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

blondmark

Vauban wrote: »

To be honest with you, Blondmark, I don't actually think this is right. The Finnair case deals with a different principle - it doesn't strictly say that knock-ons aren't allowed. Or if you can find the part that does, I'll buy you a pint!:D

The ratio decidendi of Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) is that extraordinary circumstances do not constitute reasonable grounds for denying boarding to passengers on a later flight rescheduled as a consequence of a flight cancellation, and the carrier cannot be exempted from the obligation to pay compensation under Article 4(3).

Extrapolating that legal principle by analogy, which is how the courts interpret case law, extraordinary circumstances relating to one flight may not be carried forward to a later flight to exempt the airline from paying compensation under 261/2004.

LINK

Mine's a Stella, thanks. :beer:

lisa4874

Hi
After reading all through this really informative thread do I now fill out an MCOL or N1. I sent my NOI nearly 14 days and have heard nothing from Monarch.
Thank you

richardw

How many claimants are there? Are any of them married?

blondmark

lisa4874 wrote: »

Hi
After reading all through this really informative thread do I now fill out an MCOL or N1. I sent my NOI nearly 14 days and have heard nothing from Monarch.
Thank you

I would stick with Form N1 because the severe restriction on the number of characters allowed under the MCOL system make it almost impossible to include all the relevant facts in a relatively complex claim.

lisa4874

It was for my husband's mum and dad, my husband, me and our 4 year old. Do I have to send them a copy?
Thank you

lisa4874

Sorry have another question. Do you also claim interest?
Thank you

blondmark

lisa4874 wrote: »

It was for my husband's mum and dad, my husband, me and our 4 year old. Do I have to send them a copy?
Thank you

If a fare was paid for your child, then there are five claimants who are numbered in your particulars of claim as follows:

(1) Lisa's hubby's mum
(2) Lisa's hubby's dad
(3) Lisa's hubby
(4) Lisa
(5) Lisa's 4 year old

One of you can speak to the court on behalf of the rest. Although a 4 year old could probably win a claim against Monarch, perhaps you should speak for all five.

blondmark

lisa4874 wrote: »

Sorry have another question. Do you also claim interest?
Thank you

Yes, @ 8% under s.69 CCA since the date that payment should have been made until the date of judgment or sooner payment.

4poc

I received the following today (& have copied the first two paragraphs from russetred rather than type ):
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 a ruptured left hand left bleed duct whilst operating a previous flight. This was discovered on arrival of the flight at the oversees destination airport. As a result of this we could not legally and safely operate this aircraft and i was vital the fault was rectified. As a result of our operations team arranged for your flight to be operated on the 1st available aircraft within the monarch fleet albeit with the delay experienced.
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 the aircraft was serviceable on the previous flight rotation confirms the technical fault was unexpected and unforeseen. In addition to this i can also advise this is the only defect of this nature which has occurred since 2007 therefore confirming the reason for the delay was extraordinary.
i do hope that you find the above explanation helpful and you are better able to understand why we have categorized your delay as extraordinary"
I seriously feel that it is disgraceful for Monarch to blame a tech fault (perhaps serious, yes) but on a third previous flight to ours ... where does the knock on delays stop? What if they have no other planes spare at all, ever? Would delays from 2008 still continue to this day? Plus, as it has been said before, is extraordinary circumstances pertaining to flight concerned? i did not see my plane on the tarmac when i turned up at the airport nearly 3 hours before for our 6am flight?
I would like to know (and will ask Monarch) what time they discovered the problem (i was told 1000 feet into approach into Faro, i believe a day before. And what rotation does it do: ex X into Faro, Faro to Gatwick (or Manchester) & then Gatwick (or Manchester) to Corfu. Out flight was delayed 7.5 hours (as per customer services back in 2008, but 6.2 according to David @ Monarch EU Claim).
I will write back to monarch with my arguments,but in the meantime has anybody got any thoughts on this.

Vauban

4poc wrote: »

I seriously feel that it is disgraceful for Monarch to blame a tech fault (perhaps serious, yes) but on a third previous flight to ours ... where does the knock on delays stop? What if they have no other planes spare at all, ever? Would delays from 2008 still continue to this day? Plus, as it has been said before, is extraordinary circumstances pertaining to flight concerned? i did not see my plane on the tarmac when i turned up at the airport nearly 3 hours before for our 6am flight?

I will write back to monarch with my arguments,but in the meantime has anybody got any thoughts on this.

4poc,

See my thoughts just a few posts ago on this. I think you have a very strong claim, though of course IANAL (that 'I' is quite important, Mark2Spark).

But you say you plan to write back to Monarch with your arguments. What do you honestly think they will do? See the error of their ways and your superior legal argument? Or just keep playing you long ...

There is only one way to get Monarch's attention and oblige them to honour their legal obligations. And if you don't want to do that, you'll have to write off your claim as a bad experience and move on.

Vauban