We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.
Options
Comments
-
Monarch are stooping to new levels of incompetence with my case now.....
After filling out all of the claim forms in January, I received a response stating that I couldn't claim because my flight wasn't over 3 hours delayed....I pointed out to them that the flight they'd given me the response to was, in fact, not my flight - the right date, but the wrong flight number and exactly a year later than my 8 hour delayed flight!
They eventually got back to me with a response to the correct flight and my claim, like many, was rejected because of the laughable EC that "[FONT="]Our records show that due to technical faults within the fleet there were insufficient aircraft to operate your flight on time[/FONT]"
With this response, I thought I wouldn't !!!!!-foot around and sent an immediate NBA letter stating that I was going to go to the small claims court.
That was just over 2 weeks ago - today I got a letter from Monarch saying thanks for the letter, blah, blah....could I please fill out the enclosed claims forms so that they can assess my claim. They've given me a new claims reference and made no reference to any previous correspondence!
I really don't know whether it's deliberate stalling/confusion tactics or they are just incompetent and don't know their !!!!! from their elbow.
I think I'll try a phone call on Monday followed by immediate MCOL submission as my patience has been exhausted.
You dance to their tune at your leisure. I'd simply now start MCOL and not bother with a further phone call. You've now plenty of good ammunition for court. Not to mention that insufficient aircraft for their fleet won't hold up much in front of a judge anyhow.0 -
You dance to their tune at your leisure. I'd simply now start MCOL and not bother with a further phone call. You've now plenty of good ammunition for court. Not to mention that insufficient aircraft for their fleet won't hold up much in front of a judge anyhow.
You're right....MCOL submitted this morning. I was kind of hoping they would recognise the futility of their defence and save everyone's time and money by not going down the court route. Oh we'll....guess they're playing a percentages game, until the claims companies get their teeth into things and the floodgates open.
Thanks for the straight talking advice...0 -
You're right....MCOL submitted this morning. I was kind of hoping they would recognise the futility of their defence and save everyone's time and money by not going down the court route. Oh we'll....guess they're playing a percentages game, until the claims companies get their teeth into things and the floodgates open.
Thanks for the straight talking advice...
I share your frustration. It is quite scandalous behaviour. But I think you are right that the airlines are playing a percentage game. Once the case start to come before the Courts, however, (and only a tiny number have so far, is my understanding) I wonder whether this dynamic will change?
Anyway, good luck with your claim - though frankly I don't think you'll need very much of it. Watch Monarch settle before it gets to Court ...0 -
I too agree the relevant ruling to quote in this type of excuse from the airline is Case C-22/11 Finnair v Lassooy It is an open and shut case and is indefensible as far as the airline are concerned.I share your frustration. It is quite scandalous behaviour. But I think you are right that the airlines are playing a percentage game. Once the case start to come before the Courts, however, (and only a tiny number have so far, is my understanding) I wonder whether this dynamic will change?
Anyway, good luck with your claim - though frankly I don't think you'll need very much of it. Watch Monarch settle before it gets to Court ...0 -
Centipede100 wrote: »I don't share your enthusiasm that Finnair v Lassooy is relevant to a delay or cancellation. The case concerned a denied boarding event and until or unless the ECJ carry the same argument through a case involving delay/cancellation (and for the record, I am certain that the same answer would be provided), then it would be an easy argument for an airline to say the case is irrelevant IMO.
Stick to Sturgeon, Wallentin-Hermann as these cases are your best winning strategies.
I am no expert, but I definitely agree with this. Unfortunately, there is no European judgement that says explicitly that knock on effects don't count. But it is clear from the broader definitions of Wallentin, Sturgeon - and in the text of the Regulation itself that they don't (eg references to "the flight concerned" for meteorological delays, "particular aircraft on a particular day", etc). Stick to the solid stuff!0 -
i am so fed up with this merry go round. As Thomson used a Monarch plane they are blaming Monarch, & today Iv recieved a letter from Monarch stating that the obligation lies with Thomson as the contractual agreement was with them! So now I m left to go back to Thomson & I bet their answer is to go back to Monarch
0 -
greeneyedlad wrote: »i am so fed up with this merry go round. As Thomson used a Monarch plane they are blaming Monarch, & today Iv recieved a letter from Monarch stating that the obligation lies with Thomson as the contractual agreement was with them! So now I m left to go back to Thomson & I bet their answer is to go back to Monarch
It is quite convenient for them, I'll admit. But you've seen what the regulation says: so choose which one your going to sue!0 -
-
It is quite convenient for them, I'll admit. But you've seen what the regulation says: so choose which one your going to sue!
Vauban sorry to keep asking you but i am totally confused.
You stated on another thread something about under preamble no .
Does this mean that if it is a TOM flight number but a Monarch flight then it is still Thomson i sue??
many thanks0 -
greeneyedlad wrote: »Vauban sorry to keep asking you but i am totally confused.
You stated on another thread something about under preamble no .
Does this mean that if it is a TOM flight number but a Monarch flight then it is still Thomson i sue??
many thanks
Well it's not quite categorical, as it says two things:
In the definitions section of the regulation, it defines the "operating air carrier" as"an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger"
My reading of this would be that if you booked with Thomson, and they in turn contracted Monarch, then Monarch are the "operating air carrier", and thus liable. That's certainly what Thomson will argue.
However, in the Regulations preamble, para 7 it says:(7) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.
To my mind, this means that if the flight was scheduled to be operated by Thomson, and at the last minute they "wet leased" a Monarch plane and crew, Thomson are still liable for compensation payments under the regulation, not Monarch.
I apologise that this is slightly confusing. The wording of the regulation gives both the airlines room for wriggling out of their responsibilities. Whose responsible depends upon the circumstances of how/when Monarch were contracted. I still think the tell tale may be the flight number under which you flew - was it TOM or MON/ZB?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards