No more cash refunds, Goverment wants to forse a voucher on you.

maestroamado

paddy19 wrote: »

You do not need to attend the court or hire a lawyer to make a claim in the SCC.

Sorry for shouting but I'm blue in the face highlighting this.

This is the whole idea of the SCC.

If you don't believe go and read the 2nd line from the guide:

"The service is provided by District Court offices and is designed to handle consumer claims and
business claims cheaply without involving a solicitor."

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/Library3.nsf/0/F9B49A71A85F662C802580B100635032

The District Court Clerk, called the Small Claims Registrar, processes small claims.

"Where possible, the registrar will negotiate a settlement without the need for a court hearing."

The airlines will not dispute a cancelled flight cash refund, because
they (the airline) have to hire a solicitor
and they know they will loose!

I can't say it any clearer than that.

So you make a case against say Ryanair.
you have absolutely no way of knowing how Ryanair will do.
I copied the rules and that is whats there.
Say Ryanair do contest which is what i expect to happen.
In this instance who presents your case?
You have to bear in mind if your case not presented it's "game over"
Ryanair don't have to hire lawyer they have a team, its just game for them...

paddy19

Teena20 wrote: »

hi.. i got the same as you posted above....Like everyone I want my refund and applied when it was first "offered"...I haven't clicked the link to accept "my voucher" in the most recent email or the new refund link... i'm hoping maybe my original application for refund will still stand... i'll wait out the 20 days for processing (nearly there) and then wait for the 5-7 days after to see will it land back in my account. If nothing refunded, i'll go down the SCC route then as been advised on here, which i'm grateful for..

Best advise is don't do anything with voucher on it.
You don't have to reject it.

Just ignore it.

Per EU261 the airline has to have your written consent for acceptance of a voucher.

Don't want any confusion!

On the 20 day and 5-7 days, I wouldn't wait around.

Not in your account 10 days after your refund request, I'd be off to the SCC.

Danger is that new local law will confuse the process and your left waiting.

maestroamado

Lex Luthor wrote: »

you have no idea what financial situation some people are in

people are out of work, paying bills and this money could help them get through the month

save your sarcasm for yourself, if you can afford to lose it then thats up to you

I agree totally with this, if anyone sends an email to any of these companies and can confirm the pandemic has effected income they should be refunded in the normal way.
If this be the case the Government have a roll as they are in charge of the payments etc and can confirm circumstances of effected people.
It for me be better angle than SCC...

paddy19

maestroamado wrote: »

So you make a case against say Ryanair.
you have absolutely no way of knowing how Ryanair will do.
I copied the rules and that is whats there.
Say Ryanair do contest which is what i expect to happen.
In this instance who presents your case?
You have to bear in mind if your case not presented it's "game over"
Ryanair don't have to hire lawyer they have a team, its just game for them...

We can beat this to death.
Airlines do not generally compete loosing cases because it's throwing good money after bad. If the case is a bit weird they might contest it.

This is an open and shut case.

In very exceptional circumstance they contest a test case to try to establish a legal precedent.

Could your case be the one case that MOL decides to contest to the supreme court? Sure it could.

Could you win the lottery, sure you could!

maestroamado

paddy19 wrote: »

We can beat this to death.
Airlines do not generally compete loosing cases because it's throwing good money after bad. If the case is a bit weird they might contest it.

This is an open and shut case.

In very exceptional circumstance they contest a test case to try to establish a legal precedent.

Could your case be the one case that MOL decides to contest to the supreme court? Sure it could.

Could you win the lottery, sure you could!

As i said earlier i think everyone be refunded that do not accept voucher in about 6 Months.
If the heavyweights in Europe change the law we will fallow.
Personally i think if Airlines are going to go under they will do this.

The Irish Supreme court have no say as this is European directive and they can change it as the guy on TV used say "just like that"
I have no more idea than you have but this is what i see.
I have got compensation from this ruling of €800 from Air France ready for spending when this settles.
I am not trying to be difficult i just look at this in a different way.
I hope you get your €50 back....

killbillvol2

Isn't it great when people with no legal qualifications argue the law!

maestroamado

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Isn't it great when people with no legal qualifications argue the law!

How do you know what people do??
"just like that?"

killbillvol2

maestroamado wrote: »

How do you know what people do??
"just like that?"

I've no idea what you do. I know you have no legal qualifications though!

maestroamado

killbillvol2 wrote: »

I've no idea what you do. I know you have no legal qualifications though!

For me what people do is irrelevant, just wondered how you could form an opinion.
I am not really bothered how this plays out as i will run with what i have to.
What do you think will be outcome?

killbillvol2

maestroamado wrote: »

For me what people do is irrelevant, just wondered how you could form an opinion.
I am not really bothered how this plays out as i will run with what i have to.
What do you think will be outcome?

I don't get stressed about things outside of my control. I never fly with Ryanair if I can avoid it. They're bastards and always have been.

I had one very expensive flight cancelled by Finnair and I took the voucher they offered. I took it because I'll use it when things get back to normal and because I fly with them a lot.

