You're allowed a pretty generous allowance for cabin baggage, often I've seen/taken bags which other airlines would point blank refuse to let you take onboard. Ryanair Love cabin baggage, they pay less at the airports for ground staff and the use of baggage belts and all that machinery that goes with it. Not to mention the insurance of the bags incase they get damaged.
I've also travelled with them and taken both cabin and hold baggage in the past, they really don't refuse you anything that other airlines allow you. They charge ridiculous amounts onboard for food and drink...but don't stop you buying your own at the airport and bringing it on, which is to be honest also a rip off, but not thier fault. They don't charge extra for the emergency row seats which have extra leg room like KLM, Air France and many American airlines do.
You tell me... they're obviously not adhering to regulation somewhere if they're being taken to court successfully.
Maybe their disclaimers are in too small a print on not an obvious enough place? I haven't really looked into it in any amount of minute detail.
However... whatever the technicalities are people are still aware of the full amount they are paying when they actually get round to paying... which is my point.
I may think that the full price should be made evident first off but, at the same time, I can't believe anyone actually puts in their credit card details without being fully aware of what is going to be charged.
Because they're a business and they need to make a profit somehow... it doesn't strike like this is a policy exclusive to Ryanair anyhow. Is it?
First of all it is illegal to advertise a price and then charge a higher price for that item, irrespective of the fact you get told about it at the point of sale. If you went into a shop and saw a sign reading, "MASSIVE SALE, pair of shoes for ten pounds*." You then decide that is a really good price. So you take them to the check out and are then told that you have to pay for the laces separately, at a cost of ten pounds. Then you are told that you have to pay VAT on the price of the shoes and the laces. You complain, but to be told that the sign tells you this. You tell the assistant that it doesn't and she points out that the asterisk denotes that it does. You ask where and she points to a small sign next to the counter (behind all the rest of the clutter that is there) that explains this. What do you do? Do feel as though the shop is trying to rip you off, or do you say, "Aah well, silly me, should have seen the sign, besides the shop needs the money and I need the shoes."
Because I assume there are caveats in their terms which say that you are not entitled to a refund if you cancel. Whether those terms are actually fully enforceable or not is another thing entirely... many businesses put things in their terms and conditions that wouldn't stand up in a court of law if someone actually chose to challenge them.
It's the same with some hotels really... if you cancel last minute (or with some even two weeks before) you have to pay for a certain amount anyway or (if you've already paid) you don't get a refund (or not a full refund - may depend on how many nights you've booked). In that event I don't usually expect to get the VAT refunded or even discounted from the price.
It's the same principle I imagine.
Airport taxes are not deposits. Airport taxes are paid to the government (irrelative whether you agree with it or not) when you fly through a UK airport. If you do not fly, you are not liable to pay the tax. Therefore any retailer that holds any money to which they are not entitled to and refuse to give it back, are stealing the money from you. Why do you think they were ordered to repay the money?
If a business inserts an unfair condition into a contract, they are breaking the law. This is why Ryanair continue to be fined because they, knowingly, refuse to comply with the law. They have inserted into their terms and conditions that they will not give vouchers to provide accommodation and sustenance, to passenger whose flights have been delayed, for however long or for whatever reason. However, the law quite clearly says that they must.
Still think they have your best interests at heart?
First of all it is illegal to advertise a price and then charge a higher price for that item, irrespective of the fact you get told about it at the point of sale. If you went into a shop and saw a sign reading, "MASSIVE SALE, pair of shoes for ten pounds*." You then decide that is a really good price. So you take them to the check out and are then told that you have to pay for the laces separately, at a cost of ten pounds. Then you are told that you have to pay VAT on the price of the shoes and the laces. You complain, but to be told that the sign tells you this. You tell the assistant that it doesn't and she points out that the asterisk denotes that it does. You ask where and she points to a small sign next to the counter (behind all the rest of the clutter that is there) that explains this. What do you do? Do feel as though the shop is trying to rip you off, or do you say, "Aah well, silly me, should have seen the sign, besides the shop needs the money and I need the shoes."
Sure... but, ultimately, I still have the option to change my mind before purchasing once I become aware of the real price of the item. I am not compelled to buy it. I make my ultimate decision in full knowledge of what it is costing me. Maybe I might think that the deal is still worthwhile at the end of the day for whatever reason or maybe I'll tell them to sling their hook purely on principle. Either way that is my decision.
Also... in the industry of budget airlines it is now well known generally that the original price is going to have other costs added to it... and, usually, there are indications that this is going to be the case before you proceed to booking. Presumably this has been a direct result of being "slapped on the wrist" for such practices. If they are still not complying then, as you've said, they will be subject to fines and/or other legal complications. That's their lookout...
