Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 755 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

Generally speaking all materials/documents et cetera should be posted on the open forum because that's way this forum becomes powerful. That's the way that the CAG community members are empowered and that's what keeps the companies which try to oppress everybody, on the back foot.

If everything is done off forum – or in secret then it simply divides everybody and that brings comfort to Ryanair or anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scourge,

Thanks for the comments,  I will try and clarify a few things so that maybe you can understand my case.

 

Technically, the flight was delayed due to weather at Krakow and subsequently transferred to Katowice.  The passengers were told to wait for transport (coaches) to take us to the new departure airport.

After hours of waiting, it was apparent that no such transfer was going to take place and thus we missed the flight.

 

After hours of queueing at the help desk, we were told that rerouting was not an option ( I think next available flight was several days away, clearly unacceptable) and basically told to make out own arrangements!  Only then did I arrange alternative flights etc to get us home.

I did claim a refund but only after I got home as I considered that reasonable as it was well after any contractual liability.  I have since offered to reduce my claim by the refund figure.

 

So, in summary, if Ryanair had done what it was supposed to do, ie, transport us to the new airport, this whole situation wouldn't have arisen.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are still back to the bus question

 

Ryanair insists in point 53 that it offered you a coach transfer to the alternate airport "like it did other passengers", which you deny. I also did not see them attach any evidence that it actually did provide this transfer. Or even that it notified you of this, regardless of whether the coach did indeed exist or not.

(even though they include 10 pages of METAR data - just to misdirect)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am claiming EU compensation plus additional expenses incurred.

 

The coach transfer did not happen.  I have numerous statements from fellow passengers to corroborate this.  Also Annex C Daily Movement Sheet shows that the flight took off from Katowice with 10 passengers on board!  Hardly supporting evidence that passengers were transported to the flight?

 

Regarding the help desk rerouting option etc.  These options were sort of denied for us as we were told to wait and wait which gave us hope that something was going to be sorted out.  Then eventually it was too late and given the amount of people in the queue by the time I and loads of others got to the desk we were basically told to make our own arrangements.  Any available rerouting options/space on planes or whatever had already been exhausted I would assume?

 

Anyway, thanks for all the comments.  All very encouraging as I sometimes get doubts about this.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that in my case the claim for EU compensation is on the weak side?   

To be honest, I am more interested in getting my money back that I had to fork out to get home.  Ryanair's service and attitude was appalling and this is the main basis of my small claim.  The Small Claim Court's whole reason for being is for this type of poor service and to seek redress.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Scourge of Ryanair said:

(...)

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.  (...)

 

 

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 09/03/2021 at 15:04, The Scourge of Ryanair said:

  Finally (for now!) did you remove the element of the claim for the second person, or how have you dealt with that?

Sorry, forgot to answer this at the time.  I applied to the court to add my partner's name to the action and this was allowed.

 

Also, is there any way, case law for example, to dismiss the excuse of extraordinary circumstances relating to weather?   Snow or something at a sunny location could be deemed extraordinary?

 

I believe that fog is a common occurance at Krakow Airport and indeed my inbound flight was diverted to Katowice!   So obviously the bussing of passengers to and from other airports happens all the time so should be a well practiced operation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm claiming EU compensation as part of my claim as I did experience a delay in over 3 hours.  This is not in dispute.  I am more interested in recovering my losses as a result of Ryanairs failure to carry out what they promised to do!   If they had supplied the coaches etc as promised there would be no comeback from me.  I would have been rightly pissed off with the huges delay (neasrly 10 hours) but at least I would have got home.

Yes, I agree proving the EU 261 element of my claim will prove difficult but I through it in there as a belt and braces approach.  However, I do belive they owe me what I paid out to get me home as they to all intents and purposes, abandoned me and nearly 100 others.  Any rerouting option was either unacceptable, ie, several days waiting or none was offered.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few other points that keep nagging at me........

 

The email sent from Ryanair at 17.29 apologising for delay etc and setting out the options of refund or rerouting.   At this point, they were intending to fulfull the flight (which they did), so why give this out?

 

The flight did go ahead, so why were Ryanair still willing to give me a refund when effectively they are saying I missed the flight?

 

The more I think about it, they effectively denied me boarding the flight in KAtowice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Open

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update time

 

i have a hearing date!!

13 December

 

Just have to get my bundle together now.

it’s been so long now I am thinking of redoing it so to speak and concentrating on the missing busses.  Lyinair whole defence is based around weather etc and they are adamant that coaches were provided.   Previous experience by others seem to suggest that arguing against weather is next to impossible but I have plenty of evidence about the bus aspect which is let’s face it the reason we weren’t on the flight.

  • Like 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well I won!

 

Predictably Oracle Solicitors didn't turn up.  Instead they submitted "150" pages according to the judge which he hadn;t had a chance to look at, even though all submissions had to be lodged at least 5 working days before the hearing.  I presumed that this was to give the judge time to look over all the evidence?   Also on this point, the notice of hearing clearly stated that all evidence submitted should be sent to all parties, ie, me.   The documents the judge had did seem to be more than their original notice of dispute so I should've had sight of them.  Another disregard by Ryanair/Oracle.

 

To be honest, while I would have liked to see what they said, the fact I won makes it immaterial.

 

Anyway, he adjourned for 45 minutes and then ruled in our favour.   He was not completely happy that I would be entitled to the statutory EU compensation (which I sort of thought would be the case), but he was in no doubt that I was entitled to my expenditure back.

 

Just have to wait on my decree now.   I am in no doubt that this is only another step and I will likely have to take some sort of enforcement action through Dublin Courts.

  • Like 2

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Andyorch changed the title to Taking Ryanair to small claims court ***Success***
  • 1 month later...

@garygumps, great to see this. More than 2 years after the incident!

 

My advice would be to enforce ASAP, do not delay at any step of the process. These companies are know to file for a given judgement to be stayed and deploy heavy artillery if they get the chance. You can look at some stories in this forum.

 

So make sure the money is in your pocket :D

Edited by altosbestos
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...