Not fit for purpose?

[Tivoli]

While I sit here twiddling my thumbs waiting for a proper response from Ryanair's complaints department I thought I might just chuck my hat into the ring again here.
Hypothetically, if one were to purchase a concert ticket and the concert is cancelled, is the promoter legally obliged to refund your money?
If so would that be because the ticket purchased is no longer fit for purpose?
And by the same token if Ryanair changes one flight rendering a connecting flight useless does that not mean that they have effectively 'cancelled the concert' thus rendering the ticket for the connecting flight not fit for purpose?
I realise that I could put this question to the European Trading Standards people but I would probably wait longer for an answer from people who are paid to answer me that than I would asking people who do it for fun :-)
Many thanks for any assistance
:-)

[des8]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

If a concert is cancelled, one is entitled to a refund.
This is because it will be one of the T&Cs when buying the ticket.
It is a condition of membership of the industry's self-regulatory body, the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers (STAR), that ticket sellers refund the ticket's face value price, when an event is cancelled.
However it does not mean you will be refunded other expenses you may have sustained eg travel and accomodation or even extra fees the promoter may have charged such as postage.

So frankly I don't see that missing connecting flights is going to be chargeable to Ryanair although taxes are reclaimable.
Have you seen this site:https://www .flight-delayed. co.uk/missed-flight

[Tivoli]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

Thanks Des for your swift response. I actually put the entire story up in the Welcome forum on Dec 9th if you want the full back-story. It was simply that I continue to think about this while waiting for a response from Ryanair's Complaints Dept and had wondered if there was a simple and obvious comparison between a ticket for a concert and a ticket for a flight. Seemingly not :-(

[ostell]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

Were both flights booked through Ryanair? Was it a booking from A to B but Ryanair gave you A to Z to B ?

[Tivoli]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

Thanks Ostell
All details plus advice received so far is here;
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...94-Ryanair-%28

[des8]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

It seems to me that Ryanair have deliberately set you up.
When you booked to fly from Dublin to Thessaloniki via Rome why weren't you sold a single through ticket?
That would have protected you from the problems encountered with this cancellation.
As both flights were with the same carrier there is even less reason for not offering a single ticket, than if another carrier had been involved.
As you have discovered on separate tickets you have no protection.

I wonder it might be worth exploring the possibility of suing Ryanair for mis-selling.
Others might like to comment.

Also Ryanair have a record for mis selling travel insurance.

[Tivoli]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

Thanks for this suggestion Des, I may look into the mis-selling of insurance as a second string to my bow if all else fails.

[Tivoli]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

I do not believe this just happened! As expected, Ryanair stood shoulder to shoulder with their Terms & Conditions when I complained. So I complained a second time, explaining that I am a granny and that I was visiting my grandchildren and that whilst that in itself does not deserve preferential treatment, how would they feel if their employer treated their own granny in such a way. Would they feel proud to be working for such a robust business or would they feel sick to their stomach? And I got this response
"Dear Tivoli, We acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 16^th December 2015.
As per our Terms and Conditions, agreed at the time of booking, Ryanair, as a point to point airline, do not permit the booking of onward flight connections via our reservation system and do not sell through fares. We also clearly state the following in our Terms and Conditions:
"Ryanair do not offer, and cannot facilitate, the transfer of passengers or their baggage to other flights, whether operated by Ryanair or other carriers. Passengers should therefore not book onward flights with Ryanair or indeed any other air or surface carrier."
It is each individual passenger's responsibility to ensure that they arrive at the airport of departure in sufficient time to continue their onward journey, even in cases where it is another Ryanair flight. Given the above, we regret that we are not in a position to offer compensation.

However on retrieving your reservation number ABCXYZ, we wish to confirm that, as a gesture of good will, a refund of €79.96, representing Flight Tickets has been processed by Ryanair back onto the card holder (Tivoli) Visa Debit Card, last 4 digits “****” used for this payment. Your bank may then take 5-7 working days to process this refund amount back to your account.
Furthermore we wish to confirm that the remaining amount of €37.98 represent the Travel Insurance that you have purchased at the time of booking. Therefore we recommend you to contact the insurance department directly at: claimseu@oneclaims.com"

RESULT!

[CLL1]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

Your concert analogy works because of something called frustration. Where a contract is frustrated (in this case, the subject matter of the contract is destroyed) you can claim under The Law Reform (Frustration of Contracts) Act, and the Payer's Rule. The RyanAir situation doesn't seem to fall into that category.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

Your concert analogy works because of something called frustration. Where a contract is frustrated (in this case, the subject matter of the contract is destroyed) you can claim under The Law Reform (Frustration of Contracts) Act, and the Payer's Rule. The RyanAir situation doesn't seem to fall into that category.

It must be a fundamental event for the contract to be frustrated: Krell [1903], which can also be temporary, and claims are made for losses under sections 1, 2, of the Act. Frustration is normally for businesses to make claims for damages owing to frustrating events such as floods or other unforeseeable events where the contract cannot be continued. It applies to services: Golden Strait [2007, HL], and if any deposits were paid or all the money where the contract has been frustrated this money can be claimed back under common law: BP (1979), Gamerco SA (1995), Robinson (1848), McRae (1951) etc.

[Tivoli]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

It is very comforting to know that you are still debating the legal arguments here, but the fact of the matter is that Ryanair have Terms & Conditions which, whilst being ethically and morally repugnant, are legally watertight, which is why I chose emotional blackmail, which worked.

[CLL1]

Re: Not fit for purpose?

Your name isn't David by any chance, is it? ;-)