How Do I Get Compensation From Ryanair

[smokie1010]

Hi All I'm a newbie to this forum and hope you can help.

 

I was recently stranded in Portugal for 8 days with the volcano crisis.

 

I believe I can make a claim with Ryanair for my accomodation etc but have no idea how to go about this. Needless to say Ryanair dont make it easy because their web site doesnt tell you how you go about doing this or where you are supposed to send any claim and I cannot find a claim form on their web site either.

 

Can anyone help as to how I go about claiming, what I should enclose and where I should send it to?

 

Many thanks

[PGH7447]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/holiday-companies/256473-ryanair-compensation-claim-volcano.html

 

have a read here

[Cityboy62]

Hi All I'm a newbie to this forum and hope you can help.

 

I was recently stranded in Portugal for 8 days with the volcano crisis.

 

I believe I can make a claim with Ryanair for my accomodation etc but have no idea how to go about this. Needless to say Ryanair dont make it easy because their web site doesnt tell you how you go about doing this or where you are supposed to send any claim and I cannot find a claim form on their web site either.

 

Can anyone help as to how I go about claiming, what I should enclose and where I should send it to?

 

Many thanks

 

I assume you flew back from your holiday in Portugal on a new flight arranged by Ryanair.

 

That being the case, you are entitled to meals/accommodation and transfer to and from the airport and accommodation since Ryanair has to abide by the 'Right to care' obligation under Article 9 of the regulation: EUR-Lex - 32004R0261 - EN

 

In order to ensure your claim is received by Ryanair, I would send it by International signed for post. This is a bit more expensive (£4.25 in addition to std airmail charge) but guarantees your claim will be received and signed for. Send it to the airline at the following address:

 

Ryanair Ltd

Dublin Airport

Co Dublin

Ireland

 

Make sure that your claim is reasonable, clear and unambiguous and that you only claim for those items listed above.

 

Do not send the original receipts, but copies and keep the originals safe at home. If you do not have receipts you cannot be reimbursed.

 

If you made your own arrangements to fly home and didn't avail yourself of a re-routed flight on Ryanair, the airline will probably only refund your original fare paid for your return flight.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Cityboy62

[smokie1010]

Thanks for the replies.

 

Yes I flew back on a rearranged Ryanair flight having had the previous 2 Ryanair flights cancelled. I have a receipt for Bed & Breakfast for the 8 days which I am assuming I can claim but I also had to pay an extra £50 parking fees on my return to Stansted for the additional 8 days parking.

[PGH7447]

claim that as well

[Rheumatoid]

If you made your own arrangements to fly home and didn't avail yourself of a re-routed flight on Ryanair, the airline will probably only refund your original fare paid for your return flight.

 

I made my own arrangements through Ryanairs online booking system that allowed me to rebook and I took the first available flight. I had been to the airport the previous day and they said they could not rebook me until the day of my flight even though it had already been cancelled. I assume this will not jeopardise my claim on some technical interpretation of the law?

 

R.

[Cityboy62]

Thanks for the replies.

 

Yes I flew back on a rearranged Ryanair flight having had the previous 2 Ryanair flights cancelled. I have a receipt for Bed & Breakfast for the 8 days which I am assuming I can claim but I also had to pay an extra £50 parking fees on my return to Stansted for the additional 8 days parking.

 

Ryanair are not responsible for consequential losses under the regulation so are unlikely to pay out for your additional 8 days parking. You could try adding it to your claim but if you read their website, it is quite specific on what they will pay for. IMO if you do add the parking to your claim, then be prepared for it to be rejected and have to resubmit it, thereby adding time before you receive your reimbursement.

 

Did you not eat anything except breakfast for those 8 days??

[Cityboy62]

I made my own arrangements through Ryanairs online booking system that allowed me to rebook and I took the first available flight. I had been to the airport the previous day and they said they could not rebook me until the day of my flight even though it had already been cancelled. I assume this will not jeopardise my claim on some technical interpretation of the law?

 

R.

 

If you flew with Ryanair on the earliest available flight then you should be able to claim the expenses for meals/accommodation/hotel-airport transfers as provided for in the regulation.

[smokie1010]

Yes I did eat other meals as well but didn't get any receipts for them unfortunately. But it looks like I can claim the €362 Ispent for both myself and my girlfriend for our 8 extra days bed and breakfast.

