Small Claims Court Thread

pc7

deleted as per below. sorry.

paddy19

Folks can we move chargebacks questions to

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058069347&page=3

Trying to keep this this thread focused on SCC.

Thanks

golfrules

paddy19 wrote: »

This is really a game of who blinks first.
They will more than likely payup just before the case.

There is absolutely no point in Ryanair going to court for a case they will definitely loose.

You can always write a nice email to the Registrar a day before the court date saying that you have decided not to travel.

One thought, there is a possibility that the courts will allow video link in the future.

You really have nothing to loose by opting for a court hearing.
It also keeps the pressure on Ryanair.

Hopefully Bank of Ireland who are doing a really good job on chargeback will come through for you.

Hi Just to let you know I received my Chargeback Ryan Air flights from Bank of Ireland this morning.
I'm looking at my Credit Card and can't believe it but am one happy girl!! When I submitted Claim I send in all my paper work and a screen shot of 'MY Chat' with Ryanair. In this instance I have to give BOI Full marks

dory

paddy19 wrote: »

Folks can we move chargebacks questions to

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058069347&page=3

Trying to keep this this thread focused on SCC.

Thanks

Agree with Paddy. Lets keep things organised here folks.

paddy19

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Just got the same Ryanair dispute document back from the SCC - clearly a copy and paste and mostly irrelevant. Notice throughout and in all public pronouncements they always say that they are processing refunds (as they must do so legally) but never admit the actuality that no refunds are being issued.

Just got the same Ryanair dispute document back from the SCC - clearly a copy and paste and mostly irrelevant. Notice throughout and in all public pronouncements they always say that they are processing refunds (as they must do so legally) but never admit the actuality that no refunds are being issued.

Quote:
1. No Reasonable Cause of Action and/or Frivolous and/or Vexatious
1.1. It is the Respondent’s case that the only remedy to this claim is for the claim to be dismissed as unmeritorious and unsustainable in law.
1.2. The Respondent will set out below each of the grounds upon which it seeks to rely and asks the Court to dismiss this claim in advance of the Respondent incurring unnecessary and significant costs in having to mount a full defence to this claim.
1.3. The Respondent refers to District Court Rules, Order 47B (7) wherein the Claimant may discontinue a small claim proceeding “… at any time before the small claim proceeding has been referred to the Court without the permission of the Court or the consent of the other parties”.
1.4. The Respondent requests that the Claimant, on the grounds set out below, immediately withdraw the claim as filed and notwithstanding paragraph 1.3 above, avers its consent to any such application by the Claimant.
1.5. In circumstances where the Claimant refuses to withdraw the claim, the
Respondent will seek to reply upon The Rules of the Superior Court, and in particular Order 19, Rule 28 wherein it is stated that (emphasis added):
“28. The Court may order any pleading to be struck out, on the ground that it
discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer and in any such case or in case of the action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgement to be entered accordingly, as may be just.”
It is the Respondent’s case, and as set out in full detail below, that the claim as pleaded is frivolous or vexatious, in their legal definition1 (emphasis added):
“… It is merely a question of saying that so far as the plaintiff is concerned if he has no reasonable chance of succeeding then the law says that it is frivolous to bring the case… Similarly, it is a hardship on the defendant to have to take steps to defend something which cannot succeed and the law calls that vexatious”.
1.6. It is the Respondent case that this extends beyond the drafting failures of the lay litigant and that the Claimant is bound to fail as the issues in composite, as set out below, extend beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.
1.7. Having regards to the seriousness of the request to dismiss the claim, the Respondent now sets out below the sufficient grounds upon which it makes this application for the claim to be dismissed.
2 Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 (Act 2 of 2020)


