Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
    • What makes you say that?  I have no idea how I would go about that or why they would even entertain discussions now that they've won the Court case
    • Our main Equity Partner, Cabot Square Capital invests 
    • Yes it’s the garage and warranty company. And then my husband forwarded me the email. 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Ryanair Compensation Claim - Volcano Problem.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4957 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

You can NOT issue first instance proceedings against Ryanair in the ECJ

 

Nobody said that you could.

 

To the contrary, I had especially specified "the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, hence the jurisdiction of an appropriate court".

 

The jurisdiction of the ECJ exists because of the Treaty on European Union, not because a consumer proceeds.

 

The precedent applies in any case.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

How can you exhaust all domestic remedies if you can't issue proceedings in the UK?

 

For a claim of less than €2000, since the advent of the European Small Claims Procedure (Regulation (EC) No 861/2007), an application is made by filling in and lodging the standard claim Form A which is set out as an annex to the Regulation. Member States are obliged to ensure that this is available at all appropriate courts and tribunals.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a claim of less than €2000, since the advent of the European Small Claims Procedure (Regulation (EC) No 861/2007), an application is made by filling in and lodging the standard claim Form A which is set out as an annex to the Regulation. Member States are obliged to ensure that this is available at all appropriate courts and tribunals.

 

:cool:

 

Note that the usual limit on costs found in CPR part 27 and applied in the small claims court in Eng/Wales does not apply to ESCP and therefore the cost of bringing a claim will almost certainly be higher than small claims track of county court. You may also be asked to pay defence costs if you lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before anyone starts legal proceedings, you should check whether you have access to legal expenses cover via either travel insurance or home contents insurance policies. And a word of warning regarding suing airlines under EC 261/2004 Article 9 Right to Care expenses:

 

Airlines seem to be taking a very aggressive stance over the expenses issue with some either not paying out at all and others severely reducing the reimbursement to passengers way below what has been claimed.

 

I think that this is likely to increase due to the action taken by AF/KLM/BMIbaby and you may find that a substantial number of claims are never paid. Here's a possible reason: look carefully at the regulation Article 9 and you will notice that, other than the words to the effect that 'passengers shall be offered free of charge....', there are no actual words stating reimbursement of expenses!

 

Therefore there may not be an effective remedy in a private action in law against an airline not offering free of charge items under Article 9 and this is what some airlines are hiding behind.

 

The only remedy that may be available and it is not open to individual passengers is this: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050975.htmn which is the enforcement regulation for use by the CAA only.

 

That is why you should raise your complaint with the AUC. I'm not saying anything concrete will come directly from that but only by wholesale complaints being made will anything be done by the CAA hopefully after some prompting by the AUC and/or Siim Kallas, the EU Transport Commissioner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is likely to increase due to the action taken by AF/KLM/BMIbaby and you may find that a substantial number of claims are never paid. Here's a possible reason: look carefully at the regulation Article 9 and you will notice that, other than the words to the effect that 'passengers shall be offered free of charge....', there are no actual words stating reimbursement of expenses!

 

That is perverse and unworthy.

 

There would of course be no actual words with regard to a reimbursement of expenses because the intention of the Regulation (which is therefore the correct expectation) is that there should be no need whatsoever to reimburse because an airline is not to be expected to fall foul of the criminal offence of failing to abide by the Regulation, especially designed to eliminate the hardship, from the start.

 

The perpetrators should be prosecuted and convicted, not excused because of a deliberately disingenuous argument.

 

This sort of thing is covered by the unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices directive 2005/29/EC, so an offence in Ireland as well as the UK.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is perverse and unworthy.

 

There would of course be no actual words with regard to a reimbursement of expenses because the intention of the Regulation (which is therefore the correct expectation) is that there should be no need whatsoever to reimburse because an airline is not to be expected to fall foul of the criminal offence of failing to abide by the Regulation, especially designed to eliminate the hardship, from the start.

 

The perpetrators should be prosecuted and convicted, not excused because of a deliberately disingenuous argument.

 

This sort of thing is covered by the unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices directive 2005/29/EC, so an offence in Ireland as well as the UK.

 

:cool:

 

What is perverse and unworthy?

