Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
    • They threatened to do this to me (as per the thread I made). Sent me some over-dramatic emails and texts counting down the days until someone would visit me (and advising I still I had a chance to "resolve it amicably" rather than deal with their agent). Not only did they never send anyone, but any underpaid monkey that did turn up would have only got a  two word response. Just a new scare tactic, even if they arrive. 
  • 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

Refused boarding by Ryanair - MCOL - sorry it's long!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 425 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Here is the back story:



11th September 2021

Travel Date

24th September 2021


2 fully vaccinated adults with vaccination certificates
1 unvaccinated 13 year old
1 unvaccinated 8 year old

2 NHS vaccination certificates both expiring 11th October 2021
1 PCR negative test certificate for 13 year old
4 Spanish QR codes passenger locator forms



We arrived at Birmingham Airport after having checked all entry requirements continuously in the run up to travelling. We were staying at the Novotel Birmingham Airport when we received an email at 5.45am on the day of travel  reminding us to check we had all the correct paperwork necessary to travel. The email contained a link to the Spanish Government website which stated that PCR tests for unvaccinated travellers need to be taken within 72 hours of arrival in Spain. We were due to arrive at 12.40pm on Friday 24th September and the date/time of swab was Tuesday 21st September at 15.30hrs which was 69 hours, giving us 3 hours comfort room within the 72 hour timescale. My parents reside in Fuerteventura so we are well versed with the rules and regulations.


There was one agent on duty at the boarding gate and we were the third party in the queue. A couple in front of us were denied boarding as they had failed to complete the Spanish QR codes and were unable to locate their proof of vaccination so this delayed the start of boarding. The Swissport agent checked our paperwork and asked us if we realised there had been a change in the rules in the past 24 hours and that PCR tests now had to be taken within 48 hours of arrival in Spain. We said that we were not aware and she then told us we could not travel using the PCR certificate we presented as it was outside the permitted timescale. She asked us to stand to one side whilst she boarded the other passengers.  When we asked her to call a supervisor or manager, she told us she would have to email them but “couldn’t guarantee one would come”. 


Our flight was due to depart at 8.30am and boarding did not commence until 8am, there was one agent alone managing the desk and by the time she had checked the entire queue, the gate was marked as closed. She then proceeded to show us “official correspondence” confirming that the rules were now 48 hours and not 72. We showed her various pieces of information, including the official government website for Spain, the UK government website and various links sent to us by Ryainair. The handling agent then told us she had made a note on our booking to say that we had the correct relevant paperwork and had been unaware of the change in rules regarding the timings which should make it easier to get a refund. We later discovered from Ryanair that the note on our reservation in fact states “the test results were out of time”.


We were then escorted out of the airport, along with the other couple refused boarding plus another gentleman who had been off-loaded from the flight. The humiliation of this was awful and made worse by having to console two very upset children, one of whom (the 13 year old) is autistic and was so upset to think that it was her test results which had caused us to be unable to travel.  We spend a lot of time in the run up to a trip discussing it with our daughter, we have to go over the plans, explaining what will happen and what she can expect. She has to be comfortable with the arrangements and any sudden change in arrangements is extremely distressing for her. This is why we always check and double check we have the correct paperwork in place so that we are confident of everything before we travel.


We were later made aware by a Swissport representative (Joanne) that there were other families who had been affected by this sudden rule change when we returned to the Swissport desk to enquire about the situation. Since this situation, it has been confirmed in an email from the Spanish government that there has been no such update and the rule of 72 hours for PCR tests still applies.


I started a MCOL on 6th June 2022, RA have defended the claim, claim has been transferred to our local court, we are awaiting case management directions.


Any advice for me? Is it good news the case has been transferred as I was under the impression that mostly the defendant gets to choose the court.


Any help welcomed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds horrific - especially for the children.


On what basis are Ryanair trying to defend?

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are saying that the test should have been taken within 24 hours so are therefore disputing that we were given  incorrect information.


Our teen is autistic and the humiliation was just too much, coupled with the fact that we were flying out to surprise my mum whom we had not seen throughout lockdown, they were devastated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you seem to have made excellent progress going through the court system as far as getting the claim transferred to your local court, as well as gathering evidence including an e-mail form the Spanish government.


