Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

symphony63 wrote: »

If the ESCP does not award costs why should it pay to take the airline to court on short haul flights? €250 = £180 take off court and enforcements costs one is left with nothing.

The court fees are awarded (paid for by the other side) if you win - but things like lawyers fees etc are not.

With Jet2 seemingly accepting of the Allen decision, we may still have a fight over the two year bar, but let's not forget our Ryanair friends in here that have the appeal in Manchester in a week or so, plus they announced they would appeal the Barnes Judgement, so still fighting and one of the last still standing......

I was taking a stroll through the early posts and found this, originally posted and redacted by Blondmark but was re-posted http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60431049&postcount=151

Follow the you tube link :beer:

Just to confirm that Ryanair HAVE appealed the Barnes Judgement as expected..

http://www.bottonline.co.uk/flight-compensation-latest-news/another-spin-on-the-merry-go-round-jet2-dont-request-permission-to-appeal-the-allen-case-but-ryanair-do

Credit to Tyzap for the link.

Info from the Jet2 thread:-

howticklediam wrote: »

The CAA also has concerns about the way Ryanair is assessing some passenger claims. Although Ryanair is not applying a two-year limit on claims, the CAA has issued an information notice under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to review the airline’s approach to assessing passenger claims for flights disrupted by technical faults.

I thought they were in court on the 27th March on this very issue.

hmmmmm, exactly .......

Perhaps they don't actually know what's going on in the real world! The CAA should pop in here from time to time and have a word with Dr Watson.

From the CAA website full document here :- http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6680

Ryanair

1. Following the Jet2 v Huzar judgment the CAA published updated guidance (CAA List) on the incidents that could be considered to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’. Please confirm that you apply this guidance when considering compensation claims.

We confirm that in relation to Categories 1-20 and 28-30 we adhere to the revised list.
However, in relation to Categories 21-27 we do not agree with their removal.

2. Are you paying passenger claims for compensation that fall within the scope of the Jet2 v Huzar judgment?

Where technical issues arise by virtue of wear and tear or a failure to maintain, we will readily pay compensation to passengers who submit claims.

3. If you are not paying passenger claims, please explain what approach you are taking to these claims and your reasoning for not paying.

Where it is clear to us that the technical issue was not inherent in the normal operations of our fleet and as such is an extraordinary circumstance beyond our control, then and in those circumstances we will vehemently defend all claims for compensation.

We advise claiming passengers of the Van der Lans v. KLM case pending before the CJEU and of our formal application to the Courts to further stay technical cases until the CJEU issues its decision.

4. The Dawson v Thomson Airways judgment confirmed that the limitation period in the UK for taking a case to court in respect of the Denied Boarding Regulations is 6 years. Please confirm that you apply this limitation period.

We confirm that we now apply the 6 year limitation period in the UK.

5. If, for any reason, you apply a different limitation period, please explain what it is, how you apply it in practice (for example through your Terms and Conditions), and why you consider it is not in conflict with the Dawson v Thomson Airways judgment.

N/A