Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.

Vauban

MontyWomble wrote: »

Monarch acknowledged our mcol notice on 21st Feb and so have a further 28 days to respond. How long have others waited following acknowledge of receipt to hear from Monarch?

I have just received Monarch's defence yesterday, and now need to complete the Court's questionnaire ... (I have to say that Monarch's defence strikes me as very thin).

There may also be something in there that I think I can demonstrate as a bare-faced lie ...

afish51

Received letter yesterday from Monarch in reply to my NBA letter (sent on 5/3/13):

"Due to the content of your letter John Marray feels it appropriate for our Head of Customer Services, Paul Keithy, to address the points you have raised. Your correspondence has been passed to him and he will respond ASAP"

Flight is MON326 Sanford to LGW 21/08/12 (8 hour delay).

Does anyone know whether this actually means anything, or whether this is another delaying tactic from Monarch.

Thanks to everyone for your invaluable help on this forum.

MontyWomble

ang216bc wrote: »

Mine arrived this week on the 28th day

28th day! Brilliant! Will keep you updated once I receive a response.

Would guess some people have started to receive a defense from Monarch, do people feel comfortable sharing?

mikaelam

Hi, guys..
I started a claim back in Oct with Monarch for ZB249 Sharm to Gatwick on 23/09/12
We were delayed due to technical fault with plane which we were given a letter stating. I sent a copy to Monarch with my claim. I recieved the same old blaming it on a previous flight....

Re: Flight ZB249 Sharm El Sheik to London Gatwick on 23rd September 2012

Thank you for taking the time to contact us in respect of your flight.

I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence. Providing our passengers with safe and efficient service is our first priority. I would like to reassure you that every effort is made to ensure the flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so, we aim to get you to your destination at the earliest opportunity. That said, our ability to keep disruption to a minimum is always dependant on the resources available to us on the day.

In some circumstances, passengers may be entitled to compensation under European Union laws.
However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. 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. In addition, the CAA has provided some guidance on its views of “extraordinary circumstances” (please see the guidance notes accompanying the 261 compensation claim form).

Our records show that the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight was declared unserviceable and would require engineering work due to an elevator servo fault. Your flight was therefore re-scheduled to operate on an alternate Monarch aircraft once it had completed the previous scheduling requirements. During this previous flight from London Gatwick to Preveza, the aircraft was diverted to Venice due to a medical emergency onboard. The emergency was resolved on the ground in Venice and a flight slot was obtained in order for the remainder of the journey to Preveza, and the consequent return flight to London Gatwick to operate. Upon arrival in London, the outbound flight to Sharm El Sheik was able to operate at the earliest opportunity. It is unfortunate that as a consequence of all these events, there was a delay to the scheduled departure time of your flight.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch. I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

Yours sincerely,

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Monarch

I emailed back saying it wasn't an EC on my flight but a previous flight so would be taking legal action. Could someone please help me with what to do next, i've had a look at MCOL, is it worth using?
Thanks
Mikaela

Vauban

MontyWomble wrote: »

28th day! Brilliant! Will keep you updated once I receive a response.

Would guess some people have started to receive a defense from Monarch, do people feel comfortable sharing?

I wonder whether that's regarded as appropriate or not? I should hate to commit a faux pas ...

111KAB

MontyWomble wrote: »

28th day! Brilliant! Will keep you updated once I receive a response.

Would guess some people have started to receive a defense from Monarch, do people feel comfortable sharing?

28th day for me as well - I have posted the defence on this thread some time ago.

blondmark

Vauban wrote: »

I wonder whether that's regarded as appropriate or not? I should hate to commit a faux pas ...

Can't think why not ... you're not about to be sued for breach of copyright and courts are open to the public so the evidence isn't a secret.

peejay57

Hi Guys,

I have been on the mcol site looking at the process and I was not sure about a few things Main question is when I register I dont see how to get both mine and my partners name in,or do i register then fill in a seperate form?
If anyone could help I,d really appreciate it

russetred

I received the following today:
Thank you for your letter addressed to John Marray who has asked me to respond on his behalf.
Please accept my apologies for the dissatisfaction you have registered regarding your claim for compensation in accordance with EC261/2004. I have noted the further comments made within your letter particularly to the ECJ ruling regarding technical faults.
The European Court of Justice in Wallentin- v- Alitalia held that technical defects which come to light during maintenance, or an account of a failure to maintain, do not, per se, constitute extraordinary circumstances in themselves. but "technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond their control".
As you are already aware it was discovered that the aircraft due to operate your flight had developed an engine fault after the arrival from its previous flight. The fault was identified as the Common Nozzle Assembly within the engine. As a result of this we could not legally and safely operate the outbound MON5238 to Luxor and it was vital the fault was rectified prior to departure. After our engineering and operations team reviewed the rectification work required, including the sourcing of the necessary part, it was identified the delay would be extremely lentghy. In view of this a full review of our flying programme was conducted to reduce the delay and customers onboard your flight transferred onto the the first available flight within the Mnarch fleet to meet the capacity of the flight.
I can confirm,therefore, that having considered the facts I am satisfied our initial assessment of your claim was correct and compensation is not due on this occasion.As I am sure you can appreciate, the very fact that the fault was only discovered on the turnaround prior to the outbound flight to Luxor confirms the subsequent fault was unexpected and therefore the delay was unavoidable.

russetred

My delayed flight was inbound Luxor to Gatwick MON 5239 the flight after. Also rather odd that this was not the reason given by the crew at the time of the delay.We were told that due to the previous WEEK's flight developing a fault it had been withdrawn and Monarch had taken an operational decision not to charter another plane which led to massive delays for lots of customers.