[perplexity]

Ryanair are unlikely to pay out for your additional 8 days parking because the passengers fail to believe that they deserve more than that, or are fooled in to believing that it is impossible to achieve any more when it is, because the Regulations especially provide for

 

Article 12

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.

The Reynair website may be specific as to what they will pay for, but so is the Regulation:

 

Article 15

Exclusion of waiver

1. Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage.

2. If, nevertheless, such a derogation or restrictive clause is applied in respect of a passenger, or if the passenger is not correctly informed of his rights and for that reason has accepted compensation which is inferior to that provided for in this Regulation, the passenger shall still be entitled to take the necessary proceedings before the competent courts or bodies in order to obtain additional compensation.

The need here is for passengers to get together with a view to prosecuting the criminal offence that the practice of Ryanair is. With enough by way of evidence to prove the case, an enforcer would have to act instead of sitting on their hands, blissfully ignorant.

 

Otherwise it'll go and on and on, seeing that Ryanair is obviously not afraid to carry on regardless, determined to get away with whatever it is possible to get away with.

 

It is all a matter of supply and demand, in the end. It is already losing out, to expect somebody else to tell you what your rights are instead of looking it up for yourself. If you let them do that they'll please themselves, not you.

 

[perplexity]

Looking back to this.

 

Since you accepted the refund, that was the limit of the airline's obligations to you and you are not entitled to further care once you accepted the refund. Only if you accept the re-route option will the airline's obligation to provide 'care' or kick in.

 

How did it help to be told that when it is is simply not true, if you read the Regulations for yourself?

 

The Regulation specifically entitle a passenger to

 

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

plus

2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.

whether or not he accepts a refund instead of re-routing.

 

Was there any such offer from Ryanair, in addition to the refund? When a company fails to fulfil such a duty there's a liability for a damage caused by that, or whatever misleads the average consumer, to make the one transactional decision rather than the other.

 

[Rheumatoid]

If you flew with Ryanair on the earliest available flight then you should be able to claim the expenses for meals/accommodation/hotel-airport transfers as provided for in the regulation.

 

Thanks

 

R.

[perplexity]

I see no reason to put up with any of this.

 

The Regulations do not so much as refer to the making of a claim. The word "claim" does not appear. The phrase that appears six times over is "shall be offered", and with regard to the right to care, "shall be offered free of charge".

 

If the passenger is still at loss to know whether or not he is entitled to claim, how to get his money back, after the event, the passenger was obviously not offered, and with no two ways about it.

 

[Cityboy62]

Ryanair are unlikely to pay out for your additional 8 days parking because the passengers fail to believe that they deserve more than that, or are fooled in to believing that it is impossible to achieve any more when it is, because the Regulations especially provide for

 

The Reynair website may be specific as to what they will pay for, but so is the Regulation:

 

The need here is for passengers to get together with a view to prosecuting the criminal offence that the practice of Ryanair is. With enough by way of evidence to prove the case, an enforcer would have to act instead of sitting on their hands, blissfully ignorant.

 

Otherwise it'll go and on and on, seeing that Ryanair is obviously not afraid to carry on regardless, determined to get away with whatever it is possible to get away with.

 

It is all a matter of supply and demand, in the end. It is already losing out, to expect somebody else to tell you what your rights are instead of looking it up for yourself. If you let them do that they'll please themselves, not you.

 

 

Compensation in the sense of the meaning in the regulation is not the same as reimbursement for expenses incurred and I would therefore caution against taking this stance.

 

Article 12 relates to the possibility of a passenger taking action under the Montreal Convention to recover additional compensation for lost luggage, for example, not reimbursement of consequential losses (parking, car hire, hotel accommodation booked independently from flights etc).

 

Article 15.1 is also very clear - an airline cannot via its terms and conditions of carriage impose a lower limit of recompense to that which is provided in the regulation e.g. BA tried to limit passengers hotel expenses during the caterers strike a year or so ago to £100 per night when the reality was that hotels in the Heathrow area were charging well in excess of this 'allowance'. There is no limit to recompense for expenses in the regulation, otherwise the poor unfortunate travellers caught up in the volcanic ash events may have been severely out of pocket instead of being able to claim the reasonable expenses under the regulation.

 

Art 15.2 again talks about compensation - this is not the matter under discussion in this thread, but rather the reimbursement of expenses.

 

It is important for all not to get the two concepts mixed up.

[Cityboy62]

Looking back to this.

How did it help to be told that when it is is simply not true, if you read the Regulations for yourself?