Airport taxes are not deposits. Airport taxes are paid to the government (irrelative whether you agree with it or not) when you fly through a UK airport. If you do not fly, you are not liable to pay the tax. Therefore any retailer that holds any money to which they are not entitled to and refuse to give it back, are stealing the money from you. Why do you think they were ordered to repay the money?
Presumably the problem was that they were retaining that amount themselves (rather than passing it on) not that they were refusing to refund it per say. Perhaps it was an accounting loophole whereby they found a way to "deduct" those taxes from the final bill in instances where the original booking had been cancelled.
Otherwise, as I said, it would be exactly the same as expecting a refund on VAT for an otherwise non-refundable service. I wonder how that works... are companies able to "retain" the VAT element of an otherwise non-refundable service when said service has been cancelled? Hmm... I'd guess not. If so, they'd be equally in trouble. Not for not refunding the customer... but for retaining tax revenue for themselves.
If a business inserts an unfair condition into a contract, they are breaking the law. This is why Ryanair continue to be fined because they, knowingly, refuse to comply with the law. They have inserted into their terms and conditions that they will give not vouchers to provide accommodation and sustenance, to passenger whose flights have been delayed, for however long or for whatever reason. However, the law quite clearly says that they must.
...so they will be subject to fines if challenged... however... if I choose to use their service then I am aware of what kind of policy they are going to be adhering to by reading their terms and conditions... and if I want to challenge their terms it's not going to be as simple as just asking... I'll have to pursue it legally.
Still think they have your best interests at heart?
Are you kidding me?
I'm pretty sure I have never said or even implied that I believed such a ridiculous statement. I wasn't born yesterday, you know?
I always assume that any business ultimately has only their own interests at heart. My interests are only of... er... interest... in so much as it affects theirs. i.e. if a company pisses off too many of their customers TOO much then they'll end up without enough revenue to continue operating.
In fact... I pretty much invariably look for "a catch" in everything... if something looks too good to be true then there's likely to be good reason for that. It's just a question of how immediately obvious said "catch" might be.
---
Maybe that's the difference... I don't really expect businesses to have my best interests at heart... to the contrary.
Sure... but, ultimately, I still have the option to change my mind before purchasing once I become aware of the real price of the item. I am not compelled to buy it. I make my ultimate decision in full knowledge of what it is costing me. Maybe I might think that the deal is still worthwhile at the end of the day for whatever reason or maybe I'll tell them to sling their hook purely on principle. Either way that is my decision.
Also... in the industry of budget airlines it is now well known generally that the original price is going to have other costs added to it... and, usually, there are indications that this is going to be the case before you proceed to booking. Presumably this has been a direct result of being "slapped on the wrist" for such practices. If they are still not complying then, as you've said, they will be subject to fines and/or other legal complications. That's their lookout...
Presumably the problem was that they were retaining that amount themselves (rather than passing it on) not that they were refusing to refund it per say. Perhaps it was an accounting loophole whereby they found a way to "deduct" those taxes from the final bill in instances where the original booking had been cancelled.
Otherwise, as I said, it would be exactly the same as expecting a refund on VAT for an otherwise non-refundable service. I wonder how that works... are companies able to "retain" the VAT element of an otherwise non-refundable service when said service has been cancelled? Hmm... I'd guess not. If so, they'd be equally in trouble. Not for not refunding the customer... but for retaining tax revenue for themselves.
...so they will be subject to fines if challenged... however... if I choose to use their service then I am aware of what kind of policy they are going to be adhering to by reading their terms and conditions... and if I want to challenge their terms it's not going to be as simple as just asking... I'll have to pursue it legally.
Are you kidding me?
I'm pretty sure I have never said or even implied that I believed such a ridiculous statement. I wasn't born yesterday, you know?
I always assume that any business ultimately has only their own interests at heart. My interests are only of... er... interest... in so much as it affects theirs. i.e. if a company pisses off too many of their customers TOO much then they'll end up without enough revenue to continue operating.
In fact... I pretty much invariably look for "a catch" in everything... if something looks too good to be true then there's likely to be good reason for that. It's just a question of how immediately obvious said "catch" might be.
What a load of twaddle. So, let me see. You are the sort of person who reads every single term and condition when you buy something on line, sadly most don't. How was it that you did not know about the one where they refuse to give you the vouchers you need for food and drink. Why did you not know about the hand luggage limit. You seem perfectly happy for a retailer to change the terms of purchase without warning, you seem to think that it is OK to lie, when being told how much things cost. You even think it is OK for a retailer to charge you a tax that you are not liable for. It is apparently fine for you to pay the fines of a company that has cheated and lied to you and still give them more money.
