or refunding (the choice being the customer's), and the customer also has the right to unilaterally vary the flight booking, albeit for an admin fee, so isn't there an argument that this might satisfy the criteria for equitable contractual rights?

I wonder if that depends on whether the consumer has those rights without a delay occurring, saying the consumer can unilaterally vary the flight booking but only after the trader has first varied the contract again doesn't appear balanced. 

Grumpy_chap said:

This is a sufficiently frequent event that the travel insurers would see the value in bringing a test case - just because the insurer has paid out to an individual does not preclude the insurer from claiming recovery from a third party - the airline in this case.

If the insurers did bring a test case and it was found the airline was liable wouldn't that significantly devalue their product by negating one of it's notable benefits? 

jim8888

Thanks for all the helpful responses but I'm afraid reading through them I'm losing the will to live!  I might try claiming holiday insurance if Hotels dot com (who have been really helpful) can't get me a refund from the hotel. When I booked, the room was £80 if I took the booking as non-refundable, which I did. The "fully refundable" cancellation option was £74 more expensive! I'm fully aware that I'm responsible for the hotel booking, but do feel I'm potentially losing money because of consequential loss triggered by Ryanair. I feel slightly lucky that I hadn't booked further hotels and all the other stuff that the tongue in cheek response above suggested he should be able to claim. It seems that Ryanair (and all airlines), four weeks in advance of a booking, can just cancel arrangements because of "Commercial Reasons" and say to their customers that all the consequential and directly connected hassle is effectively nothing whatsoever to do with them.

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

This is a sufficiently frequent event that the travel insurers would see the value in bringing a test case - just because the insurer has paid out to an individual does not preclude the insurer from claiming recovery from a third party - the airline in this case.

If the insurers did bring a test case and it was found the airline was liable wouldn't that significantly devalue their product by negating one of it's notable benefits? 

Possibly, possibly not.
I always think the real value of travel insurance is the peace-of-mind, particularly with respect to a medical claim.  I understand that is where the big expenses lie for the insurers.
I am sure the insurers have a duty to themselves to minimise costs and would do so if recovery was possible.


There is a broader question about general consumer regulation (CRA) applying. 
If this is adequate in the case of travel agreements, would there ever have been a need for specific legislation and remedies relating to air travel?
Perhaps the international nature forces the specific legislation if contracts may not be under UK CRA.
If the air line was responsible for lost hotel nights, then would there be a need for specific package travel regulations?
Do the specific flight and travel regulations exclude CRA?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

jim8888 said:

I might try claiming holiday insurance if Hotels dot com (who have been really helpful) can't get me a refund from the hotel. 

If you have travel insurance OP that is probably the easiest option. 

Beyond any guarantee or goodwill Booking.com may offer I don't think they are under any obligation to refund as they just act as an agent to hook you up with the hotel. If the hotel is in the UK (and AFAIK the EU) "non-refundable" is likely unenforceable but that's a whole other can of worms  
 

Andy_L

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

This is a sufficiently frequent event that the travel insurers would see the value in bringing a test case - just because the insurer has paid out to an individual does not preclude the insurer from claiming recovery from a third party - the airline in this case.

If the insurers did bring a test case and it was found the airline was liable wouldn't that significantly devalue their product by negating one of it's notable benefits? 

Possibly, possibly not.
I always think the real value of travel insurance is the peace-of-mind, particularly with respect to a medical claim.  I understand that is where the big expenses lie for the insurers.
I am sure the insurers have a duty to themselves to minimise costs and would do so if recovery was possible.


There is a broader question about general consumer regulation (CRA) applying. 
If this is adequate in the case of travel agreements, would there ever have been a need for specific legislation and remedies relating to air travel?
Perhaps the international nature forces the specific legislation if contracts may not be under UK CRA.
If the air line was responsible for lost hotel nights, then would there be a need for specific package travel regulations?
Do the specific flight and travel regulations exclude CRA?

and if airlines were liable for consequential losses how much would ticket prices go up?

user1977

Would the bus company which is meant to take me to the airport also be liable for consequential loss?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

user1977 said:

Would the bus company which is meant to take me to the airport also be liable for consequential loss?