 

Was there any such offer from Ryanair, in addition to the refund? When a company fails to fulfil such a duty there's a liability for a damage caused by that, or whatever misleads the average consumer, to make the one transactional decision rather than the other.

 

 

I responded to that poster on another thread with advice on their situation based on the facts they related so not sure why you bring it up here as it is a slightly different set of circumstances.

 

Let's concentrate on answering this OP's problem in this thread!

[Cityboy62]

I see no reason to put up with any of this.

 

The Regulations do not so much as refer to the making of a claim. The word "claim" does not appear. The phrase that appears six times over is "shall be offered", and with regard to the right to care, "shall be offered free of charge".

 

If the passenger is still at loss to know whether or not he is entitled to claim, how to get his money back, after the event, the passenger was obviously not offered, and with no two ways about it.

 

 

I agree that the entitlements under the regulation should be 'offered' by the airline and they are mostly not, either because the passenger is unaware of their entitlements and the airline wishes for it to remain that way, or because the airline finds it easier to duck the offer and is prepared to simply reimburse expenses, hoping that some pax give up along the way.

 

Airlines usually have negotiated better rates at hotels than the passenger could obtain on the day and it is somewhat strange that they don't 'offer' accommodation since they could mitigate their losses in that regard rather than reimbursing larger hotel bills than they need have done.

 

I see some small good coming out of the volcanic ash episode in that passengers should now be somewhat better informed of their rights in the event of cancellation or delay whereas there was previously a knowledge gap.

 

Just for information, Ryanair's website now carries a full explanation of the entitlements to expenses: Notice [100414-EU261_ENTITLEMENTS-GB]

[perplexity]

Ryanair's offence is against the average consumer, the passenger in general which should thus be the current concern above all else, as a matter of public duty.

 

Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 implements the Montreal convention, the pertinent part of which is presumably this from the ANNEX:

 

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).

The argument is then that while it is fair and reasonable that an airline could not have prevented the eruption of a volcano, it is not so fair nor so reasonable that an airline systematically neglects obligations specified by EUR-Lex - 32004R0261 - EN , as a matter of fact.

 

The liability thus exists for a damage caused by such a neglect, for the "relief" of the passenger (rather than to "compensate" or "reimburse"). There's a good deal more to this than the sums of money originally at stake. Not only does Ryanair bring the entirety of the system into disrepute, O'Leary would seem to be Hell bent on doing exactly so, as if it were itself his purpose, to make a fool of the authority as well as the passengers.

 

 

P.S.

 

further to this

 

Airlines usually have negotiated better rates at hotels than the passenger could obtain on the day and it is somewhat strange that they don't 'offer' accommodation since they could mitigate their losses in that regard rather than reimbursing larger hotel bills than they need have done.

 

Would it not make more sense to assume that what actually happens is that Ryanair cut it's losses by failing to offer, more often that it had to pay up, on the off chance that most of the passengers fail to realise their rights (prior to the present fuss)?

 

It should not be so difficult for an authority to investigate the fact of the matter, assuming that an airline keeps a proper account of what is paid and what is not, per passenger, per cancelled flight, which is not to bet my life on that.

 

Edited April 30, 2010 by perplexity
P.S.

[Cityboy62]

Quick clarification: EC 261/2004 does not implement the Montreal Convention.The 2 pieces of legislation co-exist separately and nothing in one precludes the passenger from claiming on the other (or both as I set out above).

[perplexity]

A claim under 889/2002 has to consider a previous claim under 261/2004 because of the prescribed deduction:

 

Article 12

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.

Damages would then be a for a judge to determine, the shame being that so many are in the same postion but with no authority to represent them all as one, yet.

 

The efficient way forward is thus a prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (or the Irish equivalent), with the entirety of the situation considered as one, for the sake of the public interest. For better or for worse it needs to be sorted out, not left to Ryanair to be the judge of its own cause. This remains to be seen, but I fancy that a complete account of claims or offers to reimburse for the passenger care element should be more than enough to tell the tale, over the years since the Regulations came to force.

 

It could hardly have cost so much to reimburse, in view of some of the fares on offer! That was not where the profit was.

 

[Cityboy62]

A claim under 889/2002 has to consider a previous claim under 261/2004 because of the prescribed deduction:

 

Damages would then be a for a judge to determine, the shame being that so many are in the same postion but with no authority to represent them all as one, yet.

