Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

edited 13 October 2017 at 12:22PM in Flight Delay Compensation
3.7K replies 624.4K views
15657596162375

Replies

  • Dr_WatsonDr_Watson Forumite
    451 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    Ryanair's appeal in my EU small claim case has been rejected :j - thank you to everyone for your advice and assistance along the way.

    One final question - can anyone advise how I go about getting Ryanair to pay up? The court has supplied me with the ruling and 'form D' - is there a special procedure I must follow because it's an EU small claim?

    Well done my friend! :beer:
    Go to my post 622 above and see instructions on how to appoint the county sheriff of Dublin to execute your decree.
    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.
  • Doh! Sorry for missing such a useful post. Thanks Dr Watson!

    For the benefit of anyone else who is lodging a claim in relation to an older booking my whole case turned on Ryanair's use of the phrase "right to damages" within article 15.2 of its T&Cs. The sheriff ruled that "while damages are compensatory not all claims for compensation are necessarily claims for damages", and stated that because compensation under 261/2004 is not "damages", clause 15.2 was not worth the paper it was written on in my situation. Unfortunately the sneaky people at Ryanair have since changed their terms to state "Any right to damages and/or compensation" so this argument will not be of use to more recent claims but I hope it is of use to someone.

    Just to lighten the mood and stick two fingers up at Ryanair (I know you're reading this ;)) the sheriff in my case had a few choice words to say in his written judgement:

    "I derived little or no assistance from the authorities cited on behalf of the defendant"

    "Such laconic statements could not be said to discharge the onus resting upon the defendant...the statements verge upon being wholly uninformative"

    and my personal favourite...

    "I consider that the interpretation advanced on behalf of the defendant is nothing short of obtuse" :rotfl:

    Think I'll book a trip to celebrate my winnings - sorry Ryanair you won't be getting any more business from me.
  • Dr_WatsonDr_Watson Forumite
    451 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭

    Unfortunately the sneaky people at Ryanair have since changed their terms to state "Any right to damages and/or compensation" so this argument will not be of use to more recent claims but I hope it is of use to someone.

    They certainly have but Article 15 of the regulation is still the way to counter this along with the ECJ ruling in the More case:-

    Article 15 of 261/2004 states:-


    Exclusion of waiver
    1. 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.

    2. If, nevertheless, such a derogation or restrictive clause is
    applied in respect of a passenger, or if the passenger is not
    correctly informed of his rights and for that reason has
    accepted compensation which is inferior to that provided for in
    this Regulation, the passenger shall still be entitled to take the
    necessary proceedings before the competent courts or bodies in
    order to obtain additional compensation.


    Just to lighten the mood and stick two fingers up at Ryanair (I know you're reading this ;)) the sheriff in my case had a few choice words to say in his written judgement:

    So goodwithmoney101 is now off of Ryanair's Christmas card list, but is firmly on mine and others on here!
    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.
  • VaubanVauban Forumite
    4.7K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    There is an interesting point here though: Ryanair may be on to something. The lawyers will have a better view, but I understand that the statute of limitation in the UK is either six years or whatever period may be agreed between two contracting parties. As Ryanair's T&Cs would not be in contravention of this statute, they wouldn't be contradicting the Regulation either.

    However, this is all a bit moot. A change in the T&Cs cannot be retrospective, and - as the problem created by Dawson/Montreal is a product of the de facto stay on UK proceedings whilst the airlines challenged Sturgeon, this should resolve itself over time. There will be no reason, eventually, for folk to wait more than two years to bring their claim to court.
  • FletchasketchFletchasketch Forumite
    466 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    Hi Goodwithmoney,


    When you say an 'older booking', when was your flight? I took one in 2009 which I'm not holding out much hope for now. My claim is currently with Bott & Co, so I'm hoping the precedent you've set will help the claim.


    Congratulations, I hope you enjoy your hard earned compensation!
    Mortgage overpayments 2017: 17K, 2018: 32K, 2019: 25.5K

    May'18 DEBT FREE!

    £10'000 PB's: £933 Nutmeg Pot: £44'500 Company Shares
    £2328.42 TCB.
  • Dr_WatsonDr_Watson Forumite
    451 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    Vauban wrote: »
    There is an interesting point here though: Ryanair may be on to something. The lawyers will have a better view, but I understand that the statute of limitation in the UK is either six years or whatever period may be agreed between two contracting parties. As Ryanair's T&Cs would not be in contravention of this statute, they wouldn't be contradicting the Regulation either.

    However, this is all a bit moot. A change in the T&Cs cannot be retrospective, and - as the problem created by Dawson/Montreal is a product of the de facto stay on UK proceedings whilst the airlines challenged Sturgeon, this should resolve itself over time. There will be no reason, eventually, for folk to wait more than two years to bring their claim to court.


    Morning Vauban,
    Like you say maybe all a bit moot,
    I'd argue that RA's T's & C's and in particular their wording are derogatory and restrictive within a contract of carriage....
    But hey I'm not a lawyer (yet) too and my hat blew off on Ilkley Moor....bring on the Dawson appeal and the result we all crave.
    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.
  • VaubanVauban Forumite
    4.7K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Dr_Watson wrote: »
    Morning Vauban,
    Like you say maybe all a bit moot,
    I'd argue that RA's T's & C's and in particular their wording are derogatory and restrictive within a contract of carriage....
    But hey I'm not a lawyer (yet) too and my hat blew off on Ilkley Moor....bring on the Dawson appeal and the result we all crave.

    Amen to that. But Dawson deals only with Montreal, of course. Your useful post - although relating to the two year point - is actually a quite separate issue. It is not impossible - subject to an assessment of restrictive clauses, etc, as you say - for both Dawson and Ryannair's T&Cs to stand together in consistency. At least as I understand it - which is not much (even with a fine Cheshire hat).
  • I'm sure the lawyers will know far better than I but it seems counter-intuitive that any company's T&Cs can supersede statutory regulation in a contract between a consumer and a business.

    I can see how it would be justifiable for businesses or individuals to contract with each other to limit specific rights and obligations, but in the case of a company of Ryanair's size vs an individual consumer, I just don't understand how it can be allowed - particularly when you throw in to the mix Article 15 of 261/2004 and the ruling from More v KLM.

    In my own case the sheriff stated "the matter is governed by section 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973...there is, in my view, no other colourable interpretation".
  • edited 31 January 2014 at 12:19PM
    goodwithmoney101goodwithmoney101 Forumite
    20 Posts
    edited 31 January 2014 at 12:19PM
    Hi Goodwithmoney,


    When you say an 'older booking', when was your flight? I took one in 2009 which I'm not holding out much hope for now. My claim is currently with Bott & Co, so I'm hoping the precedent you've set will help the claim.


    Congratulations, I hope you enjoy your hard earned compensation!


    Hi Fletchasketch,

    My flight was in 2008. I'm not sure when the T&Cs were changed but it's certainly worth asking for a copy of the specific T&Cs that were attached to your booking just to double-check.

    Not sure whether my case has set a precedent, particularly as it was heard at a sheriff court in Scotland, but the argument does appear to be sound and I would recommend using it if applicable. The Sheriff and Ryanair's legal representative seemed to refer to the book "McGregor on Damages" quite a lot so it might be worth looking it up for guidance.

    Good luck with your claim!
  • FletchasketchFletchasketch Forumite
    466 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    Hi Fletchasketch,

    My flight was in 2008. I'm not sure when the T&Cs were changed but it's certainly worth asking for a copy of the specific T&Cs that were attached to your booking just to double-check.

    Not sure whether my case has set a preference, particularly as it was heard at a sheriff court in Scotland, but the argument does appear to be sound and I would recommend using it if applicable. The Sheriff and Ryanair's legal representative seemed to refer to the book "McGregor on Damages" quite a lot so it might be worth looking it up for guidance.

    Good luck with your claim!



    Thanks very much for this, very useful.
    Mortgage overpayments 2017: 17K, 2018: 32K, 2019: 25.5K

    May'18 DEBT FREE!

    £10'000 PB's: £933 Nutmeg Pot: £44'500 Company Shares
    £2328.42 TCB.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Bacon flavoured toothpaste

Can you help this Forumite track some down?

Join the Forum discussion

£10 Christmas bonus

For benefits recipients

MSE News