Ryanair bans customers who claimed credit card refunds for flights they missed because of lockdown

[kookaburra75]

Interesting article on CNN News website this morning

Ryanair bans customers who claimed credit card refunds for flights they missed because of lockdown

Ryanair is refusing to carry passengers who were refunded by credit card companies for flights they did not take because of coronavirus lockdowns.

edition.cnn.com

One snippet from the article covering when the authorities looked into complaints made about Ryanair's stance:
"Last week, Britain's antitrust regulator dropped an investigation into whether Ryanair and British Airways had broken the law by refusing to refund customers for flights they weren't able to take during lockdowns.
It concluded that the law does not provide passengers who were prevented from flying by travel restrictions with a sufficiently clear right to a refund."

I'm glad we haven't had that situation occur in Australia... yet(?)

 

[Guvner]

Does the law provide sufficiently clear rights for Airlines to retain the money for products and services not supplied through no fault of the purchaser? Seems "no fault" is a selectively applied term.

 

[drron]

Not all UK businesses are as bad as the airlines.We had booked a trip to the UK for the Chelsea Flower Show.All accomm boked most with a cancellable rate.Only 2 problems.One hotel charged 50 GBP as a cancellation charge despite a cancellable rate.Charge back successful.But our accom provider for Londod declared banktuptcy.
On the hand we had non cancellable bookings at a small chain,Handpicked hotels.As soon as lockdowns were announced and before we were aware we received an email saying they would give us a full refund.Money back on the card the next day.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Does the law provide sufficiently clear rights for Airlines to retain the money for products and services not supplied through no fault of the purchaser? Seems "no fault" is a selectively applied term.

Difference between refund and something like a credit.

The ACCC was seemingly clear in its guidance... providers with contracts stipulating a credit were allowed to - legally - offer credits. Qantas' contract of carriage said it would offer a refund, regardless of the circumstances. So that's what it had to do.

 

[Spongbob]

Another freedom due to Brexit?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Another freedom due to Brexit?

I don't know if the law has changed? People were using chargebacks in situations where the flights were still operating but they didn't want to fly. Any flights cancelled by Ryanair were refunded.

 

[Danger]

I'm largely with Ryanair on this one. It's not the airlines fault that a passenger can't fly because of a lockdown or other government restriction. Absolutely, if the airline cancels the flight, you should get every penny back and quickly. But the airline is no more at fault for the passenger not being able to fly then the passenger him or herself. The part I don't agree with is Ryanair taking action now, rather than at the chargeback investigation stage.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm largely with Ryanair on this one. It's not the airlines fault that a passenger can't fly because of a lockdown or other government restriction. Absolutely, if the airline cancels the flight, you should get every penny back and quickly. But the airline is no more at fault for the passenger not being able to fly then the passenger him or herself. The part I don't agree with is Ryanair taking action now, rather than at the chargeback investigation stage.

They might have been waiting for the outcome of the official determination into whether refunds were mandatory.

 

[Happy Dude]

Bit rough if someone with the same name as you gets banned. Ryanair shouldn't have taken a booking from a pax they knew to be banned, unless of course they planned to bully and extort them.

 

[Moopere]

I'm largely with Ryanair on this one. It's not the airlines fault that a passenger can't fly because of a lockdown or other government restriction. Absolutely, if the airline cancels the flight, you should get every penny back and quickly. But the airline is no more at fault for the passenger not being able to fly then the passenger him or herself. The part I don't agree with is Ryanair taking action now, rather than at the chargeback investigation stage.

Yeah I get that angle as well. But also not the fault of the passenger ... and for the same reasoning. The actual at-fault party here is whichever government body banned travel. Yes, their defense will be 'reasons', but there are always reasons.

Even if the PAX didn't do a chargeback, so the money remained with Ryanair, but instead claimed against insurance - theres still someone out of pocket (the insurers).

In any event, moving past who's at 'fault' and who should pay. If I had to go the trouble and frustration of a chargeback I wouldn't be likely to expose myself to that business again. The chargeback process itself implies or even requires that significant negotiation between the parties happens first .. by the time you get to the money recovery phase of a chargeback a lot of water has usually already gone under the bridge.

 

[Zinger]

I had to cancel several flights with easyJet last year.

They eventually refunded the taxes I paid, however they decided to keep the actual fare, luggage fees and seat selection costs.

Dealing with their customer service crowd was an appalling experience.

 

[glasszon]

Ryanair is certainly within its right to ban any passengers they want, as long as it is not discriminatory.

My concern about their action is how they go about this. Surely they know people makes their travel arrangements prior to departure, to hold up someone at the gate is akin to blackmail them to pay up or lose on the accommodation etc.

I know it's easier to say at home and I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't Ryanair be on the hooks of the cost of accommodation and other nonrefundable costs? Surely Ryanair knows by not communicating it in advance, they are forcing the passengers to incur those costs by refusing them to board the flight?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ryanair is certainly within its right to ban any passengers they want, as long as it is not discriminatory.

My concern about their action is how they go about this. Surely they know people makes their travel arrangements prior to departure, to hold up someone at the gate is akin to blackmail them to pay up or lose on the accommodation etc.

I know it's easier to say at home and I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't Ryanair be on the hooks of the cost of accommodation and other nonrefundable costs? Surely Ryanair knows by not communicating it in advance, they are forcing the passengers to incur those costs by refusing them to board the flight?

The article states: 'According to the report, Ryanair offered to refund the new tickets if customers did not wish to return the chargebacks.'

Of course the passengers might have felt they had little choice if they had also purchased non-refundable accommodation, car hire or activities.

As for notice, some cases will always fall through the cracks. But it's also possible those people had bought tickets before the case against BA and Ryanair was dropped. There may not have been time for Ryanair to contact them (but bearing in mind they were offered a refund at the airport).

 

[AussieJasmine]

Another freedom due to Brexit?

Much as I think brexit is greatest act of collective stupidity since fidget spinners, I don't think that's what's happening here. Ryanair is an Irish airline, after all. More a case of Ryanair getting enough exercise by stretching the rules, which is pretty much the bedrock of their daily fitness routine.