You are a rogue trader's dream, it seems that you pay whatever you are told to pay. If a builder gives you a quote to do a job and half way through the job, he tells you that it is going to cost twice as much and you have to pay the VAT on the bricks that he hasn't used and will be taking them with him when he goes, do you roll over and say, "well I should have seen that coming, here is some more money." If so, can I build you a conservatory, I swear it will only cost you tenpence ha'penny guv, honest it will?
If you purchase a product or service that is liable to VAT, you have to pay the VAT. If you are charged a cancellation fee, you have to pay the VAT, as this is considered to be a service. However, if you have paid airport duty (which is a separate tax) and do not use the airport, you are entitled to the money back. But, Ryanair insisted that you were not. They did not pay this money to HMRC because HMRC said that the passengers were not liable to pay the duty. HMRC told Ryanair to refund the money. Ryanair refused. HMRC obtained an order from the high court, an order that was contested by Ryanair, and were ordered to repay the money, with interest and were fined by HMRC in the process. However, Michael O'Leary said, "that is OK, we will just increase the booking fees to offset the fine costs."
What a load of twaddle. So, let me see. You are the sort of person who reads every single term and condition when you buy something on line, sadly most don't. How was it that you did not know about the one where they refuse to give you the vouchers you need for food and drink.Why did you not know about the hand luggage limit. You seem perfectly happy for a retailer to change the terms of purchase without warning, you seem to think that it is OK to lie, when being told how much things cost. You even think it is OK for a retailer to charge you a tax that you are not liable for. It is apparently fine for you to pay the fines of a company that has cheated and lied to you and still give them more money.
You are a rogue trader's dream, it seems that you pay whatever you are told to pay. If a builder gives you a quote to do a job and half way through the job, he tells you that it is going to cost twice as much and you have to pay the VAT on the bricks that he hasn't used and will be taking them with him when he goes, do you roll over and say, "well I should have seen that coming, here is some more money." If so, can I build you a conservatory, I swear it will only cost you tenpence ha'penny guv, honest it will?
If you purchase a product or service that is liable to VAT, you have to pay the VAT. If you are charged a cancellation fee, you have to pay the VAT, as this is considered to be a service. However, if you have paid airport duty (which is a separate tax) and do not use the airport, you are entitled to the money back. But, Ryanair insisted that you were not. They did not pay this money to HMRC because HMRC said that the passengers were not liable to pay the duty. HMRC told Ryanair to refund the money. Ryanair refused. HMRC obtained an order from the high court, an order that was contested by Ryanair, and were ordered to repay the money, with interest and were fined by HMRC in the process. However, Michael O'Leary said, "that is OK, we will just increase the booking fees to offset the fine costs."
Still want to give them more money?
I don't use ryanair.
Personally... I tend to prefer to pay a bit more and get a better service.
However... I do believe that, regardless of airline, there's a limit of 1 item per person when it comes to hand luggage... and said luggage needs to be within certain dimensions and weight.
If I ever did it would only be on the basis that I'm aware that the fact that I am paying so little means that I'm receiving a much more restricted service.
I tend to shop around... I'll go with the company that offers me the best return for my money once all things have been considered.
If Ryanair are not competitive over-all then they will soon be out of business no doubt, or if any shady practices means that they end up paying so much in fines that they go down, so be it (they can only increase their prices to compensate for fines so much before it gets to the point where they are no longer competitive within their budget market - they have custom now because they are dirt cheap overall)... I won't cry if that happens... promise.
You are a rogue trader's dream, it seems that you pay whatever you are told to pay. If a builder gives you a quote to do a job and half way through the job, he tells you that it is going to cost twice as much and you have to pay the VAT on the bricks that he hasn't used and will be taking them with him when he goes, do you roll over and say, "well I should have seen that coming, here is some more money." If so, can I build you a conservatory, I swear it will only cost you tenpence ha'penny guv, honest it will?
By the way that's just an irrelevant tangent... entirely different scenario, isn't it?... at that point (unless the builder is able to give me some bloody good and fully verifiable reasons as to why the price has increased) I'd simply refuse to pay particularly if I've got the original paperwork quoting the original price for a specific amount of work (which I would have). If you don't pay in advance you have this choice. That's why sensible people don't pay tradesmen in advance... I'd also refuse to pay for any materials that are neither used on my property or subsequently remain in my possession.
With ryanair you're paying in advance (no choice)... and you know what it is you're paying for at the time of paying. There is a contract there. If they later don't at least provide the service they've promised you then there's a problem.
