Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

blondmark · 6 August 2013 at 8:53AM

This information has been redacted

richardw · 6 August 2013 at 8:57AM

Where they filming a "should've gone to SpecSavers" commercial?

donspecu · 6 August 2013 at 11:59AM

Hi,
My Ryanair flight was delayed over 3 hours,
I was flying from Lodz to Edinburgh (returning flight).
They said that the delay is caused by aircraft not leaving Edinburgh on time so the plane didnt get to Lodz on time for the departure. Is it worth claiming? i dont know the reasons for the delay in Edinburgh but isnt this an airline reponsibility to get the replacment plane ready for the departure? Where should i claim? In UK or Poland? My original flight was EDI-LDZ-EDI but the delay happend on LDZ-EDI segment.
Thank you for any sugestions.

blondmark · 6 August 2013 at 4:17PM

This information has been redacted

murgy1979 · 7 August 2013 at 9:11PM

Hi we was due to fly out from leeds to faro on the 19th july @1.40 ,when every one boarded we then taxed out getting ready for take off,with our 4 & 2 year old all excited,then for it to slow down captain came on radio told us we couldnt fly out just yet untill a engineer came out to check it apparently a light came on and wasn't safe to fly ( fair enough) but 3 hours after keeping us on that plane they then decided to re board us onto another plane,3 shuttle coaches later haven't to wait on them 20 mins so they could get another plane ready for us,red hot sunny day with 2 kids ,(not good)they then let us on which was ridiculous stupid as it was like a stampede every one trying to get on so they could sit together, un safe,,,,then we eventually taxed out again by which this time it was about 4,15,, 20 mins in the air captain came on we had to land at standstead London,as the crew couldn't fly any more (out of flights hours)- another hour waiting to fuel up etc,,then by it was 5.ish we taxed out again,no food left to eat as we ate it thinking we will survive,then trolley crew come round all those at the front ate all food so we didnt get any thing,kids was hungry,tired fed up,we arrived at faro at 9.40pm.which it should of been 4,30pm approx, when we got to our apartments it was 11,pm no shops open no restaurants open why should they be, they would of been if we got there at 4pm ish ,,,was so mad with how rynair dealt with the whole situation,,,im all for safety,but they new they wouldnt fly that plane with in a hour,,,I've wrote a letter to customer services,swords,dublin on the 4th august with a complaint requesting a refund-do you think we are entitled to any thing,,,didn't get any vouchers nothing,,,,,:mad:

blondmark · 7 August 2013 at 11:36PM

This information has been redacted

murgy1979 · 8 August 2013 at 8:03AM

thank you

olajonca · 9 August 2013 at 8:14AM

Hi
My flight was delayed yesterday for over 8 hours . I was on the plane for 3 with engine starterd crusing around the airposrt than to stop than to wait for engineers than to have the same adbenture around the airport again than to be told to get of the plane and get back to the gate. so all in all we were on the plane for 3 hours in 38c heat with no drinks or snacks offered.
I was travelling with 2 kids ( 2&6) in those 8 hours we got 2 sandwiches each and 2 cartons of juice each which happened only when we got back to the gates.
as the flight was so serverly delayed there was no public transport avaiable when finally got to the destination airport and I had to fork out 40 pounds for the taxi to get home.
I have 2 questions -
Can i claim compensation for the children as well and would that be in the same letter?
Would i be able to get my taxi fare back?I have the receipt
thanks

Caz3121 · 9 August 2013 at 8:51AM

you will be able to make a compensation claim for 3 people. Any onward travel would not be the airline's responsibility (they are contracted to get you to your arrival airport only)

JPears · 9 August 2013 at 9:56PM

goodwithmoney101 wrote: »

After receiving a positive ruling in my case against Ryanair, I wanted to come back and share part of the Sheriff's ruling in case it is of some help to others. If anyone knows how to upload a document/image here please let me know and I will post the full ruling. I must confess that much of the ruling is beyond my understanding, therefore I would appreciate advice from anyone with better knowledge of such things...a few specific questions I have are listed below but any other thoughts are welcome...

