Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

adeelh1987 wrote: »

I wish to go through court proceedings regarding getting this compensation. I want to follow Dr Watsons post number #569. However under number 4, when i click on the link to the ESCP, it says the maximum you can claim for under ESCP is €2000.

As our claim is for €4800 Euros, any idea on what I can do now?

Yes. Bring a number of separate claims by breaking the party into natural groups of say three or four each. This should allow three claims of about 1600 euros each.

Thanks.

Would that be possible even though 9 of the tickets were booked under the same booking and itinerary number?.

Adeel.

Vauban wrote: »

Yes - because it's the passengers who are entitled to the compensation (and bring an action) not the person who booked or even bought the tickets.

I see. Thanks for that. When submitting a claim, can I make all three claims under my name, or shall I keep individual lead names on each claim but simply use my correspondence on all three claims?.

Do you know if I will be able to claim compensation for the baby or would it be 11 passengers?.

Thanks Vauban,
Adeel.

Vauban wrote: »

You can only be party to one of the claims - not all three. The address for each claim should be to one of the passengers party to the claim. If you don't want to do this, you could do "your" claim first, and - if you win - then try to get the airline to pay up for other passengers on the same flight.

If you paid a fee or fare for the infant, they quaify for compensation too. Search "infant" for the details.

Most of your questions are already answered in my guide so read that, and Dr Watson's guide to using the ESCP. Good luck.

Great. Many thanks.

JPears wrote: »

No. I don't believe Ryanair have a leg to stand on in basic contract law and a consumer's statutory rights.

What 'basic contract law' are you referring to? Contractual terms which reduce the limitation period below that specified in the Limitation Act 1980 are perfectly valid in principle as a matter of 'basic contract law'.

As for 'consumer's statutory rights', the only requirement under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is that the term is reasonable. Given that any other aviation claim (e.g. if you die or are injured on a plane) will be subject to the 2 year limitation period in the Montreal Convention, it is hard to see how a 2 year period to claim could be described as unreasonable.

batman44 wrote: »

I think you will also find if you read the judgement that Ryanair cannot rewrite the Statute of Limitations Act which is 6 years irrespective if they write it in a contractual agreement.

The judge said nothing of the sort and if he had, he would have been wrong for the reasons above.

batman44 wrote: »

That is what the judge has said, also reg 261/2004 specifically states they cannot be changed to suit or ammended other than EU law.

The judge did say this, and it is quite likely that the Court of Appeal will reverse his decision on this point. Article 15 of the Regulation prevents contractual attempts to exclude or limit obligations under the Regulation, but the Regulation doesn't specify any limitation period. Article 15 effectively says: 'you cannot reduce the provisions of this Regulation by contract', but in the case of limitation the Regulation is silent on the issue. Plus, the European Court has said that the period of limitation is a matter for domestic law. It is hard to reconcile that with the idea that Article 15 affects the limitation period. Although the standard period in the UK is 6 years, in other Member States it is shorter and that is not affected by Article 15.

The crucial argument in this case is actually far more nuanced, namely whether the word 'damages' in the terms and conditions should be given its legal meaning and, if so, whether a claim under the Regulation is a claim for 'damages'. This is a tricky technical issue. HHJ Platts may have been right, equally he may not have been.

All I am suggesting is that one shouldn't assume, based on previous behaviour, that the airlines are always wrong. Nor should one believe the spin of Bott & Co who would have you believe that it was outrageous for Ryanair to even argue this point. HHJ Platts is not a senior judge and his decision is not binding on any other court, no matter how many times people spout the words 'test case'. Wait until there is some binding authority. It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal makes of it. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will dismiss the appeal.