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

Vauban

russetred wrote: »

"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".

Er ... yes. Exactly. So if the technical defect is a consequence of normal operations - like a broken engine or a cracked windscreen - then it is not extraordinary. Indeed that is the entire point of Wallentin v Alitalia. How can anyone read it any other way?!

Are Monarch stupid or just very, very disingenuous?

blondmark

russetred wrote: »

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.

D'oh! Not the Common Nozzle Assembly!

So what this letter reveals is that the plane coming in on some other flight was intended for use on your flight, but on landing the Common Nozzle Assembly was found to be faulty so that plane couldn't be used for your flight.

Some case law: C-22/11 Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy is authority for the proposition that the knock-on effect of [alleged] extraordinary circumstances arising from a previous flight does not give rise to extraordinary circumstances on your flight. In particular you should note that, in relation to ECs, the Regulation expressly refers to "the flight concerned". The flight concerned is your flight, not the previous flight where these circumstances allegedly arose.

Further, in case number: Xa ZR 15/10, the BGH held that the carrier must show that it exhausted all efforts to avoid a delay by any means available to it including, for example, having available spare aircraft, which this airline has failed to do.

Put these facts to them whilst providing 14 days to settle your claim or accept service of proceedings.

russetred

Vauban wrote: »

Er ... yes. Exactly. So if the technical defect is a consequence of normal operations - like a broken engine or a cracked windscreen - then it is not extraordinary. Indeed that is the entire point of Wallentin v Alitalia. How can anyone read it any other way?!

Are Monarch stupid or just very, very disingenuous?[/QUOTE

No, they are just desperately trying to put me off!

I will be putting my summary notice into the court on Monday.
My case may well come up quite quickly as we have a relatively quiet court up here.
Just trawling through the thread to get my wording as concise and clear as possible on my paperwork.

MontyWomble

peejay57 wrote: »

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

I called MCOL about this yesterday and they stated as long as all names are detailed within the summary then this would be OK.

I don't work there so can't guarantee this, but think should be OK.

I only have my own name down as claimant.

richardw

MontyWomble wrote: »

I called MCOL about this yesterday and they stated as long as all names are detailed within the summary then this would be OK.

I don't work there so can't guarantee this, but think should be OK.

No it won't be OK.

If you can't get the names in the claimant box, then they won't both be claimants. The airlines' lawyers know this.

So you don't use MCOL, it really is that simple.

You just fill form N1 in, with claimants names in the claimant box! and then get the form to your local court.

Please don't repeat that it'll be ok. If you do a bit of an online search you'll find plenty of cases where it wasn't.

Mark2spark

My opinion differs slightly from RichardW.
IMO the lead passenger can file a claim for all named passengers under the single booking reference.
1 booking = 1 contract IMO
The problem would be if it was a very large booking and the total claim exceeded £5000, ie the current small claims court limit.
IANAL

richardw

Well have a read of what happened to Kathryn70 http://flightmole.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3867&postcount=16
and some one else http://flightmole.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5963&postcount=12

It's not a case of 'opinion', just look at what's happened.
It's clear that future claimants need to be careful.

Btw easyJet may no longer be using that firm of Solicitors.

You need to be very careful in your posts Mark2spark, perhaps consider a clear signature without an acronym.

Mark2spark

Yeah, different courts, different judges, similar circumstances, different outcomes.
That's my experience of UK courts Richard

richardw

Yes, but getting something absolutely correct on a form at the outset can avoid problems.

klint

richardw wrote: »

You just fill form N1 in, with claimants names in the claimant box! and then get the form to your local court.

I thought you had to send it to the airline's local court? Or does it not matter, as long as it's an English court?