Flight Compensation Claim. what constitutes extraordinary circumstances

Monarch told us when refusing compensation in November 2011: "Quote" That our flight delay was due our aircraft developing a rudder problem at Gatwick the day before. The only immediate spare had to be sent from France.The rectification work took longer than anticipated and there was no other other aircraft available to reduce the delay of 5 hours 50 minutes. Given that technical problems are unpredicable as to where and when they occur, every delay situation is different and requires optimum solution. Does that sound like extraordinary circumstances it doesn't to us. Our claim was resubmitted in October 2012 but why do they need to investigate further, when we already have the reason for the delay in writing from Monarch. It is completely beyond us. What does anyone think.

TomLikesSausages wrote: »

Monarch told us when refusing compensation in November 2011: "Quote" That our flight delay was due our aircraft developing a rudder problem at Gatwick the day before. The only immediate spare had to be sent from France.The rectification work took longer than anticipated and there was no other other aircraft available to reduce the delay of 5 hours 50 minutes. Given that technical problems are unpredicable as to where and when they occur, every delay situation is different and requires optimum solution. Does that sound like extraordinary circumstances it doesn't to us. Our claim was resubmitted in October 2012 but why do they need to investigate further, when we already have the reason for the delay in writing from Monarch. It is completely beyond us. What does anyone think.

Mark2Spark is right - the delay, if caused by extraordinary circumstances, must relate to your particular flight and not a knock-on effect from a previous flight. That legal principle was confirmed in Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) and echoes the wording of the Regulation "of the flight concerned".

As for the timing of making claims, the standard protocol is to write a Letter Before Claim straight away giving them 14 days to agree a settlement. If they claim they need more time, you could agree to an extension of 7-14 days. Then sue.

Hanging on since October of last year is completely unnecessary.

Magic_Moments wrote: »

It all seems very vague and inconstitant. Is there a website detailing what cases have been succesful and what have been turned down due to extraordinary circumstances. Either as in our case with Monarch Airlines or where precedents have been heard with our other airlines. Our claim is in respect of an outbound and return flight, both of which were delayed well over 3 hours. We know both these flights were delayed for over 3 hours in 3 consecutive weeks Surely they cannot all be due to extraordinary circumstances

No, county court judgments aren't published as a matter of course. The closest you'll get to discovering results of delay cases brought is checking back here what people are saying about the result of their own claims. I, for example, sued Ryanair successfully and I'm now suing them again - Thomson too.

It is standard practice for most airlines to bluff extraordinary circumstances as a knee jerk reaction to receiving a claim for delay or cancellation. In many cases this is a blatant abuse of the legal process, but those airlines are essentially sending out the message 'sue us if you dare'.

So do exactly that.

The OP of this thread is the start of the list Bill.
Until people start coming forward with the info I can't add to it. Most people are waiting over 3 months just to get a denial of the claim by EC's.

Are some airlines settling flight delay compensation claims for certain technical problems where other airlines are claiming extraordinary circumstances for exactly the same reason. If one airlines has paid up for a specific circumstance have they not created a precedent. It would seem that Monarch airlines seem to be the worst culprit for not paying for claims for technical problems.