Dx

That claim link in your post seems to be about being the defendant in a small claim?

Are you suggesting I issue a small claim against Currys?  Even though expert evidence is suggesting that the TV was deliberately or accidentally damaged, although the owners vehemently deny this.

Gary

Thanks dx

Claim for what exactly?  Unsatisfactory quality?

But surely it is our word against 2 experts (Sony and the repair shop) as to the cause of any "damage".

I just can't see any court going against them unfortunately 

Just thought I'd keep you updated with this.

So Currys would not entertain anything insisting that because it was still within manufacturers 1 year warranty period that I should contact Sony.

Duly did this again and again they insisted that the tv was deliberately damaged.  They referred me to a local service centre (who I have used before actually and trust them) who assessed the fault by way of photograph and agreed that the TV screen had suffered from some sort of impact.  They also said that it could not be repaired as Sony did not supply the required parts!

So looks like we are at a dead end with this and just have to write it off.

The parents are insisting that they didn't damage the TV

Unless, of course there is any other course of action?

Thanks dx

Will get in touch with Currys then!

Gary

Hello everyone.

I am posting this question on behalf of my Mother & Father in law who are both pensioners and don't really understand consumer rights etc.

OK, they bought a Sony 60" TV from Currys less than a year ago.   Over the weekend they noticed a sound problem and they switched it off hoping that would fix it.   Upon turning it back on the screen developed lines etc distorting the picture.

Not really knowing what to do they phoned Sony helpline and provided photos of the screen.   Sony came back saying their technical staff assessed the problem as being caused by "physical" damage, ie, TV being dropped or similar.   My in laws categorically deny this and i believe them.

What I want to know is that obviously the TV is within manufacturers 1 year warranty but Sony seem to absolving themselves of responsibility by fobbing the in laws off basically saying they damaged the TV themselves without even physically checking the TV and forming an opinion from an emailed photo!

I would welcome any advice as to their rights in a case like this.   I firmly believe that the TV has developed a fault and not been deliberately or accidentally damaged.   Do the in laws have a case against Currys?

Regards

Gary

Well folks finally got my money!!

Lodged enforcement at start of February and 1 month later have received a cheque from the Dublin Sherriff's office for full payment!

Really pleased and thank you to all that gave me help and encouragement along the way.  A wee donation to the site will be forthcoming 

Just goes to show that you have to take these shysters all the way as they will not make it easy for the small man.

So, predictably no response from Ryanair/oracle.   No surprise there then!

Have lodged decree with Dublin Sheriff Office to take enforcement action.

Well I won!

Predictably Oracle Solicitors didn't turn up.  Instead they submitted "150" pages according to the judge which he hadn;t had a chance to look at, even though all submissions had to be lodged at least 5 working days before the hearing.  I presumed that this was to give the judge time to look over all the evidence?   Also on this point, the notice of hearing clearly stated that all evidence submitted should be sent to all parties, ie, me.   The documents the judge had did seem to be more than their original notice of dispute so I should've had sight of them.  Another disregard by Ryanair/Oracle.

To be honest, while I would have liked to see what they said, the fact I won makes it immaterial.

Anyway, he adjourned for 45 minutes and then ruled in our favour.   He was not completely happy that I would be entitled to the statutory EU compensation (which I sort of thought would be the case), but he was in no doubt that I was entitled to my expenditure back.

Just have to wait on my decree now.   I am in no doubt that this is only another step and I will likely have to take some sort of enforcement action through Dublin Courts.

Just a week to go.

All paperwork submitted.

Still waiting on Ryanair to apply for a last minute postponement or something.

Update time

i have a hearing date!!

13 December

Just have to get my bundle together now.

it’s been so long now I am thinking of redoing it so to speak and concentrating on the missing busses.  Lyinair whole defence is based around weather etc and they are adamant that coaches were provided.   Previous experience by others seem to suggest that arguing against weather is next to impossible but I have plenty of evidence about the bus aspect which is let’s face it the reason we weren’t on the flight.

Hi everyone.

Just thought I'd update you all.

Basically I'm still waiting for a hearing date as the courts here in NI are sloooowly working their way through the backlog.

A few other points that keep nagging at me........

The email sent from Ryanair at 17.29 apologising for delay etc and setting out the options of refund or rerouting.   At this point, they were intending to fulfull the flight (which they did), so why give this out?

The flight did go ahead, so why were Ryanair still willing to give me a refund when effectively they are saying I missed the flight?

The more I think about it, they effectively denied me boarding the flight in KAtowice.

I'm claiming EU compensation as part of my claim as I did experience a delay in over 3 hours.  This is not in dispute.  I am more interested in recovering my losses as a result of Ryanairs failure to carry out what they promised to do!   If they had supplied the coaches etc as promised there would be no comeback from me.  I would have been rightly pissed off with the huges delay (neasrly 10 hours) but at least I would have got home.