Even with a lot of time on my hands at the moment the idea of jumping up and down and stressing myself every day over any company doesn't make sense to me.

How will it end? Ryanair will stall for as long as this goes on and most of the people who say they'll never fly with them again will fly with them again.

maestroamado

i am not stressed about this at all i am just saying what i see which is the voucher, the stall and refund, the refund depends on the heavies in Europe in my opinion.
As of now i have no cancelled flights with Ryanair, i have a few cancelled flights with EasyJet and voucher be fine for all.
I have a different opinion of Ryanair than you simply because only for Ryanair i could not do what i do.
Michael O'Leary says Ryanair plane bus with wings, the comparasion i use is Bus Eireann, now Ryanair are better than Express Bus.
Roundtrip 4,000km Europe off season Europe less €100, you pay more than half that for 500 trip on the bus and twice the time.
I like O'Leary as even though he is an effer he is a person and talks to his customers, for him its a game its not personal and i suppose i kinda defend the person.

ted1

maestroamado wrote: »

The Irish Supreme court have no say as this is European directive and they can change it as the guy on TV used say "just like that"
.

EU directives are just that directives and not Law. They can’t be changed just like that.
Stop talking rubbish.

maestroamado

ted1 wrote: »

EU directives are just that directives and not Law. They can’t be changed just like that.
Stop talking rubbish.

My opinion is the same as yours, like me you not have time to read posts as so many...

joeysoap

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I think the issue here is that issuing refunds will bankrupt many airlines.

Does that mean they are just a pyramid scheme at heart?

ted1

maestroamado wrote: »

My opinion is the same as yours, like me you not have time to read posts as so many...

No you posted your opinion of EU directives as facts. When it’s false, you are creating fake news.

My response is factual. Directives are not law , they are simply directives that should be written in t national legislation but often aren’t

Xertz

There’s a serious risk with some of them that they’ll just go bankrupt. If that happens, you’ll likely be last in line as a small unsecured creditor.

Ryanair is actually in good shape though - a lot of cash from what I’ve read and they’ve low overhead / few commitments, compared to many airlines.

Aer Lingus and its parent IAG, which includes BA and Iberia, I don’t know.

Other airlines - who knows. All we know is a lot of airlines are very likely to go bankrupt or will he in administration and facing agressive restructures or even renationalision.

I wouldn’t underestimate how serious this crisis is for aviation. With social distancing requirements, it means low loading factors and probably the end of cheap flights as we knew them. So you’re really looking at a scenario where it could be at least several years before we are back to the hoping cheap flights to various destinations again.

My view of it is for the next couple of years it’s going to be a very different travel market.

If you paid by credit card, you may have some hope of a refund though as you can do a charge back.

Xertz

ted1 wrote: »

EU directives are just that directives and not Law. They can’t be changed just like that.
Stop talking rubbish.

Unfortunately, you’re completely wrong.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is not a directive. It’s a regulation in EU law. A regulation is basically an instrument of EU law that comes into effect immediately in all EU member states and that is enforceable in both domestic and European Courts.

They’re quite different to a directive and are basically the European Union equivalent to an act of parliament. They do not need to be transposed like a directive.

It’s fully enforceable in Irish and European courts.

I haven’t read the regulation, but there may well be opt outs in states of emergency like this. Otherwise, I can’t see the Irish government just ignoring it.

If you want to read the regulation it’s here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:439cd3a7-fd3c-4da7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

maestroamado

ted1 wrote: »

No you posted your opinion of EU directives as facts. When it’s false, you are creating fake news.

My response is factual. Directives are not law , they are simply directives that should be written in t national legislation but often aren’t

Where was this as i am pretty sure i did not as i do not think this has anything do with courts, i may have made mistake as there is a few threads on this. Just point out for me please.
So show me my FAKE NEWS,

God help you if you treat what you read here as NEWS...

Padraig Mor

ted1 wrote: »

No you posted your opinion of EU directives as facts. When it’s false, you are creating fake news.

My response is factual. Directives are not law , they are simply directives that should be written in t national legislation but often aren’t

You're wrong (and you're not getting a refund either). EU law supercedes Irish law.

From Citizens Information:
EU law is superior to national law. This means that Ireland (along with other member states) cannot pass national laws that contradict EU laws. It also means that an EU law can over-rule an Irish law, even if that Irish law was enacted before the EU law came into effect.

Direct effect
As well as being superior to national law, some EU law has direct effect on its citizens. This means that you can rely on EU law in court even in situations where there is no national law in place

milhous

Obviously if everyone picks refund and an airline can afford that. Happy days. Unfortunately if everyone picks refunds and the airline can't afford it, queue up with the creditors and hopefully at some stage you'll get your money.. Then complain when there are no flights for holidays and complain some more when Irish hotels price go up.

I don't see the issue with a Voucher or rebooking for a later date. Like, are you really not going to travel in the next 5 years with Ryanair or Aerlingus!?

Spanish Eyes

Procrastination has its benefits. Delayed booking anything end JAN, am happy out.

Kill me now.

Xertz

It looks like

Article 3, Section 3 of the regulation covers this:

“ 3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. “

Most of these things have a “force majeure” or exceptional circumstances clauses.

