Ryanair Compensation Claim - Volcano Problem.

[everhopefull]

Ryanair now have something on their website about what they will and will not pay for and a form to complete.

[perplexity]

Here is Ryanair's page, supposed to be a clarification of the EU Regulation 261:

 

Notice [100414-EU261_ENTITLEMENTS-GB]

 

Beware though that the Regulation was already clear enough as it stands, to the effect that in case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall

 

(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)©;

Ergo, the Regulation requires an airline to provide:

 

(i) meals and refreshments in reasonable relation to the waiting time;

(ii) two telephone calls, telex or fax messages or e-mails;

 

whether or not a passenger accepts option(b), the re-routing. It also aplies to option (a), the reimbursement.

 

What sort of fools do they take us for?

 

Did Raynair ever offer the meals, refreshments and sundry communication, on any such occasion? I have heard of a case where a passenger made so much of a fuss that they belatedly came up with a meal voucher, but never what would reasonably be called an offer.

 

[vauxracer]

yes ryanair did offer us food and drink whilst we waited in a 4 hour queue

dried cake (that looked like bread) and water i know this volcano was classed as an act of god but ffs bread n water they were defo taking the prevebial!!!! lol n btw i got pics to prove it!!!!!!

[honeybee13]

I'm amazed to find myself speaking for Ryanair for the first time ever, but I guess they may have been limited in the supply of food by the airport you were at, if the airport were providing it. I haven't read everything on here, sorry if I missed something, but nobody could have planned for this.

 

HB

[vauxracer]

honeybee i understand no one could have predicted this, but imo whilst most other airlines tried there best to help people ryanair dug their heels in, so imho to offer the refreshments they did was an insult to there passengers many who use the airline frequently as i do.

[perplexity]

FYI, vauxracer, this is the first time that I have ever heard of Rynaair offering the food to passengers, except that a canny passenger pushed them into it, which may have been what happened. Perhaps the extra public attention to the EU Regulation made a difference.

 

honeybee13, how did the passengers get home at all except to plan to do so, albeit on the hoof?

 

If it is possible for a passenger to get himself home it is possible for Ryanair to get him home, which is to insist that it is duty of Ryanair to offer to do so, and to accommodate the passenger in the mean time, as per the Regulations.

 

If the passenger accepts a refund of the ticket price instead of being re-routed (plus care) because the re-routing was not in fact on offer from Ryanair, it is therefore the fault of the airline, that the extra cost to take care of himself was incurred by a passenger.

 

A breach of the Regulations is therefore actionable as a damage caused by neglect.

 

[FordAnglia]

 

A breach of the Regulations is therefore actionable as a damage caused by neglect.

 

 

Interesting- it appears that you take a contrary view to the District Judge in the case last year of Rigby v Iberia-who came to the view that in a UK context at least- that the the public enforcement instrument as provided by EC 261/2004-delivers the sole method redress for breach of obligation under EC 261/2004 with respect to the right of care ( and that English common law provides no specific right of action of damages for recovery by an individual passenger for failure to provide that care-at least with specific consideration of Art 9).

 

There are several people who regard that judgment as flawed (it is after all only a first instance judicial utterance)-and you may be one of them-although there has ( so far at least) not been any specific consideration of any concept of "neglect".

 

 

There is a discussion on that aspect here-and I know from a previous discussion you like to be directed to supporting references.

 

Relationship between Montreal Convention and Reg 261/2004 claims - Flight Mole Forum

 

It is of course possible that judges within another Member State take a different view-for example a Judge in Ireland-since we are considering Ryanair-which has an Irish domicile.

[perplexity]

This was already covered, before.

 

The cause of contention is the misleading of the average consumer, the consequential damage being the actual result of the act or omission, not just a notional cost of the care under (EC) No 261/2004 which assumes that an airline complies.

 

When a company fails to comply Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 is clear enough that

Passenger delays

In case of passenger delay, the air carrier is liable for damage unless it took all reasonable measures to avoid the damage or it was impossible to take such measures. The liability for passenger delay is limited to 4150 SDRs (approximate amount in local currency).

