Ryanair Compensation Claim - Volcano Problem.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[chris600uk]

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

 

Ryanair Limited is an Irish registered company, so it doesn't have a UK postal address.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[Cityboy62]

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.

 

 

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.

[Cityboy62]

Duplicate

Edited August 6, 2010 by Cityboy62
Duplicate post

[Cityboy62]

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.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[Cityboy62]

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.

 

 

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.

[perplexity]

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-)

[Cityboy62]

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.

[parsonjacks]

...so....anyone had any money (other than basic flight cost refunds) back from Ryanair for this yet...?

[perplexity]

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.

 

[Cityboy62]

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.

 

 

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.

[perplexity]

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.

[Cityboy62]

I'll take that as a no then.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[Cityboy62]

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.

 

 

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.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[chris600uk]

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?

[Cityboy62]

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.

[wobbly]

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.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[wobbly]

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.

[parsonjacks]

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...?

[parsonjacks]

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.