They’d have absolutely no issue proving the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond their control.

You may be better checking your options with banks / card issuers and travel insurance policies.

ted1

Padraig Mor wrote: »

You're wrong (and you're not getting a refund either). EU law supercedes Irish law.

No I’m correct.


Where did I say the opposite ?
I said an EU directive is not Law.
The poster said referred to an EU directive not an EU Law. There’s a huge difference.

Some people need to educate themselves on how the EU works.

https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en#

Xertz

And this instrument is an European Regulation, not a Directive. There is no transposition process. It is law in the EU once passed.

Discussion of the machinations of implementing directives isn’t even relevant in this case.

See regulation:
https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en/

Wiki explainer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)

ted1

Xertz wrote: »

Unfortunately, you’re completely wrong.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is not a directive. It’s a regulation in EU law. A regulation is basically an instrument of EU law that comes into effect immediately in all EU member states and that is enforceable in both domestic and European Courts.

They’re quite different to a directive and are basically the European Union equivalent to an act of parliament. They do not need to be transposed like a directive.

It’s fully enforceable in Irish and European courts.

I haven’t read the regulation, but there may well be opt outs in states of emergency like this. Otherwise, I can’t see the Irish government just ignoring it.

If you want to read the regulation it’s here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:439cd3a7-fd3c-4da7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

My comment was in reference to what was posted
. Which was “ The Irish Supreme court have no say as this is European directive and they can change it as the guy on TV used say "just like that”

Don’t go taking me out of context. Keep to what was posted.
The poster clearly stayed EU directive trumps the Supreme Court. That is false.

ted1

Xertz wrote: »

And this instrument is an European Regulation, not a Directive. There is no transposition process. It is law in the EU once passed.

Discussion of the machinations of implementing directives isn’t even relevant in this case.

See regulation:
https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en/

Wiki explainer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)

And no one is saying otherwise. The poster was the one who falsely stated EU directives trump the law , and actually didn’t refer to any law or directive It was a broad misleading false statement

maestroamado

ted1 wrote: »

No I’m correct.


Where did I say the opposite ?
I said an EU directive is not Law.
The poster said referred to an EU directive not an EU Law. There’s a huge difference.

Some people need to educate themselves on how the EU works.

https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en#

Who posted what you on about?
Basically you said i was spreading "fake news"
i will NOT accept this, there are rules on this forum...

ted1

maestroamado wrote: »

Who posted what you on about?
Basically you said i was spreading "fake news"
i will NOT accept this, there are rules on this forum...

Fake news is what you said in post #126
“ The Irish Supreme court have no say as this is European directive and they can change it as the guy on TV used say "just like that”
That’s fake. Simple as that. DIRECTIVES do not trump the a Supreme Court. They are directives that should be written into national law. But are not an actual EU or national law

Xertz

ted1 wrote: »

And no one is saying otherwise. The poster was the one who falsely stated EU directives trump the law , and actually didn’t refer to any law or directive It was a broad misleading false statement

Even though this is not relevant to the thread as the relevant regulation is not a directive, you are posting a misunderstanding of European Law.

European Directives exist because there are variations in European Union member states’ legal systems and structures. The directive process allows European law to be implemented in each of those systems in a flexible way. In many cases, existing domestic law may already satisfy or exceed what’s being aimed at in European directives, so is deemed acceptable to comply.

Also there are serious complexities around case law:

“Even though directives were not originally thought to be binding before they were implemented by member states, the European Court of Justice developed the doctrine of direct effect where unimplemented or badly implemented directives can actually have direct legal force. In the important case of Francovich v. Italy, the ECJ extended the principle of Van Gend en Loos to provide that Member States who failed to implement a directive could incur liability to pay damages to individuals and companies who had been adversely affected by such non-implementation.”

(Wiki but an accurate explanation)

European law also does have primacy over domestic law, although there are disputes and differences of opinion. That’s a big part of the pooling of sovereignty that is part and parcel of being an EU member. Otherwise, you’d have 27 (and the EEA hangers on) quashing random bits of EU law all over the place and the whole thing would be a mess with an inability to have a common, harmonised framework of laws for intra EU trade, travel, etc etc

It looks to me like the regulation also does not apply in this case because there’s a reason for the flights not taking off that is beyond the control of the airlines - a pandemic and national lock downs, travel restrictions and all of that are absolutely beyond their control.

The Irish government isn’t going to just blatantly flout an EU regulation by passing legislation that contradicts it. The situation isn’t likely not covered by this regulation.

firemansam4

Technocentral wrote:

From Yesterdays IT: "In response to queries from The Irish Times the airline issued the following statement: “For any cancelled flight, Ryanair is giving customers all of the options set out under EU regulations, including refunds.â€

Ryanair know that something is afoot with regulation changes on this. That's why they have done a complete u-turn on issuing refunds and are now stalling as much as possible.

I just hope that if new legislation is passed allowing airlines to issue vouchers instead of refunds that they make sure the terms for customers are more favourable than what Ryanair are offering up at the moment.