I would NEVER use Ryanair. I am spinally injured and unable to walk - I think they have a policy of charging extra for carrying a wheelchair and to me that is WRONG. You can choose or not to take baggage - but I can't go anywhere without my wheelchair.
Also with the way they chuck luggage around - it would probably become damaged and then I would be stranded.
You are a rogue trader's dream, it seems that you pay whatever you are told to pay. If a builder gives you a quote to do a job and half way through the job, he tells you that it is going to cost twice as much and you have to pay the VAT on the bricks that he hasn't used and will be taking them with him when he goes, do you roll over and say, "well I should have seen that coming, here is some more money." If so, can I build you a conservatory, I swear it will only cost you tenpence ha'penny guv, honest it will?
Still want to give them more money?
that is an incredibly poor analogy. you do have some good points about the way ryanair advertise but by mixing your arguments up with illogical and hysterical gibberish you devalue most of them.
this analogy is rubbish because, provided you don't change your arrangements, you pay ryanair a known fixed amount when you book. they do not come to you mid-flight for more money to carry on.
I don't see the issue, their charges are clear and it's all explained before you confirm the booking. If you don't like it, don't book with them. I don't really like RA either, but you get what you pay for, and largely speaking it does what it's meant to.
I don't see the issue, their charges are clear and it's all explained before you confirm the booking. If you don't like it, don't book with them. I don't really like RA either, but you get what you pay for, and largely speaking it does what it's meant to.
Fully agree. I can't stand ryanair, but if I want a cheap flight to see my family in Europe, there's no better airline for me. They might be rubbish for certain things, but actually, I KNOW this, my expectations are severely reduced, and if I've only paid about £20 for it I can hardly complain, eh?
Besides, any price advertised is an "invitation to treat", not a contractual promise. A contract in the legal sense is only given once money is exchanged, you are therefore protected until that point, either by YOUR ability to choose whether to buy or not, or THEIR ability to convince you otherwise. If Tesco advertise something for £10, but you find at the till that it is actually £15, you haven't a leg to stand on, as you haven't bought it yet - they're not MAKING you buy it. Like others have said, there's only a problem in the "contract" AFTER money is paid but then more money is added afterwards without explanation. Basic consumer law (alkthough I'll stand corrected if someone disputes this).
But their charges are not clear, ForestChav. They are hidden in the small print.
The analogy is perfectly relevant.
Analogy:
Builder quotes a price. You agree and pay him what he asks for to start the job. He then tells you that he has decided to cancel the job and walk off with your money, unless you pay him some more. Then he tells you that the bricks that he as bought to do the job are not needed, but you still have to pay the VAT on them, even though they are not your bricks and you haven't bought them.
Comparison:
Ryanair sell you a ticket via a comparison website and confirm the booking (just like agreeing and paying the builder). However, when you get to the airport they tell you that they have cancelled your ticket, because they don't like the site you bought it from, even though they had confirmed the booking. They refuse a refund, because they say they have no responsibility towards you. However, if you want to fly to your holiday destination, they will take you, as long as you buy a new ticket. They then cancel the flight, but hold on to your airport duty, even though you didn't depart (just like the builder holding on to the VAT for the bricks). Ryanair have told you the price, but when you get to the airport you find that you have to pay for other things, like not being allowed to take on carry on luggage, because their quota is full (just like the builder increasing his original quote). If they cancel, or have over booked, the flight, you have a discount ticket for, but won't give you a discount for the next flight (just like the builder increasing his cost after having agreed the price before hand).
Lufthansa only has Mrs, Mr, Dr, PHD and a bunch of others
The Germans don't really have an equivilant to Miss now. Now, All adult women in Germany use Frau, . Fräulein is now considered impolite. Looks like Germans applying German principles in English, nothing major.
But their charges are not clear, ForestChav. They are hidden in the small print.
The analogy is perfectly relevant.
Analogy:
Builder quotes a price. You agree and pay him what he asks for to start the job. He then tells you that he has decided to cancel the job and walk off with your money, unless you pay him some more. Then he tells you that the bricks that he as bought to do the job are not needed, but you still have to pay the VAT on them, even though they are not your bricks and you haven't bought them.
Comparison:
Ryanair sell you a ticket via a comparison website and confirm the booking (just like agreeing and paying the builder). However, when you get to the airport they tell you that they have cancelled your ticket, because they don't like the site you bought it from, even though they had confirmed the booking. They refuse a refund, because they say they have no responsibility towards you. However, if you want to fly to your holiday destination, they will take you, as long as you buy a new ticket. They then cancel the flight, but hold on to your airport duty, even though you didn't depart (just like the builder holding on to the VAT for the bricks). Ryanair have told you the price, but when you get to the airport you find that you have to pay for other things, like not being allowed to take on carry on luggage, because their quota is full (just like the builder increasing his original quote). If they cancel, or have over booked, the flight, you have a discount ticket for, but won't give you a discount for the next flight (just like the builder increasing his cost after having agreed the price before hand).
More fool you. Talk about being a rogue trader's dream...
As for the comparison... with flights you have no choice but to pay in advance... does that scenario of not being able to fly at all actually happen? Either you've got a booking with Ryanair (and you've paid them accordingly) or you haven't. If they completely refuse to provide you with the actual service that you have paid them for (which is getting you from A to then you have a genuine complaint. I can't imagine that happens very often (if at all); they'd have no custom if so.
But their charges are not clear, ForestChav. They are hidden in the small print.
The analogy is perfectly relevant.
Analogy:
Builder quotes a price. You agree and pay him what he asks for to start the job. He then tells you that he has decided to cancel the job and walk off with your money, unless you pay him some more. Then he tells you that the bricks that he as bought to do the job are not needed, but you still have to pay the VAT on them, even though they are not your bricks and you haven't bought them.
Fully agree. I can't stand ryanair, but if I want a cheap flight to see my family in Europe, there's no better airline for me. They might be rubbish for certain things, but actually, I KNOW this, my expectations are severely reduced, and if I've only paid about £20 for it I can hardly complain, eh?
Besides, any price advertised is an "invitation to treat", not a contractual promise. A contract in the legal sense is only given once money is exchanged, you are therefore protected until that point, either by YOUR ability to choose whether to buy or not, or THEIR ability to convince you otherwise. If Tesco advertise something for £10, but you find at the till that it is actually £15, you haven't a leg to stand on, as you haven't bought it yet - they're not MAKING you buy it. Like others have said, there's only a problem in the "contract" AFTER money is paid but then more money is added afterwards without explanation. Basic consumer law (alkthough I'll stand corrected if someone disputes this).
Here's someone who needs to study more consumer protection law. Invitation to treat is largely irrelevant and is mostly applicable to something that is being sold for less than than it's typical value. It has to distinguished between it and an offer. However, that line is often difficult to define. An offer is when one party shows a willingness to enter into a binding contract. It cold be demonstrated that by clicking on the continue button of a website shows sufficient willingness.
It is in contravention of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (which, in part, has replaced certain aspects of acts, such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968), to advertise one price and charge another. If something is advertised as a special price, in this case an airline ticket for one pound, the seller cannot change that condition, by simply adjusting the terms to suit them, during the sales process. This has very little to do with contract law and this distinction is very important. A contract exist when it is agreed that it exists. This can be done by a written undertaking or by a verbal agreement. The contract has not been executed until consideration has been made. So, for example, a contract exists when someone agrees to sell you something for a specific consideration (it is irrelevant if this is money or not), or when the offer is made and you have agreed to buy the item i.e. accept the offer. But if the seller varies the terms and conditions of the sale without mutal consent, he could be in breach of contract.
The solution is simple, don't fly with Ryanair. All they will do is rip you off anyway. Don't be fooled into getting one of these so-call free, or next-to-nothing offers, because Ryanair don't give two hoots about the law. You will end up paying about one hundred pounds, for a ticket that has been advertised for only ten pounds. When they cancel your flight, they will try to re-book you on another flight that doesn't allow the offer tickets, you will then be forced to pay the full price. They will charge you for checking your luggage in and stop you from carrying cabin bags. If your flight is delayed they will flout the law (because according to them the law doesn't apply to Ryanair), they will not provide you with food, water or accommodation, as proscribed by the law.
You are not allowed to complain. You cannot contact them, for a start, except by paying for a two pounds a minute premium rate phone line, on which they keep you on hold for about twenty minutes. You are not allowed to e-mail them. If you try to complain at the airport, they have been instructed to contact security, at some airports they actually have bouncers employed to prevent complaints getting through.
Once they have your money they don't give two hoots about you as a customer, in fact all they want to do is get more money from you. I believe they actually create the poor service, just so you are forced to call their profit making complaints line.
P.S. I don't really expect this post to remain for very long, as they have have their legal teams scouring forums, just like these, looking for key words such as, Ryanair, complain, service, profit and law. If you want to know more, got to www.ryanaircampaign.org
but this is how you started your analogy before, and was largely the point that people picked up on:
yet this line seems to have been edited out now! how strange
I was elaborating on the original in order to provide with help in being able to understand the analogy better, but you clearly missed that. Just as well I didn't elaborate more, it would have confused a little too much.
I was elaborating on the original in order to provide with help in being able to understand the analogy better, but you clearly missed that. Just as well I didn't elaborate more, it would have confused a little too much.
i must be really dim then because i fail to see how leaving your main (flawed) point out can be described as elaboration! but on behalf of all the thickos here i thank you for trying.
this thread has been a top afternoon's entertainment though.
i must be really dim then because i fail to see how leaving your main (flawed) point out can be described as elaboration! but on behalf of all the thickos here i thank you for trying.
this thread has been a top afternoon's entertainment though.
The solution is simple, don't fly with Ryanair. All they will do is rip you off anyway. Don't be fooled into getting one of these so-call free, or next-to-nothing offers, because Ryanair don't give two hoots about the law. You will end up paying about one hundred pounds, for a ticket that has been advertised for only ten pounds. When they cancel your flight, they will try to re-book you on another flight that doesn't allow the offer tickets, you will then be forced to pay the full price. They will charge you for checking your luggage in and stop you from carrying cabin bags. If your flight is delayed they will flout the law (because according to them the law doesn't apply to Ryanair), they will not provide you with food, water or accommodation, as proscribed by the law.
You are not allowed to complain. You cannot contact them, for a start, except by paying for a two pounds a minute premium rate phone line, on which they keep you on hold for about twenty minutes. You are not allowed to e-mail them. If you try to complain at the airport, they have been instructed to contact security, at some airports they actually have bouncers employed to prevent complaints getting through.
Once they have your money they don't give two hoots about you as a customer, in fact all they want to do is get more money from you. I believe they actually create the poor service, just so you are forced to call their profit making complaints line.
P.S. I don't really expect this post to remain for very long, as they have have their legal teams scouring forums, just like these, looking for key words such as, Ryanair, complain, service, profit and law. If you want to know more, got to www.ryanaircampaign.org
don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat as they also have people to read your thoughts.
I would NEVER use Ryanair. I am spinally injured and unable to walk - I think they have a policy of charging extra for carrying a wheelchair and to me that is WRONG. You can choose or not to take baggage - but I can't go anywhere without my wheelchair.
Also with the way they chuck luggage around - it would probably become damaged and then I would be stranded.
This, and other anti-disability policies such as refusing to allow a group of partially-sighted passengers to fly on the grounds that they posed a health and safety danger is why I have never and will never fly Ryanair.
Also Michael O Leary represents everything that was repulsive about Celtic Tiger Ireland to me- brash and crude. Why people admire him is beyond me There's also the issue of not recognising their employees Union membership:mad:
Comments
Ah... so not allowing cabin baggage isn't their policy at all then...
First of all it is illegal to advertise a price and then charge a higher price for that item, irrespective of the fact you get told about it at the point of sale. If you went into a shop and saw a sign reading, "MASSIVE SALE, pair of shoes for ten pounds*." You then decide that is a really good price. So you take them to the check out and are then told that you have to pay for the laces separately, at a cost of ten pounds. Then you are told that you have to pay VAT on the price of the shoes and the laces. You complain, but to be told that the sign tells you this. You tell the assistant that it doesn't and she points out that the asterisk denotes that it does. You ask where and she points to a small sign next to the counter (behind all the rest of the clutter that is there) that explains this. What do you do? Do feel as though the shop is trying to rip you off, or do you say, "Aah well, silly me, should have seen the sign, besides the shop needs the money and I need the shoes."
Airport taxes are not deposits. Airport taxes are paid to the government (irrelative whether you agree with it or not) when you fly through a UK airport. If you do not fly, you are not liable to pay the tax. Therefore any retailer that holds any money to which they are not entitled to and refuse to give it back, are stealing the money from you. Why do you think they were ordered to repay the money?
If a business inserts an unfair condition into a contract, they are breaking the law. This is why Ryanair continue to be fined because they, knowingly, refuse to comply with the law. They have inserted into their terms and conditions that they will not give vouchers to provide accommodation and sustenance, to passenger whose flights have been delayed, for however long or for whatever reason. However, the law quite clearly says that they must.
Still think they have your best interests at heart?
Sure... but, ultimately, I still have the option to change my mind before purchasing once I become aware of the real price of the item. I am not compelled to buy it. I make my ultimate decision in full knowledge of what it is costing me. Maybe I might think that the deal is still worthwhile at the end of the day for whatever reason or maybe I'll tell them to sling their hook purely on principle. Either way that is my decision.