At some point you will get an order from the court with a hearing date, and 14 days before that you will have to file a Witness Statement outlining your side of the story.


I too went to Spain during QR/PLF time (as well as Germany, Cyprus, Croatia and Austria).  Most countries had sites where a constant updating of COVID rules for visitors were shown.  It should be fairly simple, if a little time consuming, to look up all the regulations for visitors to Spain in 2021 and dates when they changed, to show to the judge.

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have all of that evidence, ironically, RA would always link to the Spanish government site which clearly stated 72 hours plus I have an email from the government confirming this. I am hoping RA will make us an offer of settlement. I am assuming it will cost them a fair whack to get a barrister to deepest, darkest West Wales

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you look home and dry.  I'm bemused as to why they are even defending.  Surely it can't take much for them to look up the Spanish regulations for September 2021 and see you're right.


When you mention "make us an offer", do you mean you've opted for mediation?

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at mediation you should stick to your guns.  You have absolute proof that you're right and they're wrong.  You want payment in full.  Alternatively later at the court hearing you will point out to the judge their unreasonable behaviour in defending when there is no defence and request extra costs.

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

FURTHER UPDATE we now have a hearing date, 16th December, at our local court. We have received their evidence pack which is a one page screenshot of their website advising travellers to check rules of destination country. I've submitted everything I have including a copy of the BOE, an email from the Spanish government,  etc.


Ryanair gave now asked for a remote hearing "due to lack of counsel availability" but I haven't seen a response from the court yet. They declined mediation, I'm still holding out gor a settlement prior to the hearing date.


A few questions...

  • Can they offer a lesser settlement and would we be silly to refuse this?
  • how close to the hearing data are they likely to offer a settlement if they choose that route?
  • if the court agrees to a remote hearing, can I still attend in person?

Thanks in advance!




Edited by refusedboarding
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is excellent news.  Their case is rubbish.  You have clear proof you did check the rules of destination country and did everything right.


To answer your questions:


1.  Yes they can before the hearing, not during.  Whether a refusal is "silly" depends on how much they offer and how strong your case is.  You seem to have an extremely strong case and personally i would stick to my guns. 


2.  No idea.  You may well hear nothing.


3.  No, what the judge decides goes.


So am i right in understanding that you have submitted a Witness Statement with exhibits?

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 In answer to your question, yes I have submitted my witness statement with exhibits, these include:

  1. my flight itinerary
  2. email from RA with link to Spanish government website
  3. screenshot of Spanish government website showing PCR test is required within72 hours 
  4. PCR test result certificate with date and time clearly shown
  5. copy of email from Spanish Government Travel Health team confirming 72 hours
  6. copy of official BOE from Spain confirming timescale


Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

why don't you ring the court and ask?

because if they have changed it to a video hearing then it's usual you have to register phone numbers etc for that and also test things work by them giving you the portal details.


pers i doubt it.




  • Like 1

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

This is their breakdown


I have receipts for every item on my breakdown


These are the costs stated:


Counsel’s fee for advising on,
preparing for, and appearing
at hearing on 16 December

£400+VAT for the
Hearing: £480
Travel expenses: £60
Total: £540


Solicitors 1. Defence - £350
(fixed fee) from
2. Please see attached
schedule for

£350 plus VAT: £420.00
£259.00 plus VAT:

Edited by refusedboarding
Link to post
Share on other sites


CPR 27.14

counsel’s fees for small claims track?

you’d have to:

a) lose, and even then

b) have to have behaved unreasonably,

for them to stand a chance.


I suspect they are “Willy-waving”.

Bring it to the judge’s attention and wonder out loud if the person who attached the statement of truth to it was:

a) trying to mislead you, or

b) trying to take advantage of you being self-represented, or

c) they made a mistake by not appreciating the costs implications of the small claims track, but if this is the case, should their costs application be rejected in it’s entirety even if they win!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That’d be another grounds to oppose such a costs schedule : wholly disproportionate to the value of the claim.


Unless, of course, the barrister isn’t going to turn up, on the basis of “inability, as the application to have the case heard remotely was turned down”. Shocked, I’d be, if they went for such shenanigans!!

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza is right.  They are allowed about £50 legal costs.  They are trying to frighten you.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.


 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...