Yes, I agree proving the EU 261 element of my claim will prove difficult but I through it in there as a belt and braces approach.  However, I do belive they owe me what I paid out to get me home as they to all intents and purposes, abandoned me and nearly 100 others.  Any rerouting option was either unacceptable, ie, several days waiting or none was offered.

On 09/03/2021 at 15:04, The Scourge of Ryanair said:

  Finally (for now!) did you remove the element of the claim for the second person, or how have you dealt with that?

Sorry, forgot to answer this at the time.  I applied to the court to add my partner's name to the action and this was allowed.

Also, is there any way, case law for example, to dismiss the excuse of extraordinary circumstances relating to weather?   Snow or something at a sunny location could be deemed extraordinary?

I believe that fog is a common occurance at Krakow Airport and indeed my inbound flight was diverted to Katowice!   So obviously the bussing of passengers to and from other airports happens all the time so should be a well practiced operation.

So are you saying that in my case the claim for EU compensation is on the weak side?   

To be honest, I am more interested in getting my money back that I had to fork out to get home.  Ryanair's service and attitude was appalling and this is the main basis of my small claim.  The Small Claim Court's whole reason for being is for this type of poor service and to seek redress.

I am claiming EU compensation plus additional expenses incurred.

The coach transfer did not happen.  I have numerous statements from fellow passengers to corroborate this.  Also Annex C Daily Movement Sheet shows that the flight took off from Katowice with 10 passengers on board!  Hardly supporting evidence that passengers were transported to the flight?

Regarding the help desk rerouting option etc.  These options were sort of denied for us as we were told to wait and wait which gave us hope that something was going to be sorted out.  Then eventually it was too late and given the amount of people in the queue by the time I and loads of others got to the desk we were basically told to make our own arrangements.  Any available rerouting options/space on planes or whatever had already been exhausted I would assume?

Anyway, thanks for all the comments.  All very encouraging as I sometimes get doubts about this.

Hi Scourge,

Thanks for the comments,  I will try and clarify a few things so that maybe you can understand my case.

Technically, the flight was delayed due to weather at Krakow and subsequently transferred to Katowice.  The passengers were told to wait for transport (coaches) to take us to the new departure airport.

After hours of waiting, it was apparent that no such transfer was going to take place and thus we missed the flight.

After hours of queueing at the help desk, we were told that rerouting was not an option ( I think next available flight was several days away, clearly unacceptable) and basically told to make out own arrangements!  Only then did I arrange alternative flights etc to get us home.

I did claim a refund but only after I got home as I considered that reasonable as it was well after any contractual liability.  I have since offered to reduce my claim by the refund figure.

So, in summary, if Ryanair had done what it was supposed to do, ie, transport us to the new airport, this whole situation wouldn't have arisen.

Here is a copy of the "defence" for anyone to have a look at and advise.

Many thanks group!

Gary

NOTICE OF DISPUTE redacted.pdf

Sorry Bankfodder, didn't realise I could post this on the open forum.

Thanks.

I wil PM you the file

Hi Scourge,

Actually I decided to look over their defence again as it had been a long time and there is a few sections about birdstrikes!

To be honest I never replied to their defence asI was under the impression that I would be doing this at court at the hearing when I could argue that their defence was missing the point entirely.

If you like, I could send you a copy of their defence for you to look through?  Perhaps then you could see if it is a generic template that you may have comeacross before?

Hi Scourge,

No, no mentions of birdstrikes.  Their whole defence was blamed on fog which caused "uncontrollable" delays and cancellations and rearrangment of flights, spare aircraft ect.    All well and good but they failed spectacularly in transporting passengers as promised to these new arrangements.

Yes, the solicitors quoted £350 as cost of them preparing this defence.

No update I'm afraid.

All SmallCLaim actions are on hold in the courts here in NI.

Who knows when things might get back to some sort of normal?   I'm reckoning at least back end of this year at the earliest.

As I said I've done all I can and just waiting to hear from the court about a hearing date.

Gary

Hi Scourge of Ryanair,

Thanks for your support.

As I said, the case is in limbo at the moment until court services get back to "normal".  I am happy enough with this.  I never really got a satisfactory reply back about the ESCP but because I can enforce any judgement in ROI I am happy to  continue with my current action.

I am all prepared for any hearing and feel I have a good case.  I am looking forward to completely sidestepping Ryanairs defence of bad weather etc. and focussing on their failure to provide the transport, as propmised, to the new departure airport.  I have many witness statements from fellow passengers and news reports to back this up and also Ryanairs own flight data showing only 10 passengers made the flight.

Oh yes the court reissued papers to Ryanair DAC. Just had to wait for any reply which of course did not happen as Oracle Solicitors, who claim not to represent Ryanair DAC, but obviously do as they lodged a Dispute “on behalf” of them way back at the start which the court has still accepted?