Also... in the industry of budget airlines it is now well known generally that the original price is going to have other costs added to it... and, usually, there are indications that this is going to be the case before you proceed to booking. Presumably this has been a direct result of being "slapped on the wrist" for such practices. If they are still not complying then, as you've said, they will be subject to fines and/or other legal complications. That's their lookout...
Presumably the problem was that they were retaining that amount themselves (rather than passing it on) not that they were refusing to refund it per say. Perhaps it was an accounting loophole whereby they found a way to "deduct" those taxes from the final bill in instances where the original booking had been cancelled.
Otherwise, as I said, it would be exactly the same as expecting a refund on VAT for an otherwise non-refundable service. I wonder how that works... are companies able to "retain" the VAT element of an otherwise non-refundable service when said service has been cancelled? Hmm... I'd guess not. If so, they'd be equally in trouble. Not for not refunding the customer... but for retaining tax revenue for themselves.
...so they will be subject to fines if challenged... however... if I choose to use their service then I am aware of what kind of policy they are going to be adhering to by reading their terms and conditions... and if I want to challenge their terms it's not going to be as simple as just asking... I'll have to pursue it legally.
Are you kidding me?
I'm pretty sure I have never said or even implied that I believed such a ridiculous statement. I wasn't born yesterday, you know?
I always assume that any business ultimately has only their own interests at heart. My interests are only of... er... interest... in so much as it affects theirs. i.e. if a company pisses off too many of their customers TOO much then they'll end up without enough revenue to continue operating.
In fact... I pretty much invariably look for "a catch" in everything... if something looks too good to be true then there's likely to be good reason for that. It's just a question of how immediately obvious said "catch" might be.
---
Maybe that's the difference... I don't really expect businesses to have my best interests at heart... to the contrary.
What a load of twaddle. So, let me see. You are the sort of person who reads every single term and condition when you buy something on line, sadly most don't. How was it that you did not know about the one where they refuse to give you the vouchers you need for food and drink. Why did you not know about the hand luggage limit. You seem perfectly happy for a retailer to change the terms of purchase without warning, you seem to think that it is OK to lie, when being told how much things cost. You even think it is OK for a retailer to charge you a tax that you are not liable for. It is apparently fine for you to pay the fines of a company that has cheated and lied to you and still give them more money.
You are a rogue trader's dream, it seems that you pay whatever you are told to pay. If a builder gives you a quote to do a job and half way through the job, he tells you that it is going to cost twice as much and you have to pay the VAT on the bricks that he hasn't used and will be taking them with him when he goes, do you roll over and say, "well I should have seen that coming, here is some more money." If so, can I build you a conservatory, I swear it will only cost you tenpence ha'penny guv, honest it will?
If you purchase a product or service that is liable to VAT, you have to pay the VAT. If you are charged a cancellation fee, you have to pay the VAT, as this is considered to be a service. However, if you have paid airport duty (which is a separate tax) and do not use the airport, you are entitled to the money back. But, Ryanair insisted that you were not. They did not pay this money to HMRC because HMRC said that the passengers were not liable to pay the duty. HMRC told Ryanair to refund the money. Ryanair refused. HMRC obtained an order from the high court, an order that was contested by Ryanair, and were ordered to repay the money, with interest and were fined by HMRC in the process. However, Michael O'Leary said, "that is OK, we will just increase the booking fees to offset the fine costs."
Still want to give them more money?
I don't use ryanair.
Personally... I tend to prefer to pay a bit more and get a better service.
However... I do believe that, regardless of airline, there's a limit of 1 item per person when it comes to hand luggage... and said luggage needs to be within certain dimensions and weight.
If I ever did it would only be on the basis that I'm aware that the fact that I am paying so little means that I'm receiving a much more restricted service.
I tend to shop around... I'll go with the company that offers me the best return for my money once all things have been considered.
If Ryanair are not competitive over-all then they will soon be out of business no doubt, or if any shady practices means that they end up paying so much in fines that they go down, so be it (they can only increase their prices to compensate for fines so much before it gets to the point where they are no longer competitive within their budget market - they have custom now because they are dirt cheap overall)... I won't cry if that happens... promise.
By the way that's just an irrelevant tangent... entirely different scenario, isn't it?... at that point (unless the builder is able to give me some bloody good and fully verifiable reasons as to why the price has increased) I'd simply refuse to pay particularly if I've got the original paperwork quoting the original price for a specific amount of work (which I would have). If you don't pay in advance you have this choice. That's why sensible people don't pay tradesmen in advance... I'd also refuse to pay for any materials that are neither used on my property or subsequently remain in my possession.
With ryanair you're paying in advance (no choice)... and you know what it is you're paying for at the time of paying. There is a contract there. If they later don't at least provide the service they've promised you then there's a problem.
