Contacting Ryanair - Black Hole
 

I'm trying to contact Ryanair to "discuss" their refusal to pay compensation for a cancelled flight.

I applied using the compensation form and got a bug-letter back giving an utterly spurious reason for not paying up. The letter came from "Customer Services" with an e-mail address labelled "return address" - and guess what? It doesn't work!

The only other contact I've made is via an utterly unsatisfactory "chat" thingy where you wait 15 minutes to exchange disembodied sentences with some erk who can't answer them and refers you to a customer services URL which, guess what? Doesn't work.

I can't find any link on their website that allows me to send a message to them. The contact customer services form - guess what?...Ha! You know the answer by now.

Is there one? How else do I contact the backsliding b******s?

Save yourself some frustration. Go to one of the legal firms that are in the business of pursuing such claims. They'll charge you 30%, but FR knows better to give them the run around.

If you want to do it yourself, go to the UK's National Enforcement Body, the CAA I recall.

You can search for both easily.

If you're in England & Wales then goggle for 'Money Claim Online", find out their registered address in England/Wales, and, as my ex boss 'FAL' will forever been remembered as saying "Sue the Bastards" :)

They don't make it easy hoping that you will go away, and in the large majority of cases that policy works. It is not, however, exclusive to RYR. As mentioned above, the easiest course of action is to use one of the specialised legal claim companies.

Four alternatives .....


1) DIY court claim - set procedure you must follow,
2) Use NWNF firm and accept claim less c 30%,
3) Try a free firm such as Resolver or
4) Walk away and forget it.

Is there not also 'The Small Claims Court' in UK. I've often heard that a threat of using that can spark some response.
Send a registered letter (keep a copy & receipt) to the official address stating your claim. Maintain a comprehensive file of all your activity and the results of attempted contact. In your letter say that you require a written response as to settling or refusing your claim, with reasons, within 14 days. After hitting a brick wall and drowning in the juices of your own frustration then send the threat of Small Claims.

What's your case for the claim?

Probably more relevant would be FR's reason for the cancelled flight. If it was a strike, for example, no compensation would be due.

Thanks for those replies, some interesting points there.

Reason for cancellation at late notice was a French ATC strike on 3 Jun. Flight was on 2 Jun so not a viable excuse. In any case French ATC strikes are as regular and predictable as summer lightning so how are they "unforseen circumstance"? Everyone's known for years that there's always one at half term and midsummer. Nothing "unforseen" about that. Utterly predictable in fact.

Case for claim is no flights home from anywhere accessible for 48hrs (and all those anticipated to be canx due strike) so had to hire a car and drive back.

Re Small Claims Court, can I really sue an Irish company in a British court via their UK registered address? Do Ryanair even have a UK registered address?

From the preamble to Regulation 261 note: unlike weather, which applies to the specific flight affected, the strike provisions apply to airline operations.

While compensation doesn't apply in these circumstances the airline still has an obligation to rerouting/rebooking and care.

The UK NEB is

Passenger Complaints Unit
Civil Aviation Authority
CAA House
45-59 Kingsway
London WC2B 6TE

Tel: +44 20 7453 6888
Fax: +44 20 7240 7071
[email protected]

Why not give them a call, they likely can help.

Strikes are predictable. As are thunderstorms. Knowing when and where they'll strike is often difficult to gauge.

Contingency plans cannot be put in place by airlines on every single day of a half term or every single day of the summer on the chance that the strike might be 'tomorrow'.

It could have been a proactive decision to get an aircraft somewhere or crewing decisions to make sure crew and craft are in the correctlocation.

My interpretation is that it doesn't have to be during the exact times of the strike. For example it would be reasonable to assume that when a strike finishes at 1200 that there will be significant delays as a knock on affect even though the strike is technically over. In this instance there is no strike at 1300 however the previous strike was the cause. It's reasonable to blame a strike after it is finished so I can't see why it would not be seen as reasonable to blame a strike in the hours leading up to the strike.

But then I think the glorious EU have said that knock on delays don't count. So it's worth a try to claim it back.

HM,
That's right. The reasons you give are the rational for the different language used for weather and strikes.

From the beginning delays/cancellations extraordinary circumstances defence only applied to the specific flight(s), it wasn't a ECJ interpretation.

The glorious EU have been prevented from bringing a redrafted regulation which, amongst other things, defines extraordinary circumstances due to the intransigence of two member states who can't agree on a rock sticking into the Mediterranean.

The NEB 'responsible' for your flight is the office in the country you were departing from however they have no jurisdiction over FR to compel them to supply information as to the reason for your cancellation/delay. Legally FR can refuse to provide and whilst the NEB may agree with your position (due to lack of FR response) again their agreement will not stand for anything should the matter go to court.


With regard to any threat or action you wish to legally take against FR you can either use the EU Court procedure which can be submitted via a UK Court (Sheffield appears the best versed) or indeed you can use the Dublin Court but you cannot use MCOL (internet - money claim on line) or form N1 (standard form for 'small claims') however I would expect FR to defend any claim of the type you mention due to the impending strike. Accept the strike did not occur on the day in question however a judge may regard the impending strike as good reason to cancel a flight the previous day.

So what we're saying is an airline can cancel willy-nilly when there isn't a strike on and cite potential disruption to the schedule the following day as a reason?

I'm flabbergasted! What's the point of having rules?

From the Regulation Sanctions will be as determined by the British Parliament.

Wageslave,
What you suggest just isn't happening. The airlines know an NEB or a court is not going to accept rubbish reasoning.

From the CAA web site ........"Unfortunately we cannot handle your complaint if it is about a cancellation, delay, downgrading or an instance of denied boarding from another (not UK) EU country. EU in this sense includes all EU Member States plus EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) and Switzerland.
You will need to contact the relevant National Enforcement Body (NEB) for aviation in that country......."


In any event whether the UK (CAA) or overseas NEB agree with the claimant their agreement is worthless as it carries no legal jurisdiction - yes it may well sway a judge should the matter go to court but the idea of going to court puts off the majority of claimants.


With regard to a Court claim (in the UK) many judges are still not fully aware of valid reasons why an airline does not need to pay out for 261/2004 claims and indeed it could well be an uninformed judge could accept an airlines statement that a strike the following day meant that no compensation was due. With airlines chucking everything into their defence in the small claims court this results in the judge facing a lay claimant (more than likely their first time in court) and a well versed barrister. Thus on numerous occasions the judge favours the barristers defence. In some cases the claimant is given leave to appeal however this is when costs can really kick in and I do not believe there is a single case where a litigant in person has appealed a judges decision without the (financial) backing of an aviation lawyer.

I knew of one case where an a/c diverted and left 160 pax stranded in FAO. It took many days for them to be returned. The reason given was weather at FAO. The scenario was that the Wx was foggy and the inbound a/c diverted without holding or making an approach. 15mins later other a/c landed. It was discovered that the a/c had sufficient fuel to hold for quite a while. The passenger who told me the story said they were in the process of creating a 'class action'; i.e. 1 lawyer for 160 pax each making a claim. Unfortunately I lost contact and never heard the outcome.

Often the problem can be obtaining the true facts and this is to the airline's advantage. A case involving myself was only successful because of inside knowledge and evidence acquired through my job. Once I had that they paid up without further discussion. At the time it occurred to me that had I been Mr Average Passenger I would never have been able to prove the airline's lies. This was a major European legacy carrier btw.

Well, it appears the CAA are in breach of the regulation. Wonder who will bring enforcement action against them.

Bring back the AUC, who actually knew what they were doing.