2. Claim application not properly pleaded
2.1. It is the Respondent’s case that while it has at times, pre- the COVID19 legislation2 and in cases where the claimant is a lay litigant, accepted claims filed and served wherein the claim was not properly particularised and/or pleaded, the Respondent is no longer
physically in a position to do so in the circumstances of this case and as set out below.
2.2. It appears to the Respondent that the Claimant’s claim, as pleaded, is not properly particularised thereby not allowing the Respondent to know the full claim made against it.
2.3. The Claimant failed to confirm and evidence his compliance with article 15.2 of the general terms and conditions of carriage (“GTCC”).
2.4. The Claimant failed to provide any statement of claim from which the Respondent can know the details of claim it has to meet.
2.5. The Claimant failed to evidence the value of the claim.
2.6. The Claimant failed to particular all claimants to the claim by failing to provide full and proper particulars of other passengers on whose behalf he appears to have filed the claim, being passengers on the same booking.
2.7. The Claimant failed to provide evidence of the alleged cancellation or failed to make any pleadings in relation to these pertinent details.
2.8. The claim application is completely devoid of pleadings and/or evidence. This failure on the part of the Claimant creates a server disadvantage against the Respondent and this situation cannot be accepted irrespective of the lay litigant status of the Claimant.


3. Abuse of Process
3.1. Without prejudice to the above, the Respondent further replies that the Claimant in bringing these proceedings and in the form they have been brought is acting in a manner that the Respondent can consider in no other way but as being an abuse of the Court’s process.
3.2. It is the Respondent’s case that the Claimant has not evidenced that he applied for a refund nor has he pleaded the details of any alleged refund application made to the Respondent.
3.3. The Respondent is operating in an environment of Government mandated and enforced “stay at home” quarantining in place throughout its main centres for customer services operations and therefore the Respondent has reduced capabilities due to the mandated working conditions under the Covid19 legislation. The Claimant is, by failing to properly plead and evidence the claim, causing an unnecessary and improper burden for the Respondent in circumstances where the Respondent would be forced to carry out a full investigation on its end in order to interpret and/or “guess” the
case being made against it.
3.4. It is the Respondent’s case that the claim as filed is frivolous and vexations for this reason as it must fail where there is no evidence or pleading whatsoever of any claim against the Respondent.
3.5. In addition to this, the Respondent will further elucidate below the grounds upon which allowing the Claimant to amend the claim will not save the claim.


4. Claim not maintainable in law
4.1. It is the Respondent’s case that the Claimant claim is not maintainable in law in circumstances where the only claim that could, and it is denied that this claim has been made for the reasons set out above, be made against the Respondent is that:
4.1.1. The Respondent breached article 8 of Regulation EU261/2004 by failing to offer a rerouting or a refund for the cancelled flight; and/or
4.1.2. The Respondent failed to refund the Claimant within 7 days.
4.2. Again, no pleading and/or evidence have been provided however the Respondent notes as below.
4.3. It appears to the Respondent that the only reason the Claimant would not have been offered a refund is if it provided incorrect and/or invalid contact details when making the flight booking thereby the communications sent by the Respondent were not received; or
4.4. The Claimant has received the communication however he has not applied for a refund or reroute, which is clearly set out in the automatic email that is sent out on every booking wherein the flight has been cancelled.
4.5. It is the Respondent’s case that it has a very specialised procedure in place, to the best of its abilities and resources and in compliance with all applicable laws, and therefore the Claimant’s apparent failure to comply with article 15.2 is a breach of the agreed GTCCs by the Claimant and the claim is therefore not actionable against the Respondent.
4.6. The Respondents asks the Claimant to withdraw the claim made against it and to comply with the agreed GTCCs. In the absence of evidence from the Claimant that he did comply, the Respondent asks the Court to dismiss the claim.
4.7. For reasons set out below, the Respondent will address part two of any potential claim, namely the 7 days payment.


