IMPORTANT! This is MoneySavingExpert's open forum - anyone can post

Please exercise caution & report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

  • Be nice to all MoneySavers
  • All the best tips go in the MoneySavingExpert weekly email

    Plus all the new guides, deals & loopholes

  • No spam/referral links
or Login with Facebook
Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.
Reply
Views: 253,215
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
# 781
111KAB
Old 25-02-2013, 9:30 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cart583 View Post
thanks mark, i was actually thinking of using flightmole as i dont really feel confident enough to do it myself.
Flightmole seem one of the best however don't forget you have up to 6 years to make your claim - it may be worth you waiting to see how other claims go particularly if you can find someone who was on your flight. The 6 year backdate allows interest at 8% - not many (MSE) places you can get that return!
111KAB is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to 111KAB For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 782
Centipede100
Old 25-02-2013, 11:27 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Inside a hat
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suelees1 View Post
As will I once I've had the claim refusal in writing. I'll ask for a technical report in addition to other details. I'm only aware Monarch is refusing the claims and blaming e.c.'s because I've seen it on here. Apparently they're saying wing damage on a Sharm el Sheik flight caused the knock on delay with the Man to PMI flight.

https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints has said when it's complaints website gets up and running "...members can subscribe to news on particular flights and also be able to contact fellow travellers to maybe compile class action lawsuits"

I'd be very grateful if you'd keep me informed.
There is no mechanism currently in UK law to bring a "class action lawsuit." You have to bring individual claims in the small claims court.
My posts are just advice, nothing more nothing less. What you choose to do with them is up to you.
Centipede100 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 783
Centipede100
Old 25-02-2013, 11:34 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Inside a hat
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluep View Post
I've read the thread and the FAQs and have a couple of questions if anyone can answer them:
1) Is everyone claiming via Monarch's form with the draft letter covering it? Or just sending in the letter? If just the letter, have Monarch come back and insisted on the form?

2) Monarch's form asks for arrival time of my flight - I cannot find this anywhere but do not remember us making up lost time on the way (we were just more than 3 hours delayed) - if I contact Monarch prior to putting in the claim, are they obliged to give me this information or would they?

3) Monarch's claim form states that if flights are delayed by more than 3 hours but less than 4, they will only pay 50% of the compensation - I have not seen this referred to anywhere else. Is this correct?

Thanks in advance for any assistance
1) It is not unreasonable for the airline to request that you use a specific form designed to capture as many of the details of your delayed flight as possible. However, it is not unreasonable for a passenger to provide the same details in a letter format either.

2) Check out flightstats/flightaware or any of the other available websites. Some may charge for access to archive data.

3) The compensation may be reduced by 50% only if the airline delivers you to your long-haul destination (more than 3500 kms) in under 4 hours. The CAA website also has this detail.
My posts are just advice, nothing more nothing less. What you choose to do with them is up to you.
Centipede100 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Centipede100 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 784
Mark2spark
Old 25-02-2013, 12:07 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 1,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIP1966 View Post
Good morning - Thank you for your help and I now have the form printed out. Please can I ask for some more help?

On the form it asks for the circumstances and duration of the delay. All I know is that it was a technical fault and a part had to be put in a taxi from Luton to Manchester to repair the outbound flight to Corfu. Is there a proper way to word this as I feel they will say this was "Extraordinary Circumstances".

Would appreciate any help you can give me

PIP
Hi Pip,
In the circumstances box I would put:
The captain advised that there was a technical fault in the previous flight. The ECJ ruled in the judgement of Wallentin-Hermann that: "...must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation (or delay) of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control", and also that in the Finnair v Oyj v Timy Lassooy Case C-22/11, "... it is apparent from recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may relate only to ‘a particular aircraft on a particular day’, which cannot apply to a passenger denied boarding because of the rescheduling of flights as a result of extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight", therefore compensation of €400 pp is due for the delay in excess of three hours.

You might have to attach that on another sheet.
Mark2spark is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mark2spark For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 785
PIP1966
Old 25-02-2013, 12:21 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark2spark View Post
Hi Pip,
In the circumstances box I would put:
The captain advised that there was a technical fault in the previous flight. The ECJ ruled in the judgement of Wallentin-Hermann that: "...must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation (or delay) of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control", and also that in the Finnair v Oyj v Timy Lassooy Case C-22/11, "... it is apparent from recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may relate only to ‘a particular aircraft on a particular day’, which cannot apply to a passenger denied boarding because of the rescheduling of flights as a result of extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight", therefore compensation of €400 pp is due for the delay in excess of three hours.

You might have to attach that on another sheet.

