Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

edited 13 October 2017 at 1:22PM in Flight Delay Compensation
3.7K replies 625.3K views
13536384041375

Replies

  • edited 10 August 2013 at 12:05AM
    dxc_chappiedxc_chappie Forumite
    175 Posts
    edited 10 August 2013 at 12:05AM
    JPears wrote: »
    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!

    I agree totally. Check out article 15 of ec261 and you will find that it doesn't matter what's in the t&cs it doesn't affect your rights to claim under ec261.

    Seek out Blondmark's excellant posts on wording to counter this argument.
  • romanby1romanby1 Forumite
    294 Posts
    Re:- dxc_chappie, JPears and goodwithmoney101 posts above, Claims based on (EC) 261/2004 are compensation and not damages.
    The Limitation Act 1980 Article 9 applies:-
    Time limit for actions for sums recoverable by statute.(1)An action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
    (EC) 261/2004 is Statute Law enacted by the EU Parliament.
    As far as the airlines who continue to spout the M.C. 2 year rule, the above needs to be rammed down their throats.
  • JPearsJPears Forumite
    4.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    romanby1 wrote: »
    Re:- dxc_chappie, JPears and goodwithmoney101 posts above, Claims based on (EC) 261/2004 are compensation and not damages.
    The Limitation Act 1980 Article 9 applies:-
    Time limit for actions for sums recoverable by statute.(1)An action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
    (EC) 261/2004 is Statute Law enacted by the EU Parliament.
    As far as the airlines who continue to spout the M.C. 2 year rule, the above needs to be rammed down their throats.

    Too true romanby, but my point is that Ryanair can put what they like in their T&Cs but if means diddly squat if it goes contrary to established law.
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
  • Mark2sparkMark2spark Forumite
    2.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, what if RA put in their T & C's that passengers accept that no food or drink will be available for a minimum of 5 hours if you are boarded and awaiting a landing slot to be given, before departure.
    It would be against the law.
  • romanby1romanby1 Forumite
    294 Posts
    Mark2spark wrote: »
    Yes, what if RA put in their T & C's that passengers accept that no food or drink will be available for a minimum of 5 hours if you are boarded and awaiting a landing slot to be given, before departure.
    It would be against the law.
    Terms and conditions cannot over-rule Statute Law.
  • edited 5 November 2013 at 4:06PM
    blondmarkblondmark Forumite
    456 Posts
    edited 5 November 2013 at 4:06PM
    This information has been redacted
  • It seems my announcement of success may have been a little premature - the friendly folk at Ryanair have submitted an appeal. Unlike my previous success against KLM, who ignored both my and the court's communications completely (even the cheque came directly from their lawyers after I instructed messengers at arms), Ryanair seem very keen to continue the fight. I would like to counter their appeal with a brief letter (is this wise or even allowed?) but I wonder if I could ask you very clever people for some advice on what I should include. Here are the main points from Ryanair's appeal:

    1. “As a matter of law, the learned Sheriff, with the greatest respect, erred in that Irish law is the proper law of the contract of carriage by air as between the Defendant and its passengers as the contract of carriage is completed only once the Defendant, an Irish company resident in Ireland, accepts a potential passenger’s request for a specific reservation. Were it to be otherwise, there would be potentially at least 29 different interpretations (EU 28 plus Scotland) of a European air carrier’s Conditions of Carriage, hypothetically governing passengers on a single flight. If Irish law is indeed the proper law, then the meaning of “any rights to damages”, including claims inter alia, for racial or disability discrimination and under Regulation (EC) 261/2004, follows its normal meaning in Ireland, as set out in the persuasive opinion of Philip Lee (Irish Counsel) and includes all forms of monetary claims, however captioned.”

    Personally, this sounds like complete nonsense but I don’t know what the actual legal terminology would be to counter it. Because I am a consumer of a product/service, I understand it is my right to bring a case to court in my home country. Surely the onus is on Ryanair to construct individual T&Cs that are relevant to each country in which they operate/accept bookings from or am I missing something?

    2. "In any event, in England and Wales, being another part of the same Member State of the United Kingdom, four “stale dated” claims against this Defendant have to date been dismissed in English County Courts on the basis that the claimant had agreed to the Defendant’s T&Cs which contained a contractual limitation clause for bringing proceedings of two years. These are Clissold, Thieme (both as referred to in the pleadings), Serradilla (Newcastle County Court) and most recently Pickard (Lincoln County Court), for which the pleadings and/or judgements will follow. It is submitted that it is inappropriate, as a matter of law, for Article 15.2 of the Defendant’s General Conditions of Carriage to be interpreted differently in other parts of the UK and, for that matter, in Ireland."

    I am surprised that Ryanair are able to quote 4 separate cases, albeit English cases, where the judge ruled in Ryanair’s favour on the 2-year limit – does anyone have any thoughts as to how valid English cases are in Scotland or indeed any other general advice on how to counter the fact that in 4 separate cases they were apparently able to successfully defend the 2-year limit term?


    3. "The learned Sheriff, with the greatest respect, erred as a matter of law by interpreting the words “the rules” used in paragraph 33 of the European Court of Justice judgement in More as to apply only to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and not to include in the term “the rules” what is permitted at common law as a matter of Irish (or even Scottish) law which enables parties to a contract to agree limitation periods for bringing claims for damages within a shorter time frame than legislation with ‘long stop’ provisions."