5. Offers made in compliance with all applicable law
5.1. It is the Respondent’s case that each passenger, including the Claimant, who has a valid booking on an impacted flight at the time of the event causing the cancellation receives a notification from the Respondent to the email address registered on the booking, informing each passenger of their rights and offering them a travel credit voucher, a flight move or a refund. [Tab 13]
5.2. The document at Tab 1, clearly sets out that refunds are an option and if selected the claim for a refund will be queued.
5.3. The Respondent offers travel credit vouchers and free moves as these are automated processes that can be done through the online systems by the passengers themselves and thereby leaving capacity in the Respondent’s customer services staff to deal with the refund applications.
5.4. The Respondent has kept refunds in the fore of its mind in compliance with the Regulation whereby it is the Respondent’s case that:
5.4.1. Travel credit vouchers can be declined, and a refund requested; and
5.4.2. Where travel credit vouchers are accepted however ultimately, they are not used within twelve months, the refund option remains available as a special
consideration in these circumstances and the booking will be queued for a refund on the expiry of the twelve month time limit for use of the travel credit voucher.
5.5. It is public knowledge that refunds are being processed by the Respondent. The event of extraordinary circumstances that caused the cancellations is still ongoing and constantly evolving. In response to this, the Respondent is:
5.5.1. continuously issuing press releases to the media;
5.5.2. conducting interviews with news outlets;
5.5.3. issuing updates to passengers directly;
5.5.4. working with the Government and other member states; and
5.5.5. has a page on its website dedicated to the Covid-19 event, which is constantly updated and is available in multiple language4.
3 Redacted for privacy and emphasis added.
4 https://www.ryanair.com/ie/en/useful...virus-covid-19
5.6. The Respondent is processing over 1,000 times the normal volume of cancellations and is doing so in an environment where the Respondent has 75% fewer staff available to process refunds.
5.7. The Respondent provides full transparency at all time that the refund option, if availed of by the passengers, will be honoured however the timeframe within which they can comply is not within its control as they are subject to and affected by the Government mandated restrictions namely that the Respondent’s customer care agents, as with all other non-essential works nationally, are required to work from home in order to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus. This has caused a currently insurmountable obstacle in the form of payment security restrictions which prevent the Respondent from processing refunds in the timely manner that it does under normal circumstances due to the undeniable change in working facilities such as data
security, sensitive data transmission, at home facilities and resources of the financial customer services teams. The in-office conditions and structures cannot realistically be replicated in at-home environments and therefore creating a fully disclosed delay in process refund claims. This situation was not envisaged when the EU261 Regulation was being drafted.
5.8. Furthermore, the Respondent has implemented forward thinking strategies to protect the rights of its customers in circumstances where if a passenger, including the Claimant, opts for and receives a travel credit voucher and they do not or cannot use the travel credit voucher within its twelve-month life the Respondent will automatically refund the monies to the passenger at the expiry of the 12 months. The end date of the travel chaos and uncertainty is not known and the Respondent has put this additional security in place for the passengers comfort and to protect their rights as best as the current situation allows.
5.9. The Respondent is taking and has made every consideration open to it at this time and in the circumstances under which it must safely and in compliance with national and international laws carry out this work.
5.10. It is the Respondent’s case that this is not an Irish but a European and International situation and the harmony of the application of the relevant laws, including Regulation EU261, is a paramount consideration and one that falls outside of the remit of the District Court Small Claims Procedure, in these circumstances.
6. The Respondent is operating in compliance with all laws and while the EU261 Regulation is directly applicable in this jurisdiction and cannot be contravened by national legislation equally the Respondent must consider the enactment of emergency legislation in this Jurisdictions, namely, Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 (Act 2 of 2020), and the follow on obstacles that have been created such as the aforementioned data security limitations on foot of the “stay at home” orders requiring employee to work
from home. These issues are varied and complex and require satisfaction at State and Member State level and are therefore wholly unsuitable at this juncture for adjudication by the District Court Small Claims Court.


7. Conclusion
7.1. The Respondent seeks to have the claim dismissed on the grounds set out above.

ted1

So basically all the advice you gave people about going through the SCC just cost them 25 euro ?

Time

paddy19 wrote: »

Just got the same Ryanair dispute document back from the SCC - clearly a copy and paste and mostly irrelevant. Notice throughout and in all public pronouncements they always say that they are processing refunds (as they must do so legally) but never admit the actuality that no refunds are being issued.