Hi Mark - you are amazing, thank you so much
PIP1966 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to PIP1966 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 786
ddavies43
Old 25-02-2013, 12:32 PM
MoneySaving Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Default

[B]ZB 1377 Venice - Manchester 14/6/2012, claim denied - ec "Venice to Gatwick flight developed an aircraft monitoring fault and was consequently declared unsafe to fly. In order to minimise the disruption caused, the passengers on this flight were transferred to your flight which then operated from Venice via Gatwick before continuing on to Manchester."[B]

There are some unusual aspects to our claim which involves the combining of 2 flights and which may be of general interest.

On arrival at check-in at Marco Polo some 2+ hrs. before the Manchester flight (which was 3+hrs before the Gatwick flight) we were handed a letter on Monarch headed notepaper which had clearly been prepared in advance and said....

"re-ZB1377Venice-Manchester
Regrettably the aircraft due to operate YOUR flight today has experienced technical problems. In a bid to minimise the disruption our operations department has combined your flight with our Venice - Gatwick. Therefore your flight will route through Gatwick before continuing on to Manchester. You will be required to disembark at Gatwick and proceed through security before re boarding."

It is self evident that that Monarch will have known at least a week in advance that they had 2 less than half full flights from Venice to the UK and, it seems to me, probable that there might be a commercial advantage on combining the two flights ???
I believe that this poses a question about Monarch's integrity and, particularly in this case, I shall be requiring that they provide fully documented audit trails showing evidence for both aircraft involved in relation to the the claimed fault (which differs from one - given in writing - when I first complained)

Would appreciate any observations.
ddavies43 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 787
richardw
Old 25-02-2013, 12:42 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,611
Default

What was the delay in arriving at MAN?
Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
richardw is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 788
4poc
Old 25-02-2013, 12:46 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisafoster View Post
I sent my NBA on 6th Feb and have had no response (apart from Doreen Slack emailing me back to say that she had forwarded it to EU claims as I copied her in on the email). The only communication I have had from EU claims since I sent the NBA was their letter refusing compensation
Thanks, is it possible to have the email address to send the NBA? I was going to post it to Mr John Marray - Monarch Airlines Ltd, Luton...
... should i also send a copy to EU claims on the back of their claim rejection email?
Most thankful for advice.
4poc is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 789
MrsLaLa
Old 25-02-2013, 12:51 PM
MoneySaving Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Default ZB247 Sharm-LGW 27.10.12

Just received EC letter re delay of 4 hr 35 mins

'Our records show that on the day of your departure an aircraft suffered a bird strike which required it to return to the airport in order for the requisite safety checks to be made. As a consequence and in order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers were transferred to the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet. However, the aircraft you were transferred to had a fault with the nose leg requiring our engineers to inspect it. The engineers examined the nose leg and rectified the fault, they were then able to declare the aircraft serviceable and your flight then departed at the earliest opportunity. Despite our best efforts these events led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight.
Having considered the factual background of this case we are satisfied disruption caused by extraordinary circumstance etc etc etc

We were given no information whilst waiting at Sharm el Sheikh, just provided with either a slice of pizza or a sandwich and a small drink.
MrsLaLa is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 790
Mark2spark
Old 25-02-2013, 12:55 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 1,911
Default

Just for my records, OP now updated to include recently posted EC denied flights above
Mark2spark is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 791
Mark2spark
Old 25-02-2013, 12:56 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 1,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4poc View Post
Thanks, is it possible to have the email address to send the NBA? I was going to post it to Mr John Marray - Monarch Airlines Ltd, Luton...
... should i also send a copy to EU claims on the back of their claim rejection email?
Most thankful for advice.
No point in sending it to J Marray, just send it to EU claims dept at Luton
Mark2spark is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Mark2spark For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 792
Mark2spark
Old 25-02-2013, 12:57 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 1,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsLaLa View Post
Just received EC letter re delay of 4 hr 35 mins

'Our records show that on the day of your departure an aircraft suffered a bird strike which required it to return to the airport in order for the requisite safety checks to be made. As a consequence and in order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers were transferred to the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet. However, the aircraft you were transferred to had a fault with the nose leg requiring our engineers to inspect it. The engineers examined the nose leg and rectified the fault, they were then able to declare the aircraft serviceable and your flight then departed at the earliest opportunity. Despite our best efforts these events led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight.
Having considered the factual background of this case we are satisfied disruption caused by extraordinary circumstance etc etc etc

We were given no information whilst waiting at Sharm el Sheikh, just provided with either a slice of pizza or a sandwich and a small drink.
No valid EC's on your flight, just tech issues, time for court.
Mark2spark is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Mark2spark For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 793
Mark2spark
Old 25-02-2013, 12:59 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 1,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavies43 View Post
[B]ZB 1377 Venice - Manchester 14/6/2012, claim denied

