Taking Ryanair to small claims court ***Success***

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

I am following this with interest.  I have flown with Ryanair weekly commuting for many years - hundreds of flights.  That is a lot of trips, delays, dramas and sagas.  I have seen Ryanair operate mostly without incident but as soon as anything goes awry they are disgraceful.

 

I have though taken them to small claims court in the UK many times and won every time.  The £350 fee they threaten is a cut and paste as mentioned in an earlier post.   It appears in every defence and is the final scare tactic before the real negotiations actually begin and you will start getting emails from their solicitors.  If you are right then stick to your guns as the law is clear.  On every occasion, Ryanair have settled with me before court as they could never afford to lose (even though Small Claims does not count for legal precedent) as the internet would light up with how to do it.

 

A few tips:

 

1. For "knock on effect" look up Eglitis et Ranieks as a legal precedent.

2. If they ever offer any kind of settlement it means they know they are on to a loser so only offer to accept the full amount for settlement.

3. Take screen grabs of any conversation with their online chat support.  Always valuable as demonstrative of their inabilities and often useful evidence when you start speaking to their solicitors.

4. Read their T&Cs is detail, I travel so regularly that I carry a copy with me at all times for reference in the event of a problem onboard (sad I know).

 

Hit me back if I can be of any further help.

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Just out of interest, did Ryanair’s solicitors mention the bird strike ruling in their defence?

 

Also, were they claiming £350 as the cost of the defence?

 

Regards.

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Did you submit any kind of response to their defence submission?

 

You are perfectly within your rights to do so and can use it to elaborate on the facts and present the legal arguments behind your case.  Just write it in the same template as their defence and send it to them and the court.  Ensure that they acknowledge receipt as it will become evidence.

 

It also gives you the chance to unpick their defence, apply for parts to be discounted where you can argue for such a move and make the case why their request for costs should be dismissed.

 

Look up the legal definition of unreasonable conduct as that is the only reason for permitting defence costs in the small claims process.  Then state why you have been reasonable and why they are unreasonable.  This usually is because they never reply to emails, never listen, reject all requests through their own processes and leave you this process as the only available course of action.

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Did you apply for a refund before you took any reclaim action?  If Ryanair refunded you for your flight then you have chosen to "end your contract" with them and they have no further liability for your travel.  This is pivotal because as long as you have a paid up ticket (and booking reference) then they have full liability and responsibility for you.  The minute they refund you, they have discharged their duty and you are on your own.  

I am still trying to understand the basis for your claim.  The law says that if you are delayed then you have the option to refund or re-route (but not both which seems to be the case here).  You can go with the original carrier or not despite what Ryanair would have you believe.  You should tell them what you intend to do so they cannot claim later that you did not give them the option.  

 

If I were to apply the best case to your situation it would be that the flight was delayed, you somehow told Ryanair that you were re-routing and off you went with your alternative travel arrangements.  You then put in your claim and waited.  If you then asked for a refund after your travel claim went in then you (and they) could argue that Ryanair has already part-paid your claim but you have a better case.  If you asked for a refund before your claim went in then the emphasis sits more with you to say you made a procedural error and they have a stronger defence.

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Boiling it down then:

 

1.  You did attempt to allow Ryanair to resolve the issue but they failed to do so therefore you exercised your right to re-route through alternative / comparable means.  Also look at Ryanair T&Cs relating to re-routing.  They do not mention that you have to allow them to re-route you. Positive.

 

2.  You incurred costs in your own re-routing that were in line with EU261 regulations.  Positive.

 

3.  You submitted your claim post-travel upon return.  Positive

 

4.  You applied for a refund and fortunately the timing seems to be after travel. Neutral.

 

The actions by Ryanair customer services are unfortunately largely irrelevant.  The facts come down to your rights in the event of a delay.  They did run the flight (of sorts) but it was delayed which gives you rights that you exercised.  How poor the customer service was does not really make any difference as your rights are unaffected.