Quote:
1. No Reasonable Cause of Action and/or Frivolous and/or Vexatious
1.1. It is the Respondent’s case that the only remedy to this claim is for the claim to be dismissed as unmeritorious and unsustainable in law.
1.2. The Respondent will set out below each of the grounds upon which it seeks to rely and asks the Court to dismiss this claim in advance of the Respondent incurring unnecessary and significant costs in having to mount a full defence to this claim.
1.3. The Respondent refers to District Court Rules, Order 47B (7) wherein the Claimant may discontinue a small claim proceeding “… at any time before the small claim proceeding has been referred to the Court without the permission of the Court or the consent of the other parties”.
1.4. The Respondent requests that the Claimant, on the grounds set out below, immediately withdraw the claim as filed and notwithstanding paragraph 1.3 above, avers its consent to any such application by the Claimant.
1.5. In circumstances where the Claimant refuses to withdraw the claim, the
Respondent will seek to reply upon The Rules of the Superior Court, and in particular Order 19, Rule 28 wherein it is stated that (emphasis added):
“28. The Court may order any pleading to be struck out, on the ground that it
discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer and in any such case or in case of the action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgement to be entered accordingly, as may be just.”
It is the Respondent’s case, and as set out in full detail below, that the claim as pleaded is frivolous or vexatious, in their legal definition1 (emphasis added):
“… It is merely a question of saying that so far as the plaintiff is concerned if he has no reasonable chance of succeeding then the law says that it is frivolous to bring the case… Similarly, it is a hardship on the defendant to have to take steps to defend something which cannot succeed and the law calls that vexatious”.
1.6. It is the Respondent case that this extends beyond the drafting failures of the lay litigant and that the Claimant is bound to fail as the issues in composite, as set out below, extend beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.
1.7. Having regards to the seriousness of the request to dismiss the claim, the Respondent now sets out below the sufficient grounds upon which it makes this application for the claim to be dismissed.
2 Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 (Act 2 of 2020)


2. Claim application not properly pleaded
2.1. It is the Respondent’s case that while it has at times, pre- the COVID19 legislation2 and in cases where the claimant is a lay litigant, accepted claims filed and served wherein the claim was not properly particularised and/or pleaded, the Respondent is no longer
physically in a position to do so in the circumstances of this case and as set out below.
2.2. It appears to the Respondent that the Claimant’s claim, as pleaded, is not properly particularised thereby not allowing the Respondent to know the full claim made against it.
2.3. The Claimant failed to confirm and evidence his compliance with article 15.2 of the general terms and conditions of carriage (“GTCC”).
2.4. The Claimant failed to provide any statement of claim from which the Respondent can know the details of claim it has to meet.
2.5. The Claimant failed to evidence the value of the claim.
2.6. The Claimant failed to particular all claimants to the claim by failing to provide full and proper particulars of other passengers on whose behalf he appears to have filed the claim, being passengers on the same booking.
2.7. The Claimant failed to provide evidence of the alleged cancellation or failed to make any pleadings in relation to these pertinent details.
2.8. The claim application is completely devoid of pleadings and/or evidence. This failure on the part of the Claimant creates a server disadvantage against the Respondent and this situation cannot be accepted irrespective of the lay litigant status of the Claimant.


3. Abuse of Process
3.1. Without prejudice to the above, the Respondent further replies that the Claimant in bringing these proceedings and in the form they have been brought is acting in a manner that the Respondent can consider in no other way but as being an abuse of the Court’s process.
3.2. It is the Respondent’s case that the Claimant has not evidenced that he applied for a refund nor has he pleaded the details of any alleged refund application made to the Respondent.
3.3. The Respondent is operating in an environment of Government mandated and enforced “stay at home” quarantining in place throughout its main centres for customer services operations and therefore the Respondent has reduced capabilities due to the mandated working conditions under the Covid19 legislation. The Claimant is, by failing to properly plead and evidence the claim, causing an unnecessary and improper burden for the Respondent in circumstances where the Respondent would be forced to carry out a full investigation on its end in order to interpret and/or “guess” the
case being made against it.
3.4. It is the Respondent’s case that the claim as filed is frivolous and vexations for this reason as it must fail where there is no evidence or pleading whatsoever of any claim against the Respondent.
3.5. In addition to this, the Respondent will further elucidate below the grounds upon which allowing the Claimant to amend the claim will not save the claim.