Would appreciate any observations.
Not much to observe really DD, you can see the answers for yourself, Monarch tried their best and their best wasn't good enough to avoid compensation to be paid under EU261.
Mark2spark is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 794
Mark2spark
Old 25-02-2013, 1:02 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hampshire UK
Posts: 1,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardw View Post
What was the delay in arriving at MAN?
It would appear that the LGW flight was 3 hours later than the MAN flight, plus disembarking, clearing security at LGW, and reboarding etc etc
Unless he arrived 2 hours before his flight, which was 3 hours before the Gatwick flight, so only one hour between the two flights originally.
Mark2spark is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 795
ddavies43
Old 25-02-2013, 1:31 PM
MoneySaving Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark2spark View Post
It would appear that the LGW flight was 3 hours later than the MAN flight, plus disembarking, clearing security at LGW, and reboarding etc etc
Unless he arrived 2 hours before his flight, which was 3 hours before the Gatwick flight, so only one hour between the two flights originally.
Total delay was 4hrs. LGW flight scheduled 1+ hrs. After Man., but was delayed a further 1+ hrs. Then LGW dis. + re embarking + flight to Man..
Did you note the anomaly between the letters? The one handed to us at the airport said the Man. Flight had been cancelled. The "claim denied" letter says it was the LGW flight (which agrees with flight stats).
ddavies43 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 796
klint
Old 25-02-2013, 1:33 PM
MoneySaving Stalwart
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 233
Default Single court claim for all passengers in my group?

Quick question. There were three passenger in my group, and Monarch insisted on separate claim forms for each passenger (even though I paid for all three flight tickets with my own money.) Now that they rejected the claim, do I take court action in respect of all three tickets, or does each passenger need to take their own court action?
klint is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 797
richardw
Old 25-02-2013, 1:59 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,611
Default

You need to get all three claimants in the claimant box on form N1.
Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
richardw is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to richardw For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 798
SimonLugs
Old 25-02-2013, 2:33 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 35
Default

I recieved this reply today:

Our Ref EU/XXXXXX

25/02/2013

Dear Mr XXX,

Re: Flight MON313 Cardiff to Sanford on 18th September 2008

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise of our conclusion.

Providing our passengers with a safe and efficient service is our first priority. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that Monarch Airlines flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered an engine fault and required rectification work in order to be safe to fly. Despite Monarch’s best efforts, a delay was caused to your flight.
In order to reduce the length of the delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet, and departed at the earliest opportunity once it had completed the previous flights it had been scheduled to operate.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, we are satisfied that the disruption in your case was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further assistance or information.


Yours sincerely,

EU Claims Team
Monarch Airlines


Can anybody please advise me if i should leave it or if not what i need to do next?
Is there any companies that take it on for u like on the PPI claims as i feel really out of my depth with all this.

Thanks in advance for any replies.
SimonLugs is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 799
111KAB
Old 25-02-2013, 2:45 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,093
Default

Simon there are firms - flightmole are getting good reports. If you check back I think there were others on this flight ~ why not see what they are doing? You could just see how similar cases go although the 6 year time scale needs to be taken into account but you do have a bit of time to consider/look around.
111KAB is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 800
heidme
Old 25-02-2013, 3:02 PM
MoneySaving Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vauban View Post
Good luck with the Court action. Lots of people behind you (in every sense).

To me, it's interesting that even in your case Monarch didn't actually reply to your correspondence and forms. You simply (understandably) got fed up with their tardiness and initiated Court proceedings. So to my knowledge Monarch are still to repy properly to anyone, outside of the legal process. Curiouser and curiouser ...
It took Monarch 6 months to refuse my claim for compensation despite numerous letters to them. I have now sent an e.mail for personal attention of Ian Rawlinson Executive Chairman of monarch and would suggest that other dissatisfied customers do the same.
heidme is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
Reply

Bookmarks
 
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 Forum Jump  

Contact Us - MoneySavingExpert.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 2:04 PM.

 Forum Jump  

Free MoneySaving Email

Top deals: Week of 23 April 2014

Get all this & more in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email full of guides, vouchers and Deals

GET THIS FREE WEEKLY EMAIL Full of deals, guides & it's spam free

Latest News & Blogs

Martin's Twitter Feed

profile
  • Thank you to my very high powered 'runner' @Marthakearney who kindly helped me escape from BBC Broadcasting House when the lifts were full.
  • So if you've got questions about CPP or travel money - I'm taking them now on @bbc5live - so do tweet us them
  • RT @bbc5live: Want to get the most out of your holiday money? Of course you do! @MartinSLewis is taking Qs on travel money on Consumer Team?

Cheap Travel Money

Find the best online rate for holiday cash with MSE's TravelMoneyMax.

Find the best online rate for your holiday cash with MoneySavingExpert's TravelMoneyMax.

TuneChecker Top Albums

  • VARIOUS ARTISTSNOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL MUSIC! 87
  • VARIOUS ARTISTSFROZEN (ORIGINAL MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACK)
  • VARIOUS ARTISTSNOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL 21ST CENTURY

MSE's Twitter Feed

profile
Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.
We use Skimlinks and other affiliated links in some of our boards, for some of our users.