Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • we're here for you. take your time.  dx  
    • then the who thing cannot have anything to do with paypal then, they cant be involved at all. chargeback fee? from whom never heard of that one either. ebay/paypal must have changed their T&C's again then since the demise of brexit and EU agreements. i can only assume he paid paypal, who acted solely a payment intermediary, to buy your trainers from ebay. and ebay added a £14 processing fee? thats unlawful hence their refund. i dont think there is anything you can do here sadly. classic ebay scam that goes back +30yrs. just now rejigged for the 22nd century.  typically it only resulted in an unenforceable paypal balance that you simply walked away from... but now ebay has obviously tightened up on losing out to these scammers and added an unlawful fee to scrap some of their historic losses back.      
    • Apologies, I am still getting used to the site. Understood, ill have a read and come back if I have any other questions. Thanks 
    • I have done a separate letter and form for each of the 3 debts and kind of ignored the Vodafone one for now    Thanks 
    • please refrain from posting blocks of text...use sentences and line spacing .... i notice your 1st post had been spaced and ive done your last three.... this is not facebook....its a forum. ........... it does not matter how long BS takes i would cease payments now and a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF. they don't own your debts so can do NOTHING!! slow down and calm down , 4 post in 5 mins is no good. Debt management and Debt self-help - Consumer Action Group click the above link and go read a good 20+ thread in the above forum and all your questions will be answered  if you have any outstanding  then please post with them later. everything is explain in numerous thread already here for you to understand at your own pace. there is not rush to do anything today or the next 10days bar simply stop paying. though as explained in my last post, whichever way you go not pay will equal a default which will trash your credit file for 6yrs so the quicker you stop the quicker they will vanish . dx  
  • 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 219 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

Hi all,
 
I was wondering if anyone might have any information on the purview Recital 15 of EU261.
If Air Traffic Management Decisions should be counted as an extraordinary circumstance, how does relate to the the loss of a departure slot as a result of a delay on arrival?
If an airline has a 25 minute turnaround and arrives 30 minutes late, ATC as a result cancelling their departure slot, does the airline bear no responsibility?
 
As I understand it is not the responsibility of the court to look behind each decision.
 
Is there any existing case law on this, to anyone's knowledge?
 
Case C-388/22 raised interesting points before it was thrown out.
Regards.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to EU261 Recital 15 - If Air Traffic Management Decisions should be counted as an extraordinary circumstance???
Thanks for the welcome!
 
I am considering entering a dispute with Ryanair after my compensation was denied for a delayed flight. I am located in Ireland, but anything relevant should help me. I will describe the aircraft's operations that day for clearer understanding.
 
Flight #1: Departs Dublin airport for Amsterdam at 11:55 (15 minutes late). Takeoff at 12:39 (59 minutes late). Arrives at 14:02 (47 minutes late).
Flight #2: Departure slot was adjusted at 12:18, from 13:40 to 14:20, presumably as a result of Flight #1 delay in taking off. Slot for 14:20 was eventually cancelled at 14:18. Departs at 14:49 (1hr 9min late). Fails to land when approaching Dublin Airport. A KLM aircraft flying the same route landed exactly one minute after the failed landing. Diverts to Belfast landing at 17:02.
Flight #3: Flies from Belfast back to Dublin, landing at 19:39. Departs Dublin Airport at 20:36 for my airport.
Flight #4: My flight arrives at Dublin with a delay of 4hrs 15min.
 
I am considering pursuing compensation on the basis that not all reasonable measures were taken by the airline in preventing my delay. I believe I can clear the weather related circumstances causing the failed landing as not being extraordinary and not affecting my flight, with the diversion decision being within the control of the airline etc.
 
I am more concerned about my case re ATC slot restrictions, although if my flight calculations are correct without them I would still be left with a delay of 3hrs 6min. I certainly don't believe all reasonable measures were taking in preventing my delay.
 
Many thanks for any help or guidance.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Ryanair - compensation was denied for a delayed flight - .EU261 Recital 15 ??