 

I share your frustration that 261/2004 creates no private remedy for individuals to exercise their rights to recover legitimately-incurred expenses under the Right to Care. The reasons for my statement are clear, however, since the correct remedy for breach of the Regulation, unless contained expressly within the Regulation, lie elsewhere.

 

Whilst the intentions of regulation 261/2004 might lead one to believe what you state, you have already been made fully aware upthread (posts 66 and 68 by Ford Anglia) how a breach of Article 9 may be dealt with by legal process: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050975.htm. Regrettably, such breaches may only be enforced in legal process by the CAA, who have yet to act on any such breach which is why I commend anyone with a valid complaint to raise this with the AUC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

261/2004 doesn't have to create a private remedy.

 

Article 12 provides that the Regulation "shall apply without prejudice to a passenger's rights to further compensation."

 

Fortunately, according to section 19 of the UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations

(1) It shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce these Regulations.

Regrettably, therefore the idea that such breaches may only be enforced in legal process by the CAA is a lie, a deliberate deception.

 

If it came from a person employed by an airline that of itself would be an offence.

 

8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

261/2004 doesn't have to create a private remedy.

 

Article 12 provides that the Regulation "shall apply without prejudice to a passenger's rights to further compensation."

 

Fortunately, according to section 19 of the UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations

Regrettably, therefore the idea that such breaches may only be enforced in legal process by the CAA is a lie, a deliberate deception.

 

If it came from a person employed by an airline that of itself would be an offence.

 

8-)

 

If you can persuade the appropriate enforcement authority in this case, the CAA, to enforce the regs, I am right behind you.

 

The enforcement authority for airlines in the UK is the CAA, there is no lie or deception in that statement.

 

If you are suggesting yet again in your last sentence that I work for an airline then you are mistaken as I have pointed out in the past. My record on flightmole, MSE and on here puts that idea to rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The enforcement authority for airlines in the UK is the CAA, there is no lie or deception in that statement.

 

Why then repeat the lie that a breach may only be enforced by the CAA, albeit that this was already corrected on a previous occasion?

 

In view of their abysmal track record a consumer would have to be out of his mind to rely on the CAA, but I can understand that an airline would prefer that they are fooled into doing so.

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why then repeat the lie that a breach may only be enforced by the CAA, albeit that this was already corrected on a previous occasion?

 

In view of their abysmal track record a consumer would have to be out of his mind to rely on the CAA, but I can understand that an airline would prefer that they are fooled into doing so.

 

:lol:

 

To which 'lie' are you referring?

 

I have already stated the correct remedy for breach of regulation 261/2004, unless expressly provided for in the regulation, is contained in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050975.htm

 

Perhaps you could assist me in stating whether that is a 'lie' or that you believe I am being untruthful as regards that statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regulation itself specifies that the designated body [the CAA] need not be the only competent body:

 

2. Without prejudice to Article 12, each passenger may

complain to any body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation at any airport situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any flight from a third country to an airport situated on that territory.

:!:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see which part of this should be so hard to get.

 

The fact that a passenger may complain to "any other competent body" infers that the body designated under paragraph 1 [the CAA] is not the only body to complain to.

 

:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see which part of this should be so hard to get.

 

The fact that a passenger may complain to "any other competent body" infers that the body designated under paragraph 1 [the CAA] is not the only body to complain to.

 

:confused:

 

No, if you are being pedantic, it also refers to the other designated member state NEBs, as stated in Art 16.1 who have also been required to enact similar national legislation to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050975.htm in each EU member state.

 

My statement in full was 'Regrettably, such breaches may only be enforced in legal process by the CAA, who have yet to act on any such breach which is why I commend anyone with a valid complaint to raise this with the AUC' which was used to differentiate between the private and public remedies available under the law as explained in that same post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if you are being pedantic, it also refers to the other designated member state NEBs, as stated in Art 16.1 who have also been required to enact similar national legislation to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050975.htm in each EU member state.

 

Which preceded the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, especially intended because the legislation previously supposed to protect the average consumer had failed to do the trick.