It doesn't say that that damage has to be because of the delay in particular, or whatever else, just that this was the case.

 

Since the Treaty on European Union, a judge would and should determine according to the merit of a particular case, not a national bias.

 

Article 12 of (EC) No 261/2004 links in effect to 889/2002

 

Further compensation

1. This Regulation shall apply without prejudice to a passenger's rights to further compensation. The compensation granted under this Regulation may be deducted from such compensation.

 

I had not yet noticed that the previous precedents qualify that. If they do, please be more precise about it.

 

Article 1 of (EC) No 261/2004 specifically insists that "This Regulation establishes, under the conditions specified herein, minimum rights for passengers".

 

N.B. "minimum", not maximum.

 

Edited May 9, 2010 by perplexity

[parsonjacks]

guess what...we're holed up in Marrakech since Ryanair cancelled our flight back to Bristol on last Saturday evening. They have rebooked us for tomorrow nights flight on Tuesday 11th but it's looking dodgy that that flight may also be cancelled.

 

My question is simple...are we better to stay where we are and wait for them to fly us from here and then request accommodation costs etc from Ryanair when we get home, or should we forego the offer of a rebooking if they cancel again and make our own way back by train/bus/boat etc?

 

As we are racking us accommodation costs (keeping as reasonable as we can) do we have any confidence that Ryanair will re-imburse when we actually claim? Obviously we dont want to stay around for a flight and incur expenses if Ryanair have no intention of compensating for the wait...?

 

Any practical help greatly appreciated please!!

[perplexity]

Read the thread and the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 .

 

You should not so much as have to claim;

 

"passengers shall be offered free of charge".

 

[parsonjacks]

when the flight was cancelled at Marrakesh airport there was no Ryanair personnel available other than a local rep who simply rebooked seats for the next flight (tonight). There was no offer of any accommodation, refreshments, meals or anything and all passengers were left to fend for themselves. What choice did we have (other than to doss on the airport floor for 3 nights) than to find a hotel and hope that Mr O'Leary coughs up as he so graciously did last time?

 

Tonights flight is still looking dodgy so if we have to stay we need to know what level of confidence we have on whether the further costs will be met by Ryanair?

[honeybee13]

I know what you mean, he's not a man you'd naturally trust, but I think he was forced to backtrack last time. Of course, he's not following the spirit of the legislation by making people claim, as I understand it. I can't remember if you left while that was going on or afterwards, but the people who made their own way back paid handsomely for it. There were far more aiports closed that time, but there seemed to be a lot of profiteering with hire cars.

 

I think I remember that the people who organised their own journeys got less compensation, could someone tell me if I'm right please?

 

I don't know what else to tell you about compensation, but hopefully a holiday guru will be along soon.

 

Your one consolation could be that the weather in England isn't exactly spring-like and I hear north Africa is very warm at the moment.

 

HB

[MARTIN3030]

Those people who are seeking specific help/assistance with problems associated with flight disruptions as a result of the Volcano,should start their OWN threads.

Additionally,members should use judgement and exercise due care when accepting advice on here as authoritive,and correct.

[perplexity]

The alternative to putting up with it all is to enforce, to prosecute the cynical deprivation of the passengers' rights.

 

This is possible because of the EU Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. Implementations of the Directive in the UK and Ireland create the criminal offence of misleading consumers, which is not to place a bet on the chance of conviction.

 

For that to happen the passengers would have to believe it possible and get together to make it happen. The chance is not so good for as long as they're gullible enough to proceed as if to believe that O'Leary owns a God given right to get away with it, too inept to have read the Regulation for themselves to start with.

 

In the end it's up to the passengers affected. There is only so much for anybody else to do if they're not so keen to fight for themselves, turning up here like lost orphans to beg for help. For as long as the predator sees the weakness of the prey he thinks it fun to show to show them up for the fools they are.

