Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant .... So what if he declared himself as driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver. The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number .... The parking was paid for. I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court. But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies.
    • and more .. As thames water pushes to further rip off captive customers, not get fined for it, and allow more dividends .. for little more than 'aspirations' to do better More detail comes out of the literally and figuratively sh** companies apparently shunting money out of the regulated business to profit/bonus/dividend generating unregulated side companies   "Accounts filed at Companies House show : (Kennets) accounts, filed more than 12 months after the end of Kennet’s financial year, showed that the company made a £1.15m pre-tax profit for the year to 31 March 2023, up from £374,000 a year earlier. Revenues rose to £1.6m in 2023 – up from £1m in "Kennet Properties paid out a £14.5m dividend in the year to 31 March 2023" "Kennet ?takes on? land no longer needed by Britain’s biggest water company before developing it and selling it on, typically for housing or commercial premises. It also received income for the use of sewer networks by third parties for fibre-optic cabling."   Thames Water could raise bills to £627 a year to help fix leaks | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Embattled water supplier promises to invest up to £3bn more over the next five years     Thames Water-linked firm paid £14m in dividends despite concerns over group | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Kennet Properties sells off Thames Water land, whose owner, Kemble Water, has warned it would not be able to pay a £190m loan  
    • I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign. He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price. There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery. To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.
    • Do we have any cases where TFl don't write?  I tried to lookup but couldn't find much. Any idea?
  • 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
      • 161 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

Ryanair - compensation was denied for a delayed flight - .EU261 Recital 15 ??

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 217 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

Were you on all those 4 flights, or just flight #4? It's not very clear. Have you been researching the whole history of your aircraft?

The only relevant information should be the reason of the delay of YOUR flight, or, if you were departing from an outstation, the reason of delay for the flight from hub (DUB) to said outstation. Everything else should be ignored as the airlines needs to have enough contingency in place from their hub to adress such operational issues.

I don't have a past judgement for you in mind sorry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm correct that's good news for you because an aborted landing is generally a good cause to deny compensation.

Aborted landings and diversions are done for safety reasons; you wouldn't want an aircraft to proceed with a dangerous landing.

The fact that a KLM aircraft on same route landed safely is irrelevant. Windshear events etc. can happen to individual aircrafts.

Edited by Kyosanto
Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, note that the only compensation that they are allowed to deny you (if they can) is the EC261 art 7 €250 flat rate.

You are fully entitled to duty of care compensation so any meals while waiting, transport costs due to delay, hotel nights if you needed one, unrecoverable costs (for example non refundable train tickets) are still fully owed to you regardless of delay reasons.

Edited by Kyosanto
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest giving up the windshear point, not onky youbare going against safety here but also it is definitely exceptional enough in the eyes of art. 7 (such as storms, which are also considered exemptions). Before that I actually made it up as an example and we don't know exactly what happened to your aircraft. Or do we, did Ryanair state the actual reason? The birden of proof is on them.

Your 2 other points are spot on, Ryanair should have enough aircraft available at it's DUB base to plan for delays and contingencies, and if it doesn't then it cannot argue that all reasonable measures have been taken, since delays are not unforseeable.

Try to see if you can find a judgement where the problem flight was 3-4 flights ahead of the disputed flight. I'd wager that there isn't one, for the above reason, but would be curious to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, good to see they invoked "bad weather". I explained roughly in another thread (linked below) how to use the web to grab and decode METAR data. I suggest you do this for DUB airport and your airport for that day for the hours preceeding your flight. Whilst it's not foolproof it will give you a good idea already whether the weather was indeed extraordinary or close to it.




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have stumbled upon this previous judgement from a German court, which unfortunately is not good for passengers:


In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the fifth question is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be released from its obligation to pay compensation to passengers in the event of long delay of flights in arrival, an operating air carrier may rely on an extraordinary circumstance which affected not that delayed flight but a previous flight operated by that carrier using the same aircraft at aircraft turnaround three flights back in the rotation sequence of that aircraft, provided that there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that circumstance and the long delay of a subsequent flight in arrival, which is for the national court to determine, taking into account, inter alia, the way in which the aircraft at issue is operated by the operating air carrier concerned.

So the airline can use an extraordinary delay 3 flights back to deny compensation, but only if there is a direct link, for the court to determine taking in account the way the aircraft is operated...

Little bit ambiguous and all that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thank you for suggesting that case. It's a really good read. Will put the link here for those interested:



As you've already seen from reading it, the onus is on the airline to prove that they did everything they could.

In that case EasyJet did try and go to great length to explain what each of their spare craft was doing that day, and why they didn't have another one left... which in the end did not convince the judge, and they were ordered to pay.

Knowing Ryanair, you're probably going to need to take them all the way to SCC to try and get that explanation from them. It certainly seems worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...