4. Claim not maintainable in law
4.1. It is the Respondent’s case that the Claimant claim is not maintainable in law in circumstances where the only claim that could, and it is denied that this claim has been made for the reasons set out above, be made against the Respondent is that:
4.1.1. The Respondent breached article 8 of Regulation EU261/2004 by failing to offer a rerouting or a refund for the cancelled flight; and/or
4.1.2. The Respondent failed to refund the Claimant within 7 days.
4.2. Again, no pleading and/or evidence have been provided however the Respondent notes as below.
4.3. It appears to the Respondent that the only reason the Claimant would not have been offered a refund is if it provided incorrect and/or invalid contact details when making the flight booking thereby the communications sent by the Respondent were not received; or
4.4. The Claimant has received the communication however he has not applied for a refund or reroute, which is clearly set out in the automatic email that is sent out on every booking wherein the flight has been cancelled.
4.5. It is the Respondent’s case that it has a very specialised procedure in place, to the best of its abilities and resources and in compliance with all applicable laws, and therefore the Claimant’s apparent failure to comply with article 15.2 is a breach of the agreed GTCCs by the Claimant and the claim is therefore not actionable against the Respondent.
4.6. The Respondents asks the Claimant to withdraw the claim made against it and to comply with the agreed GTCCs. In the absence of evidence from the Claimant that he did comply, the Respondent asks the Court to dismiss the claim.
4.7. For reasons set out below, the Respondent will address part two of any potential claim, namely the 7 days payment.


5. Offers made in compliance with all applicable law
5.1. It is the Respondent’s case that each passenger, including the Claimant, who has a valid booking on an impacted flight at the time of the event causing the cancellation receives a notification from the Respondent to the email address registered on the booking, informing each passenger of their rights and offering them a travel credit voucher, a flight move or a refund. [Tab 13]
5.2. The document at Tab 1, clearly sets out that refunds are an option and if selected the claim for a refund will be queued.
5.3. The Respondent offers travel credit vouchers and free moves as these are automated processes that can be done through the online systems by the passengers themselves and thereby leaving capacity in the Respondent’s customer services staff to deal with the refund applications.
5.4. The Respondent has kept refunds in the fore of its mind in compliance with the Regulation whereby it is the Respondent’s case that:
5.4.1. Travel credit vouchers can be declined, and a refund requested; and
5.4.2. Where travel credit vouchers are accepted however ultimately, they are not used within twelve months, the refund option remains available as a special
consideration in these circumstances and the booking will be queued for a refund on the expiry of the twelve month time limit for use of the travel credit voucher.
5.5. It is public knowledge that refunds are being processed by the Respondent. The event of extraordinary circumstances that caused the cancellations is still ongoing and constantly evolving. In response to this, the Respondent is:
5.5.1. continuously issuing press releases to the media;
5.5.2. conducting interviews with news outlets;
5.5.3. issuing updates to passengers directly;
5.5.4. working with the Government and other member states; and
5.5.5. has a page on its website dedicated to the Covid-19 event, which is constantly updated and is available in multiple language4.
3 Redacted for privacy and emphasis added.
4 https://www.ryanair.com/ie/en/useful...virus-covid-19
5.6. The Respondent is processing over 1,000 times the normal volume of cancellations and is doing so in an environment where the Respondent has 75% fewer staff available to process refunds.
5.7. The Respondent provides full transparency at all time that the refund option, if availed of by the passengers, will be honoured however the timeframe within which they can comply is not within its control as they are subject to and affected by the Government mandated restrictions namely that the Respondent’s customer care agents, as with all other non-essential works nationally, are required to work from home in order to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus. This has caused a currently insurmountable obstacle in the form of payment security restrictions which prevent the Respondent from processing refunds in the timely manner that it does under normal circumstances due to the undeniable change in working facilities such as data
security, sensitive data transmission, at home facilities and resources of the financial customer services teams. The in-office conditions and structures cannot realistically be replicated in at-home environments and therefore creating a fully disclosed delay in process refund claims. This situation was not envisaged when the EU261 Regulation was being drafted.
5.8. Furthermore, the Respondent has implemented forward thinking strategies to protect the rights of its customers in circumstances where if a passenger, including the Claimant, opts for and receives a travel credit voucher and they do not or cannot use the travel credit voucher within its twelve-month life the Respondent will automatically refund the monies to the passenger at the expiry of the 12 months. The end date of the travel chaos and uncertainty is not known and the Respondent has put this additional security in place for the passengers comfort and to protect their rights as best as the current situation allows.
5.9. The Respondent is taking and has made every consideration open to it at this time and in the circumstances under which it must safely and in compliance with national and international laws carry out this work.
5.10. It is the Respondent’s case that this is not an Irish but a European and International situation and the harmony of the application of the relevant laws, including Regulation EU261, is a paramount consideration and one that falls outside of the remit of the District Court Small Claims Procedure, in these circumstances.
6. The Respondent is operating in compliance with all laws and while the EU261 Regulation is directly applicable in this jurisdiction and cannot be contravened by national legislation equally the Respondent must consider the enactment of emergency legislation in this Jurisdictions, namely, Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 (Act 2 of 2020), and the follow on obstacles that have been created such as the aforementioned data security limitations on foot of the “stay at home” orders requiring employee to work
from home. These issues are varied and complex and require satisfaction at State and Member State level and are therefore wholly unsuitable at this juncture for adjudication by the District Court Small Claims Court.