 

C'est la vie.

 

[MARTIN3030]

"turning up here like lost orphans to beg for help."

 

 

Where do you arrive at such an assumption ?

[FordAnglia]

This was already covered, before.

 

 

 

Was the content of my previous post covered before?

 

You havent mentioned the concurrent and dedicated item of UK enforcement legislation-why not?

 

The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005

 

In 5 years there has not been a single prosecution to my knowledge by the CAA using that legislation. Would the OFT in any event defer to that legislation and the CAA as responsible "state enforcer"?

 

 

 

An individual passenger may perhaps be allowed to pursue a private (criminal) prosecution in a Magistrate's court-but may require the leave of the DPP to do so.

 

In those circumstances your rail against the lack of effective State enforcement is commendable-although rather repetitive and hardly original.

 

However that lamentable lack of State enforcement doesn't -in practical terms- assist an individual passenger looking for immediate avenues for private redress (including in civil court proceedings) on an individual basis-that my previous post covered.

[perplexity]

There would not have been a prosecution under SI 2005 No.295 because it specifically refers to Articles 4 to 6, 10, 11 or 14 of Regulation 261/2004.

 

With regard to the offer of care the moot Articles are 5 & 9. I don't know why Article 9 is not included, but that is what appears, which is to understand that "in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2)" is possibly not enough to call it an offence to fail to offer "care", the argument being that Ryanair accords in so far as a passenger may belatedly claim. This is a fine point, depending entirely on a notional difference between "care" and "assistance" but perhaps enough of a loophole to slip through.

 

According to s.19 of the alternative CUT Regulations "It shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce" so the possibility of a private prosecution should not arise.

 

However, the relevant consumer is then the "average consumer", the need being for the private consumer to think in those terms. When we were stuck at an airport, struggling to work out what the Hell to expect from Ryanair they got the benefit of the doubt, the assumption being that the lack of an offer of care was a glitch, the isolated result of an unfortunate circumstance.

 

A different conclusion is then arrived at by reading what is posted here, because of the experience of others. The impression is then that Ryanair's contempt is systematic, deliberate, the result of a particular style of diligence more than the lack of it.

 

When the law itself is brought into disrepute that's an issue of public concern, not a private complaint.

 

Edited May 11, 2010 by perplexity
fleshed out.

[FordAnglia]

There would not have been a prosecution under SI 2005 No.295 because it specifically refers to Articles 4 to 6, 10, 11 or 14 of Regulation 261/2004.

 

With regard to the offer of care the moot Articles are 5 & 9. I don't know why Article 9 is not included, but that is what appears, which is to understand that "in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2)" is possibly not enough to call it an offence to fail to offer "care", the argument being that Ryanair accords in so far as a passenger may belatedly claim. This is a fine point, depending entirely on a notional difference between "care" and "assistance" but perhaps enough of a loophole to slip through.

 

According to s.19 of the alternative CUT Regulations "It shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce" so the possibility of a private prosecution should not arise.

 

However, the relevant consumer is then the "average consumer", the need being for the private consumer to think in those terms. When we were stuck at an airport, struggling to work out what the Hell to expect from Ryanair they got the benefit of the doubt, the assumption being that the lack of an offer of care was a glitch, the isolated result of an unfortunate circumstance.

 

A different conclusion is then arrived at by reading what is posted here, because of the experience of others. The impression is then that Ryanair's contempt is systematic, deliberate, the result of a particular style of diligence more than the lack of it.

 

When the law itself is brought into disrepute that's an issue of public concern, not a private complaint.

 

 

That is not the reason why a prosecution has not been made. That reason remains a mystery.

 

The breach of duty ( including a breach for failure to offer care) derives from a breach of Art 5 or Article 6-(that both refer to Art 9).

 

That is why reference to Art 9 is redundant.

 

Try "reading" it like a lawyer would read it.

[perplexity]

I was trying to read it as a so called civil servant would, as if to give them the benefit of the doubt (which is possibly not so much of a good idea).