 

No part of Regulation 261/2004 (or of anything else) appears to me to preclude or prevent the application of the Unfair Trading Regulations to an airline, or for that matter a private prosecution.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can either sue someone like ryanair using the european small claims or you can't.

 

 

 

It does not appear to be possible to sue a company based outside the UK, that doesn't have a UK postal address, using the UK small claims system.

 

Why should the County Court (fast track or whatever you call it) be any different?

 

So far no post has explained why can't I claim using the crossborder claim system against a person or firm based outside the UK who does not have a UK address.

 

 

Any comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far no post has explained why can't I claim using the crossborder claim system against a person or firm based outside the UK who does not have a UK address.

 

 

Any comments?

 

Answer was provided in post #103 and earlier posts. ESCP is the way to go but you are subject to costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is time that the full weight of the law is used against airlines that fail to comply with the EU law,I personally have been on the recieving end of Ryanair's failure to comply with the EU regulations as reguards provision of refreshments when subject to a delay of over 2 hours on a short EU flight,I have complained to ACU but I suspect nothing will happen.Until our national goverment take action as did the Italians for Ryanairs failure to comply with the regulations,O'leary is laughing at us.Maybe the toothless ACU should be one of the quango's to go.

Living in the wild windy west of Ireland

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is time that the full weight of the law is used against airlines that fail to comply with the EU law,I personally have been on the recieving end of Ryanair's failure to comply with the EU regulations as reguards provision of refreshments when subject to a delay of over 2 hours on a short EU flight,I have complained to ACU but I suspect nothing will happen.Until our national goverment take action as did the Italians for Ryanairs failure to comply with the regulations,O'leary is laughing at us.Maybe the toothless ACU should be one of the quango's to go.

 

Hear here!

 

I have never so much as heard of Ryanair offering what they are supposed to "offer" (as opposed to an eventual reimbursement) except for relatively trivial instances such as the derisory offer of a £5 voucher to passengers who had already had to wait for hours, and that was probably because a passenger forced the issue.

 

We experienced a Ryanair cancellation and assumed that their neglect was an unfortunate aberration. It was not before the noticing of a considerable number of complaints from passengers put to online forums that I saw the full extent of it.

 

If this is wrong it is open to correction but for as far as I can see the offering of the more serious assistance such as hotel accommodation did not yet happen, not on any occasion since the Regulation 261/2004 came to force.

 

Are we then supposed to believe that the CAA and the ACU were blissfully unaware of the fact while this was going on?

 

The full extent of the law would be far to kind in my opinion. They should all be hung or shot, and so should their apologists. Not only do they bring themselves onto disrepute; it makes a mockery of the law in general.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

On RTE teletext{irish tv)Ryanair said it will take them until the end of the year to make compensation payments for the volcanic ash problems.The said they have refunded tickets prices promptly.Read the reply I recieved from auc about airlines failure to comply with Eu regs on this forum.

Living in the wild windy west of Ireland

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On RTE teletext{irish tv)Ryanair said it will take them until the end of the year to make compensation payments for the volcanic ash problems.

 

i emailed ryanair to enquire when i might get a response to my claim sent to them on 5th july. i have now had an email which states that they will pay by cheque within the next 25 working days as final settlement, although there is no metion of the amount we will recieve.

 

There is however the following para, which confirms that any non-VAT Registered receipts will not be paid...

 

Please be advised that non Vat Registered Receipts, alcoholic beverages/parking/prepaid expenses/alternative travel costs are not covered under the EU261/2004 and will not be reimbursed. Expenses not covered under Regulation EU261 should be claimed directly from your travel insurer.

 

I submitted an original invoice on headed paper from the riad we used in Marrakech when we got stuck...but I have no idea whether this will be classed as 'VAT-registered' or not....

 

anyone care to guess on this...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i've now received a cheque from ryanair with a letter stating 'full and final settlement'.

 

i claimed €372 for accomodation plus €32.10 for food. the cheque received is bizarrely for £37.57 only, which bears no relevance to either element of my claim or is any where near the total.

 

unsurprisingly there is no detail of how this random amount was calculated either.

 

my first move will obviously be to email customer services and query the calculation....but I'm not holding my breath fro a response any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...