    This seems like another feeble attempt to justify the 2-year limit, however I am unsure how best to counter it (mainly because it sounds like legal waffle to me!). I have already stated in my original claim that I understood the limit to be 5 years in Scotland and I have also previously quoted Blondmark’s excellent tips (unable to overrule statutory laws, unfair terms, etc, etc) however I wonder if there is something else I should be saying? The judge in his original ruling in my case actually said, bizzarrely in my opinion, that the time limit could be 20 years for claims under 261/2004 brought in Scotland (see point 2 at http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62657558&postcount=400)

    4. "The learned Sheriff, again with the greatest respect, erred as a matter of law, when he ejected as “laconic” the description of the random nature of the technical issue that affected the aircraft originally assigned to operate the Defendant’s flight which was not, as a fact, a “maintenance“ issue but the failure of an on-condition/condition monitored part which, in the event, needed replacing but which should not have required unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service, this being considered as “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken” and interpreted as such in the European Commission’s guidance document addressed to National Enforcement Bodies for the application of the Regulation, a copy being attached for ease of reference as this was not placed before the Sheriff at the time. Whilst this document is expressly not binding on any Court5 within the EU it corroborates the Defendant’s understanding in the matter. Had the learned Sheriff been uncertain concerning any technical aspect leading to the delay he would have been free, an in the even perhaps should, have adjourned his consideration and directed that an oral hearing with technical personnel being present."

    Ryanair at no point actually provided any information relating to the technical fault which delayed our flight and never actually used the “extraordinary circumstances” defense, so I am a little bemused as to why they have introduced what is essentially a new defense with new 'evidence' – is these even allowed at the appeal stage? Does anyone know how best to counter this argument? I anticipated this defense in my original claim and asked for detailed maintenance records, etc, but it wasn’t necessary as Ryanair didn’t actually use it. Also, I would like to avoid an oral hearing if possible - any thoughts on how best to go about this?


    Many thanks again for all the fantastic advice you have given so far. Hopefully not long to go before this is put to bed for good.


    blondmark wrote: »
    The point is certainly arguable. It is a fact that Regulation No 261/2004 contains no provision fixing a time-limit for bringing actions to enforce the rights guaranteed by that regulation - that time limit was confirmed somewhere else - specifically in More v KLM. This factor, in my opinion, is what mislead the Judge into erring in his decision to allow the Ryanair term to prevail.

    Careful analysis is required of the words: 'pursuant to this regulation'. Had the judge taken the time to analyse whether or not the airline's obligations vis-à-vis its passengers pursuant to regulation 261/2004 includes paying compensation for severe delay where a claim is brought within 6 years, and as a matter of fact and of law that is the airline's obligation (in the absence of ECs), the outcome would have been quite different. If he accepts this much, Ryanair's restrictive term in purporting to limit this obligation to just 2 years is insupportable.

    Article 15 of 26/2004 states: "Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage." Of course any time limit does not have to be expressly set out in the regulation to be one of the obligations pursuant to the regulation.
  • JPearsJPears Forumite
    4.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    goodwithmoney - I think you are going to need some serious help with this appeal. For what its worth, Ryanair appear to be contradicting themselves saying they are, as defendedant subject to Irish law, yet quote cases in English law in their appeal. How contrary.
    Also I do not think Ryanair can introduce further evidence not originally presented at the small claims.
    Overall they appear to be trying to wriggle out of the whole raison d'etre of EU small claims in that a claimant can bring action irrespective of where they live.
    Now if this were a company operating wholly within Eire fair enough, but they don't, they operate in many different countries, where in most cases the respective law applies.
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
  • jsmacjsmac Forumite
    20 Posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Hello all,

    I submitted the European Small Claims Procedure Form A to my local County Court in April 2013. The form was sent to Ryanair several days later. Apparently, they had 30 days to respond, however they have chosen to ignore the Court's request for evidence.

    I am now wondering what I am supposed to do. The Court has told me to get legal advice but I thought that the whole point of using the County Court is to avoid having to use solicitors. It seems completely crazy that Ryanair can simply ignore the Court!

    Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Many thanks.
  • Dr_WatsonDr_Watson Forumite
    451 Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    jsmac wrote: »
    Hello all,

    I submitted the European Small Claims Procedure Form A to my local County Court in April 2013. The form was sent to Ryanair several days later. Apparently, they had 30 days to respond, however they have chosen to ignore the Court's request for evidence.

    I am now wondering what I am supposed to do. The Court has told me to get legal advice but I thought that the whole point of using the County Court is to avoid having to use solicitors. It seems completely crazy that Ryanair can simply ignore the Court!

    Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Many thanks.

    jsmac,
    Apply to the court for a judgment in your favour as Ryanair have failed to respond. They should have sent you the form to do this with the details of your claim. Then sit back and wait....and then it's most likely that Ryanair will respond.
    If they don't then you will have your judgment which you will probably have to enforce using bailiffs .....
    Successfully sued Ryanair in 2013/14...and have been 'helping' litigants since then.

    Current known score:-
    Dr Watson 35 - 0 Ryanair / Ince and Co

    Go to post 622 on the Ryanair thread to read how to sue them safely.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest News and Guides