Hi there, apologies if it wasn't clear. I was a passenger on Flight #4. The question was in relation to Recital 15 as it states:

"Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations."

I am then left with a problem, as extraordinary circumstances do exist: an ATMD led to a delay with Flight #2. However, there was a prexisting delay and a subsequent delay, which I believe alone amount to a delay of above three hours. Additionally, Ryanair's original departure delay and the short turnaround time was the real cause for Flight #2's delay, not the ATMD decision which was adjusting to Ryanair's delayed schedule.

The comments regarding the hub are very useful in relation to all reasonable measures, thank you for them. Perhaps it could be claimed it was an entirely business decision to continue to use the already delayed plane that had diverted to Belfast to travel to back to Dublin (empty of passengers who were bused to Dublin), then onwards to the outstation.

If it was a windshear event that effected the diversion, that might make things a little more difficult. It is precedent through Irish court rulings that for an event to be "extraordinary", the event by its nature or origin is not inherent in the normal exercise of an airline. I would argue then: Firstly, it did not affect my flight, and under Recital 14 re meterological conditions it specifies "flight concerned"; Secondly, such events are inherent in an aircraft's operation; Perhaps thirdly the decision to divert was within the airline's control as Dublin Airport continued operation, and as such they do not pass the required 'all reasonable measures taken'.

Thanks for all the info. Sorry for the mass of text, trying to solidify this as best as I can!

Edited by IsMiseTusa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for raising these points, I appreciate them and their trickiness to counter. I will do my best to argue against them after some research with the following threefold defence.

With regards to wind shear, I would argue that windshear is an inherent risk in the landing of an aircraft. Air carriers, as a matter of course, must deal with wind phenomena, and as such have sensors included on their aircraft to detect such. Though it is perhaps unexpected: "The Court was satisfied that an unexpected event need not necessarily be classified as extraordinary circumstances, as such events, even though unexpected, may be considered to be inherent in the normal carrying out of the activity of the air carrier concerned."

If the above fails to satisfy, and it is classd as extraordinary, then there is still the applicability of a prior extraordinary event on a subsequent flight to consider. As an established precedent with regards to EU261:"When terms appear in a provision which constitute a derogation from a principle or rule for the protection of consumers that provision is interpreted strictly". Recital 14 offers the line: "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned". I would argue a strict, passenger-oriented interpretation (required by the court) excludes meterological occurences which affected the aircraft prior to the passenger's flight (as is the case here).

Additionally an airline: “must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.”

Having perused similar cases, spare aircraft at a hub and even contracting third-party aircraft seem to pop-up as being within reasonable measures, and understandably so considering the language of the above. Certainly it would have been logical to use an alternate plane to transport those of Flight #3 and Flight #4 instead of relying on a diverted plane, which knowingly would have been unable to fulfil its timely obligations 7-8 hours before my scheduled departure because of even earlier delays.

I hope all that sounds logical!

Edited by IsMiseTusa
Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify my point re wind shear being inherent, I would argue that extraordinary would mean a freak or wholly unexeceptional event, i.e. volcanic eruption. From Evaluating the Effect of Turbulence on Aircraft During Landing and Take-Off Phases : "During any given year, wind shear occurs thousands of times at airports around the world, affecting the arrival and departure of aircraft."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, very helpful.

Only information provided was "bad weather" and a two-week old YouTube video referencing an old storm... Wind shear seems the most plausible explanation considering it was a weather based go-around, to my knowledge. I will drop any specific weather related points, and with me then I can build on the "flight concerned" and reasonable measures.

I'll certainly have a look for judgments, and I'll come back with relevant updates if they pop up. Thanks again for all the help everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I will consider that point. It might be argued the direct cause was the organisational decision of the airline to not procure additional aircraft to mitigate the delay.

On that point, if I am to proceed, it would certainly diminsh the "flight concerned" standing, although perhaps still pertinent.

Can anybody offer help on the "reasonable measures"? As far as I can determine, it seems to be focused moreso on avoiding the extraordinary circumstances in the first place. Sandra Dunbar v easyJet focuses on Recital 15, which is in the case of ATM decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...