1. It seems Ryanair's clause 15.2, which seeks to limit actions to a period of 2 years, does form a valid part of the contract because it was agreed to prior to confirming the booking. However the real crux of the court's decision to award in our favour appears to relate to the court's interpretation of the word "damages". Ryanair's usage of the phrase "right to damages" in 15.2 as it existed in 2008 when our flights were booked appears to have shot them in the foot. Incidentally since 2008 Ryanair have updated their T&Cs so that it now states "right to damages and/or compensation". Excerpts from the ruling are below:

a) "Separately from the statutory rules in regard to prescription and limitation it is well settled that the parties may agree to limit the time within which any claim may be brought. The question here is whether a right to compensation under EC 261/2004 amounts to a “right to damages”, which is the expression used in clause 15.2 to describe that which is extinguished if an action is not brought within two years. The starting point for consideration, in this case beyond which, as will be seen, it is unnecessary to go, is the natural and ordinary meaning of that phrase."

b) “It might have been more helpful if Philip Lee, the Irish Counsel, whose opinion is presented in support of the defendant’s position had, at paragraph 13 of that opinion, quoted McGregor on Damages (18th ed) in full:

A resounding definition of the term ‘damages’ would make for a fitting opening of a work on the law damages and in their first sentence earlier edditions have done just this. But it has become more and more difficult, as time has moved on, to construct a definition of damages which is satisfactory and which is comprehensive. So many exceptions to and qualification upon, once solid, clear, unadulterated rules have appeared, perfectly sensibly, that a clear-cut definition is no longer reasonable; the arrival of restitutionary damages and of human rights was the last straw. The impossible search for a clear-cut comprehensive definition is therefore abandoned. Instead the definition from earlier editions, a definition which still represents the norm, is taken but it is qualified to indicate that it applies generally but not invariably, thus:

Damages in the vast majority of cases are the pecuniary compensation obtainable by success in an action, for a wrong which is either tort or a breach of contract, the compensation being in the form of a lump sum awarded at one time, unconditionally and in sterling.”

c) “There is nothing in the general conditions to suggest that the intention of the draughtsperson [of Ryanair's T&Cs] to use the expression otherwise than in its normal sense. If one proceeds upon an understanding of "damages" in accordance with the norm then I do not consider that compensation payable by virtue of EC 261/2004 can be described as compensation for a wrong which is either a tort (in Scotland the word is "delict") or a breach of contract. While damages are compensatory not all claims for compensation are necessarily claims for damages.”

d) “'McGregor on Damages' (18th Ed) identifies four types of money claims in which pecuniary satisfaction is gained by success in an action but which are not based upon a tort or breach of contract and which do not satisfy any definition of damages because they fall outside of any definition. The fourth of these types are actions claiming money under statutes where the claim is made independently of a wrong wich is tort/delict or breach of contract. The examples given are actions in respect of benefits under the Social Security Acts, claims for unfair dismissal and for redundancy payment under the Employment Rights Act 1996. I consider that a claim under EC 261/2004 has exactly the character of a claim under legislation (in this case in the form of an EC regulation) where the claim is made independently of any wrong.”

e) ”Actions claiming money based upon statutes which have created a tort/delict are actions for damages. As I read EC 261/2004 it does not expressly create any tort/delict and nor can it be said that the decision in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07is a ruling in which the court has identified the existence of a statutory tort/delict.”

f) “The amendment which the defendant has made to clause 15.2 in the current edition of the general conditions appearing on the defendant's website inserts after "right to damages" the additional words "and/or compensation"; an insertion which might be thought to be significant.”

......

I'm sorry but I believe this to be complete BS. Just because a contract states terms and conditions and you "agree" to it, doesn't make it lawful or override basic EU law.
If a mugger approaches you with a T shirt on saying I'm going to mug you and steal your money, doesn't make it lawful for him to do so!

MSE Forum

Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

Replies

Scam emails WRONGLY tell households to...

Has your old furniture become desirable again?

The 'secret' Office & Schuh outlets