 

The efficient way forward is thus a prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (or the Irish equivalent), with the entirety of the situation considered as one, for the sake of the public interest. For better or for worse it needs to be sorted out, not left to Ryanair to be the judge of its own cause. This remains to be seen, but I fancy that a complete account of claims or offers to reimburse for the passenger care element should be more than enough to tell the tale, over the years since the Regulations came to force.

 

It could hardly have cost so much to reimburse, in view of some of the fares on offer! That was not where the profit was.

 

 

I'm not sure this will really help the OP recover their parking charges which are consequential losses and nothing to do with CPUTR.

[perplexity]

Criminal courts compensate victims:

 

Vicitms Walkthrough (text version)-After Court

 

The shame of those who were supposed to regulate the airline is also an issue, or the lack of it.

 

The question arises of why a passenger had to make his own arrangement, booking to fly back with the same airline, supposed to re-route.

 

Where were the regulators and the legislators while this was going on? Where was their press relase to explain the rights of a passeneger?

 

I dare say that O'Leary would relish the extra publicity of a prosecution, but that's a matter for the jury of public opinion. If they think it's all good fun for a crook to run an airline, so be it.

 

[the caveman]

Hi, what would be the compensation situation from a ryanair poit of view, if I asked for the refund on my return flight as they stated the first flight for me would be a fortnight afetr my scheduled return date ... I subsequently booked with thomas cook meaning i would be stranded for 4 days instead of 14. So basically, i saved them ten days of claims on accomodation and meals by arranging my return travel.

 

Would they use ... termination of contract so I wouldn't qualify for the 4 days I had to pay out?

[Cityboy62]

Hi, what would be the compensation situation from a ryanair poit of view, if I asked for the refund on my return flight as they stated the first flight for me would be a fortnight afetr my scheduled return date ... I subsequently booked with thomas cook meaning i would be stranded for 4 days instead of 14. So basically, i saved them ten days of claims on accomodation and meals by arranging my return travel.

 

Would they use ... termination of contract so I wouldn't qualify for the 4 days I had to pay out?

 

It depends to a large extent on when you asked for the refund.

 

Insofar as the regulation is worded, the airline would have had to 'care' for you up to that point (asking for a refund). Once you have asked for a refund you would no longer be the airline's responsibility and the 'care' would cease.

 

In your case the airline would be obliged to refund your fare as requested and provide reimbursement for expenses for meals/refreshment/accommodation up to the point you opted for a refund.

 

They will not take into account that you 'saved' them 10m days' worth of expenses.

[perplexity]

The passenger is not supposed to ask. The passenger is supposed to be offered, which to say that if it didn't happen the claim is because of a breach of the Regulations, not an application.

 

Ryanair is not going to punish or penalise itself so that's a matter for an enforcement agency, but I have not yet seen anything from their direction.

 

What have the relevant bodies had to say about it?

 

[woodydog]

I was stuck in Spain for an extra week, and following several cancellations and rebookings and further cancellations with Ryanair I eventually deciding to make alternative arrangements to get home. I applied for a refund for the flights upon ,my return to the UK.

 

This is the e-mail from Ryanair who are refunding the airfare :

 

"Ryanair sincerely apologise for the cancellation of your recent flight which was caused by the closure of European airspace following the volcanic eruption in Iceland. As you will be aware this disruption was completely outside the control of any airline.

 

We wish to confirm that your refund has been processed back to the original form of payment used when making your original flight reservation and this refund should be reflected on your account within 7 working days.

 

The amount refunded to your credit/debit card is .

 

As you requested a refund please be advised that in accordance with EU Regulation 261 you do not have any further claim against the airline.

 

Due to the mass disruption and to ensure that we can promptly process all valid claims we cannot enter into further correspondence with customers regarding claims not covered under Regulation EU261/04. If you have submitted a claim for expenses in addition to your refund request, I regret that no response can be provided. Ryanair strongly recommend that all claims for expenses not covered under Regulation EU261 should be claimed directly from your travel insurer."

 

This implies that I cannot now claim for the extra accommodation/food whilst we were stuck in Spain awaiting a Ryanair flight to get us home even though we ultimately decided to make our own arrangements due to the ongoing uncertainty. Is this correct ?

 

Earlier posts seem to indicate they owed me a duty of care up to the point of requesting the refund and I can claim reasonable expenses upto that point. Can anyone clarify my rights in this situation ?

 

Thanks.