 

You need to push that you attempted to re-route with the Defendant (or their nominated representative at the airport) at the time of the delay, were not satisfied with their proposal therefore you elected to re-route under comparable travel conditions.  You also informed the Defendant (or their etc etc) of this intention to re-route at the time therefore it is the problem of the Defendant that they did not process this information.

 

It also says that you are claiming compensation, does your claim include the 250 EURO element or is it just for the cost of alternative travel (and extras)?  Finally (for now!) did you remove the element of the claim for the second person, or how have you dealt with that?

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Totally agree on the METAR but Oracle love putting in lots of pages to a defence as they think it looks good, even though it is may be totally irrelevant.

 

The bus issue come back to timing.  If the bus was set up inside the three hour delay window then it is relevant as Ryanair can say they were trying to depart within three hours.  If the buses were due to depart after the three hours from the original departure time then you are back to your EU261 right to select re-routing regardless of what Ryanair lay on.  

 

I have been on a Ryanair flight that was delayed by two hours (under 1500km distance)  - at that point, you have the right to demand to get off the plane, have your baggage recovered and make your own further plans which one very unhappy punter did to the further delay of all.  

 

Once an airline goes over the EU261 mandated time window for a delay, your rights are active no matter what.  Often though, where Ryanair fly from you normally have very few other options!

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Personally I think that you have a solid case for the re-routing but the compensation will take more.  If the inbound flights were diverted because of fog meaning you had no plane to get on then that is an extraordinary circumstance and the airline is not liable.  That they failed to transfer you is just poor customer service but does not entitle you to EU261 compensation.  To win your case for compensation you need to prove that the flight was delayed for operational / commercial reasons.  The weather argument is strong as the inbounds went to other airports.  That was a flight safety decision made by the pilot so difficult to prove otherwise.  That other flights operated from Krakow maybe because the fog lifted temporarily perhaps but you would have to prove all of this.

 

The core comes down to the delay was due to fog (at the point of departure airport), that is extraordinary therefore they are only responsible to pay for your re-routing if you exercised that option in line with EU261 delay timings.  That they did not look after you is poor but no legal basis for compensation.  Even if Ryanair admitted to completely ballsing up the transfer of passengers - then so what?  How does that legally help your argument (other than reaffirming how appalling they are at customer service)?

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

1 hour ago, Kyosanto said:

 

Well this is slightly different because there was no bus at all, and Ryanair appears to be lying in point 53, which Gary says he can demonstrate. Ryanair certainly hasn't shown any evidence that a bus lift was organized as per their claim (despite showing 10s of pages of irrelevant data which Gary does not contest). I hope that this can be proven successfully in court (although I am myself clueless about scc procedure).

I refer my good friend to the question of so what?

 

There were no coaches - how does that entitle you to EU261 compensation?  

 

I see no reason.

[The Scourge of Ryanair]

Arguing against weather as an extraordinary circumstance is tough.

 

The crux of the EU261 regulations all relate to airport point of departure so you are struggling in your case as the inbound was diverted for fog.  You cannot argue any other way.  If they were saying that your delay was due to knock on from fog elsewhere then you have a case and supporting case law about knock on effect.  Unfortunately you were delayed as the point of departure could not take the inbound flight, this I believe counts as extraordinary as the airline could do nothing to mitigate against this.  It is unfortunate that Krakow suffers from fog and that it should have plans in place to deal with it but that does not alter the fact that it was firmly beyond the control of Ryanair.

 

How they treated you after that is typical Ryanair (shockingly) but it does not give you a case for EU261 compensation.  Compensation all comes down to the fog issue. You could argue that they failed in their duty of care responsibilities in relation to EU261 regulations but again that gives you no entitlement to compensation.  Also small claims can do nothing to enforce such a failure unless it causes you actual loss for which you are reclaiming.

 

Can you explain again why you think that you are legally entitled to the 400 Euro compensation?  Simply being delayed is not reason enough.