7. Conclusion
7.1. The Respondent seeks to have the claim dismissed on the grounds set out above.

Standard practice of offering any and all defences. The SCC is designed for lay litigants too, so their submissions on incorrect pleadings and abuse of process are a joke.

pc7

Time wrote: »

Standard practice of offering any and all defences. The SCC is designed for lay litigants too, so their submissions on incorrect pleadings and abuse of process are a joke.

Does that mean the SCC won't hear the case?

Time

pc7 wrote: »

Does that mean the SCC won't hear the case?

No the case has already been accepted, this is their submission to the court pre-hearing, they're basically clutching at straws for reasons to have it dismissed. Saying there should be a statement of claim etc.. is rubbish because the SCC is filed via an online form, you aren't required to submit stuff like that.

Edit: they probably paid RDJ more than the cost of the refund to issue the above response.

paddy19

Usual disclaimer: I'm not lawyer so none of this is legal advise.

The most interesting piece is:

"3.5. In addition to this, the Respondent will further elucidate below the grounds upon which
allowing the Claimant to amend the claim will not save the claim."

So you can amend the claim by sending the information they say they didn't get to the Registrar .


2.5. The Claimant failed to evidence the value of the claim.

So that's just the total amount as in the original booking.
Best to include the original invoice.

2.6. The Claimant failed to particular all claimants to the claim by failing
to provide full and proper particulars of other passengers on whose behalf
he appears to have filed the claim, being passengers on the same booking.

List of passengers should be on the invoice.

2.7. The Claimant failed to provide evidence of the alleged cancellation
or failed to make any pleadings in relation to these pertinent details.

Hard neck!

You'd almost feel like leaving that in and let Ryanair claim they don't know what flights they cancelled.

Voucher Email from Ryanair or screenshot from your booking page.


3. Abuse of Process:

3.2. It is the Respondents case that the Claimant has not evidenced that he applied
for a refund nor has he pleaded the details of any alleged refund application made to the Respondent.

So if you haven't got it you can get by entering the data into the refund
page and copy the pop-up which says that the refund is already in the queue.


4.4. The Claimant has received the communication however he has not applied for a refund
or reroute, which is clearly set out in the automatic email that is sent out on every booking
wherein the flight has been cancelled.

Proof of refund yet again.

Jurisdiction and all that stuff is way beyond my limited knowledge.

Credit Checker Moose

It is just a boilerplate defence that they will send to everyone. So they just paid once for the defence wording.

It is designed to get the soft claimants to fold. Just hang tight and request a hearing.

limabromac

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

It is just a boilerplate defence that they will send to everyone. So they just paid once for the defence wording.