I don't know but can you advise why they wouldn't be?

Andy_L said:

and if airlines were liable for consequential losses how much would ticket prices go up?

That doesn't really have anything to do with the matter There is whole bunch of things that cause prices to be higher, how much do you think companies spend on health and safety that goes into the prices of goods and services.

Either something is or it isn't, if it is and the general consensus is the increased cost doesn't justify the benefit then someone would have to seek to have the law changed. 

eskbanker

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

eskbanker said:

If a UK/EU airline cancels a flight, then there's a regulatory obligation for them to remedy this by either replacing or refunding (the choice being the customer's), and the customer also has the right to unilaterally vary the flight booking, albeit for an admin fee, so isn't there an argument that this might satisfy the criteria for equitable contractual rights?

I wonder if that depends on whether the consumer has those rights without a delay occurring, saying the consumer can unilaterally vary the flight booking but only after the trader has first varied the contract again doesn't appear balanced.

No, I wasn't referring to customer's rights specifically after a delay or cancellation, but the generic flexibility offered (at a price).

Obviously organisations can't simply opt out of statutory obligations, but I find it hard to believe that large numbers of reputable businesses (as well as Ryanair!) are opening themselves up to potential consequential loss claims simply by virtue of contract terms that don't award equal rights to merchant and customer - I'm not just thinking of travel companies here but other businesses where customers don't have unilateral contractual cancellation rights to mirror those intrinsically required by the trader, such as concert tickets, gyms, etc.

However, like yourself, I'm happy to be corrected!

RefluentBeans

eskbanker said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

eskbanker said:

If a UK/EU airline cancels a flight, then there's a regulatory obligation for them to remedy this by either replacing or refunding (the choice being the customer's), and the customer also has the right to unilaterally vary the flight booking, albeit for an admin fee, so isn't there an argument that this might satisfy the criteria for equitable contractual rights?

I wonder if that depends on whether the consumer has those rights without a delay occurring, saying the consumer can unilaterally vary the flight booking but only after the trader has first varied the contract again doesn't appear balanced.

No, I wasn't referring to customer's rights specifically after a delay or cancellation, but the generic flexibility offered (at a price).

Obviously organisations can't simply opt out of statutory obligations, but I find it hard to believe that large numbers of reputable businesses (as well as Ryanair!) are opening themselves up to potential consequential loss claims simply by virtue of contract terms that don't award equal rights to merchant and customer - I'm not just thinking of travel companies here but other businesses where customers don't have unilateral contractual cancellation rights to mirror those intrinsically required by the trader, such as concert tickets, gyms, etc.

However, like yourself, I'm happy to be corrected!

Happy to be corrected, but from my understanding courts are generally unwilling to hold companies liable for consequential losses, especially in the case of travel. Like said above in the thread, where is the line drawn for consequential losses? Hotel, car hire, trip deposits? What about weddings abroad with venue hire, catering etc? What about paying for other people to fly out? 

The prevailing thought on these boards, and generally across the UK, is that consequential losses are not expected to be paid unless there is gross negligence from one party. And a flight being cancelled or delayed certainly doesn’t fall into that gross negligence, unless very last minute and very disruptive. And even then, I think you’d be lucky to get anything more than the nights you’ve been delayed by back. 

As you say, I find it hard to believe that consequential losses would/should be covered given so few contracts include them. The issue is the butterfly effect - my printer stops working, so I can’t print off an important form for the bank, and the bank charges me, which I can’t afford, and so the bank forecloses on my house. Whilst this is a very extreme example, at what point does Argos stop becoming responsible for the product they sold me? Or a more realistic case - at what point does Ryanair no longer become responsible for my losses for moving my flights? 

Hoenir

jim8888 said:

When I booked, the room was £80 if I took the booking as non-refundable, which I did. The "fully refundable" cancellation option was £74 more expensive! I'm fully aware that I'm responsible for the hotel booking, but do feel I'm potentially losing money because of consequential loss triggered by Ryanair. 

If Ryanair were to be made liable consequential losses then this would need to be reflected in their ticket pricing. As not just you that would claim but the other x passengers on the same flight. You cannot have cake and eat is so to speak.