 

According to the explanatory note to SI 2005 No.295

"the body responsible for the enforcement of the Council Regulation and the Air Transport Users Council as the body to receive complaints"

 

but from whence would a duty to prosecute arrive?

 

"necessary to ensure" and "each passenger may complain"? We had all this with the Distance Selling Regulations. An enforcement agency was obliged to do nothing more than consider a complaint so that is all they ever did.

 

It was a matter of common sense to me from the start, that the CAA & ATUC are nowhere near enough to scare Rynanair so the need is to look elsewhere for support, which is possible.

 

[honeybee13]

Parsonjacks, I don't see that you've started your own thread thus far [you may have limited access to the internet]. Martin will probably chastise me for replying here, but I think I'm old enough and ugly enough to take it, sorry Martin...

 

How are you getting on? I saw online that Moroccan airports were badly affected earlier in the day, so where are you while the legal argument rages? I was never any good at geography, I think Marrakech is in Morocco?

 

HB.

[parsonjacks]

honeybee - thanks for your concern, much appreciated. by some miracle our flight left Marrakech on Tuesday night and we are now safely back home thankyou

 

to bring things back on thread i have now gathered all receipts from our extended stay and will tomorrow draft a claim for reimbursement from ryanair for the costs incurred.

 

however having read the extract from EU Reg 261 that Ryanair have posted on their website it seems to suggest that although they have a 'duty of care' this excludes events that are caused by 'extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken by Ryanair'. If this is the case then under what grounds do I or any other passenger have a right to re-imbursement, and why did other airlines make payments when they too are bound by the same regs? I'm obviously aware that Ryanair go out of their way to be economical with the truth as far as they can legally do so, but i'm interested to know what i need to say to ensure my claim is as firm and un-challengeable as possible.

 

thanks for any help offered

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome back. I bet the weather's colder. I did wonder about you, because that area and Spain sounded complicated.

 

I wouldn't necessarily go just by what the lovely O'Leary's website says. Have a check around the interweb from the time of the last problem and hopefully you'll find articles about how they [Ryanair] backed down. I don't remember all the details, but it was a u-turn. Possibly the BBC site has something.

 

Then cross your fingers that someone turns up other than me! .

 

HB

[perplexity]

Read the Regulation 261 carefully, and the previous postings to the relevant threads. There is not so much to add to what was written before.

 

To the extent that Ryanair leads a passenger to believe that an extraordinary circumstance excepts them from the duty of care, that's a criminal offence, to mislead the consumer.

 

Ryanair's "U-turn" is irrelevant, a red herring. There was no legitimate basis for Ryanair to challenge the Regulation anyway.

 

[parsonjacks]

having trawled the web and Ryanair's site other folks in the same position may find the link below useful as it includes a link to a claim form that can be used to request re-imbursment of costs incurred due to cancellation...

 

How can I make a claim as a result of the volcanic ash disruption?

[Caffey]

having trawled the web and Ryanair's site other folks in the same position may find the link below useful as it includes a link to a claim form that can be used to request re-imbursment of costs incurred due to cancellation...

 

How can I make a claim as a result of the volcanic ash disruption?

 

Prepare yourself for a long wait.

I wrote to Ryanair on 26 April having been delayed in France for an extra week until 25 April (my return flight was re-booked 3 times and cancelled twice). To date, I have received no acknowledgement of my letter.

On 6 May, I noticed the claim form on their site so I downloaded a copy and attempted to fax to the given number. Over 20 attempts from 3 different office fax machines but the number would not connect. Eventually, on 7 May, I was able to fax the claim form from a High Street mail shop. The form advises that you will be given an e-mail address, sent to your e-mail address, to which receipts etc. should be forwarded but, to date, I have received nothing from Ryanair.

I understand that they will be inundated with claims but it is now 3 weeks since I first intimated my claim.

Has anyone received a response from Ryanair after faxing a claim form to them?