It is designed to get the soft claimants to fold. Just hang tight and request a hearing.

Totally agree with this....

Flightrights are stating that a person needs to be refunded once a flight has been cancelled

EU are stating that a person needs to be refunded in 7 days

RA state that yes we are refunding ( in a year)

limabromac

ted1 wrote: »

So basically all the advice you gave people about going through the SCC just cost them 25 euro ?

That is an unfair comment. People are well able to choose what route they want to explore to receive their refund ..no one is forcing anybody to do anything...belonging to a thread like this gives people the opportunity to explore all options...

paddy19

ted1 wrote: »

So basically all the advice you gave people about going through the SCC just cost them 25 euro ?

No going to SCC with Aer Lingus gets you a refund.

Bringing Ryanair to SCC gets you an option to make them justify their illegal acts.

You have option to drop the case if you wish.

Going through any process has it's plusses and minuses.

I reckon it's good value for €25.

eltonyio

I received notice of dispute accompanied by a long letter from Ryanair yesterday, via the Registrar.

Today I emailed the Registrar to ask if I should upload the evidence and I received a reply (within a minute too!):

"That is not necessary. Please let me know whether you want to withdraw your claim or proceed to a court hearing."

I'm liking the 'not necessary' phrase, but perhaps reading too much into it. I've replied anyway saying I wish to proceed.

limabromac

eltonyio wrote: »

I received notice of dispute accompanied by a long letter from Ryanair yesterday, via the Registrar.

Today I emailed the Registrar to ask if I should upload the evidence and I received a reply (within a minute too!):

"That is not necessary. Please let me know whether you want to withdraw your claim or proceed to a court hearing."

I'm liking the 'not necessary' phrase, but perhaps reading too much into it. I've replied anyway saying I wish to proceed.

That's a great service... Hopefully you won't have to wait too long for your hearing date... And sure you have all your evidence so you just have to bring it all with ya on the day .. : )

eltonyio

I received another message telling me to bring 2 copies of documents to the court, one for judge, one for Ryanair. I don't have a date yet and also the court is closed anyway.

I would say too that there's a bit of a theme running in all these threads that legal fees for all this would be high/ nuisance etc for Ryanair. I think this theme needs to be dropped. I'm sure the legal fees are indeed high but Ryanair will definitely have retainers for legal companies, plus they'll be weighing this whole affair up as thousands spent on legal fees VS refunding millions (or even billions) on refunds, so I doubt the legal fees bother them too much, yet anyway.

willabur

just received the same legal notice from them.

Not sure it is worth going to court just to get one over them to be honest, don't feel it will be as straightforward as people have suggested it will be also.

paddy19

I agree now that Ryanair have invested in the legal template
for defending the case the incremental costs to them are not a deterrent.

Easy for me to say, but it would be great if someone went all the way with Ryanair.

What they are trying to pull here off is pretty outrageous.
They are blatantly breaking the law and using their enormous clout
to frighten off their customers looking for their money back.

Especially since Michael O'Leary is threatening EU law on other airlines for state subsidies.
He expects EU law to only apply when it suits him!

Somebody has to bell the cat!

Obviously you risk loosing, in which case Ryanair will not pay you.
So it would want to be a small amount.

The other concern is that you win and Ryanair appeal up to the high court.

The risk here is that if you loose you could be liable for legal costs.
Although it's hard to see a high court judge awarding costs to Ryanair
against lay litigant from a small claims court appeal.
But as with all things legal, never say never.

There is obviously a public interest in this case.

Again easy for me to say.

Would I can do, and I think there are quite a lot of people who would be also
prepared to contribute to a fund me campaign to see this issue trashed out in court.

Wuff Wuff

Will you be making the first contrubution to the go fund me then paddy?

paddy19

Wuff Wuff wrote: »

Will you be making the first contrubution to the go fund me then paddy?

Sure.

I said I would.

First we have to find someone interested in taking Ryanair to the District court through the small claims process.

Muahahaha

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

It is just a boilerplate defence that they will send to everyone. So they just paid once for the defence wording.