Also with the way they chuck luggage around - it would probably become damaged and then I would be stranded.
this analogy is rubbish because, provided you don't change your arrangements, you pay ryanair a known fixed amount when you book. they do not come to you mid-flight for more money to carry on.
Fully agree. I can't stand ryanair, but if I want a cheap flight to see my family in Europe, there's no better airline for me. They might be rubbish for certain things, but actually, I KNOW this, my expectations are severely reduced, and if I've only paid about £20 for it I can hardly complain, eh?
Besides, any price advertised is an "invitation to treat", not a contractual promise. A contract in the legal sense is only given once money is exchanged, you are therefore protected until that point, either by YOUR ability to choose whether to buy or not, or THEIR ability to convince you otherwise. If Tesco advertise something for £10, but you find at the till that it is actually £15, you haven't a leg to stand on, as you haven't bought it yet - they're not MAKING you buy it. Like others have said, there's only a problem in the "contract" AFTER money is paid but then more money is added afterwards without explanation. Basic consumer law (alkthough I'll stand corrected if someone disputes this).
The analogy is perfectly relevant.
Analogy:
Builder quotes a price. You agree and pay him what he asks for to start the job. He then tells you that he has decided to cancel the job and walk off with your money, unless you pay him some more. Then he tells you that the bricks that he as bought to do the job are not needed, but you still have to pay the VAT on them, even though they are not your bricks and you haven't bought them.
Comparison:
Ryanair sell you a ticket via a comparison website and confirm the booking (just like agreeing and paying the builder). However, when you get to the airport they tell you that they have cancelled your ticket, because they don't like the site you bought it from, even though they had confirmed the booking. They refuse a refund, because they say they have no responsibility towards you. However, if you want to fly to your holiday destination, they will take you, as long as you buy a new ticket. They then cancel the flight, but hold on to your airport duty, even though you didn't depart (just like the builder holding on to the VAT for the bricks). Ryanair have told you the price, but when you get to the airport you find that you have to pay for other things, like not being allowed to take on carry on luggage, because their quota is full (just like the builder increasing his original quote). If they cancel, or have over booked, the flight, you have a discount ticket for, but won't give you a discount for the next flight (just like the builder increasing his cost after having agreed the price before hand).
The Germans don't really have an equivilant to Miss now. Now, All adult women in Germany use Frau, . Fräulein is now considered impolite. Looks like Germans applying German principles in English, nothing major.
More fool you. Talk about being a rogue trader's dream...
As for the comparison... with flights you have no choice but to pay in advance... does that scenario of not being able to fly at all actually happen? Either you've got a booking with Ryanair (and you've paid them accordingly) or you haven't. If they completely refuse to provide you with the actual service that you have paid them for (which is getting you from A to
yet this line seems to have been edited out now! how strange
Here's someone who needs to study more consumer protection law. Invitation to treat is largely irrelevant and is mostly applicable to something that is being sold for less than than it's typical value. It has to distinguished between it and an offer. However, that line is often difficult to define. An offer is when one party shows a willingness to enter into a binding contract. It cold be demonstrated that by clicking on the continue button of a website shows sufficient willingness.
It is in contravention of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (which, in part, has replaced certain aspects of acts, such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968), to advertise one price and charge another. If something is advertised as a special price, in this case an airline ticket for one pound, the seller cannot change that condition, by simply adjusting the terms to suit them, during the sales process. This has very little to do with contract law and this distinction is very important. A contract exist when it is agreed that it exists. This can be done by a written undertaking or by a verbal agreement. The contract has not been executed until consideration has been made. So, for example, a contract exists when someone agrees to sell you something for a specific consideration (it is irrelevant if this is money or not), or when the offer is made and you have agreed to buy the item i.e. accept the offer. But if the seller varies the terms and conditions of the sale without mutal consent, he could be in breach of contract.
Stelios, how are you mate?
I was elaborating on the original in order to provide with help in being able to understand the analogy better, but you clearly missed that. Just as well I didn't elaborate more, it would have confused a little too much.
Much nicer & brighter and also they smell less too!
...
this thread has been a top afternoon's entertainment though.
Do you think they really care about contract law? They have teams of lawyers to fight these cases.
Ryanair have been voted the worst airline by Watchdog viewers.
You are very welcome
don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat as they also have people to read your thoughts.
This, and other anti-disability policies such as refusing to allow a group of partially-sighted passengers to fly on the grounds that they posed a health and safety danger is why I have never and will never fly Ryanair.
Also Michael O Leary represents everything that was repulsive about Celtic Tiger Ireland to me- brash and crude. Why people admire him is beyond me