It is designed to get the soft claimants to fold. Just hang tight and request a hearing.

Nail on the head there. The law is cast iron on this and they havent got a leg to stand on. They know this but instead come up with that standard throw the kitchen sink at them response to scare people off. Its ironic that in it too they call claims for refunds as being frivolous and vexatious which is basically describing their own behaviour in not giving them out.

I would see it though, the SCC is a court specifically designed for lay litigants to get their money back from businesses that owe them under the law. Let Ryanair send down a solicitor if they want and blab on all the legalese they wish but it will be an utter waste of time for them.

jonnny68

i have instructed the SCC that id like to proceed to court, Ryanair have refused to pay out , scare tactics hoping people back down, ill take my chances,jaysus what a despicable airline they are, i never had much time for them previously but they did come on a lot in recent years but now they have shown themselves for that they are.

SweetCaliber

jonnny68 wrote: »

i have instructed the SCC that id like to proceed to court, Ryanair have refused to pay out , scare tactics hoping people back down, ill take my chances,jaysus what a despicable airline they are, i never had much time for them previously but they did come on a lot in recent years but now they have shown themselves for that they are.

Yeah, was going to take the voucher but now Im going to go the refund route and do whats necessary. I always fought in their favour but what they are doing now is disgusting.

Muahahaha

jonnny68 wrote: »

i have instructed the SCC that id like to proceed to court, Ryanair have refused to pay out , scare tactics hoping people back down, ill take my chances,jaysus what a despicable airline they are, i never had much time for them previously but they did come on a lot in recent years but now they have shown themselves for that they are.

Fair play to you seeing it through. Make sure to prepare yourself and know what law you're bring the case under. Its a court specifically designed for lay litigants so the district court registrar presiding over the case wont expect you to know legalese but you do need to be able to lay out your case. Maybe even print out a copy of that quote in the media by the Margaret Verstager last week

“If you have lost your job, if this is your entire holiday budget for travelling that sits in these tickets you cannot use any more, then you need a refund. And that is why we say this is your right, full stop,” said commissioner Margrethe Vestager.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/airlines-furious-at-eu-s-stance-that-passengers-cannot-be-forced-to-accept-vouchers-1.4252707

And from her speech

The starting point here is that EU consumers have a right to a cash refund, if that's what they want

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_20_879

jonnny68

would it be better if i printed off this and brought it with me

https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/Image/Regulation%20EC261%202004.pdf

paddy19

jonnny68 wrote: »

would it be better if i printed off this and brought it with me

https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/Image/Regulation%20EC261%202004.pdf

Before you go to court try to kill any doubts about the basics.
Make sure the Registrar has all of these and has passed them to Ryanair.
Invoice email from Ryanair showing flights, passengers and charges.

The big one to watch is proof that you requested a refund. This specifically called out in the regulation.
An email if you got one or a screenshot of the request or the the pop-up saying your request is already in the queue.
I'm not sure a voucher is good enough proof. Ryanair maybe offering vouchers to people who did not request a refund.

The specific amount of the refund.
The refund request is for all passengers and all flights.

Proof that flight was cancelled.
(Yes, it's ridiculous that Ryanair demand proof that they have cancelled the flight.)

I think they are ok on EU261, they are the European wide SCC for Ryanair!

Might want to make sure you have all the receipts relevant to your booking.
Passport/driving licence as proof of ID.

Proof of address, utility bill, financial institution or government letter.

Proof that you are acting for any other passengers that are part of the refund request.

atgate

So, my case against Aer Lingus was at 16 days and I just looked and the status is now "Completed" and the outcome "Case Settled by Registrar". Not really sure what this means....

Muahahaha

Sounds to me like you've won and they are not going to fight it in the SCC. The registrar is probably sending you out a letter/email confirming same but if nothing arrives in a few days just contact them for an update.

limabromac

atgate wrote: »

So, my case against Aer Lingus was at 16 days and I just looked and the status is now "Completed" and the outcome "Case Settled by Registrar". Not really sure what this means....

Fair play....it's just Ryanair that are not playing fairly then...