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

Eve4ever

partypip wrote: »

MON 1860 19/08/09 from Manchester to Marsa Alam was delayed 25 hours due to Technical fault which led to the crew going out of hours.

I received an email from Monarch on 7th March 2012 confirming that my claim has been accepted, and a cheque will be with me within 14 days

Ok, so now technical issues aren't EC???!!

Mark2spark

I doubt that Monarch will have conceded as such. If the claim has been accepted, then that's all that they will say.

partypip

They state

"
...... You are entitled to compensation, I have forwarded your details to our EU team as high priority and they’ll get a cheque sent out to you ASAP"

urban469

Thanks to everyone on here for your help and advice. I sent a NBA 16 days ago (with a 14 day warning). I didn't receive a response, so it's now unfortunately the time to initiate legal action.

I'm going through MCOL, and it would be hugely helpful if you could look at my claim before I hit submit.

Full name (including title) of the person(s) you wish to make a claim against:
Mr John Marray.
Is this right? Am I claiming against him personally, rather than the company?


Full address (including postcode) of the person(s) you wish to make a claim against:
Monarch Airlines, Prospect House, Prospect Way, London Luton Airport, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU2 9NU.

The exact amount you wish to claim (including any interest, where applicable):
£251.23

Details of the claim, ie what it is about:
On 21 June 2012, I was due to fly with Monarch Airlines from London Gatwick to Milan Malpensa on flight number ZB7206 (my Monarch booking reference was R4J1HS). Departure was delayed from 1600 to 1930. Arrival was delayed from 1855 to 2220.

Under EC Regulation 261/2004, I am entitled to €250 compensation for this delay of more than three hours.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Tui & others v CAA confirmed the applicability of compensation for delay as set out in the Sturgeon case. As such, I am seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004 for this delayed flight.

I wrote a letter to Monarch explaining this, and they sent me a claim form. I filled in all the details they requested and returned it to the company. A few weeks later, I received a letter telling me that Monarch was refusing to pay compensation.

I replied, by sending a Notice Before Action on 04/03/2013, giving the company 14 days to pay the compensation owed, or face legal action. That period has now passed, and Monarch has still not replied. As such, I am reluctantly starting legal action.

In their rejection of my claim, Monarch cited the defence of Extraordinary Circumstances: an engine fault in a Monarch aircraft. However, the fault was not with the plane on which I was due to fly, but on another aircraft in the Monarch fleet. In their letter to me, Monarch states that:

“Our records show that your flight was delayed due to technical problems within the fleet. An aircraft had developed a fault in the number one engine that required engineering work in order to be safe to fly. Despite Monarch's best efforts, this meant that there were insufficient aircraft available to operate your flight at the scheduled departure time.”

Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) ruled out knock-on effects as a defence. Problems within Monarch's fleet, and faults in another aircraft are not valid Extraordinary Circumstances.

Furthermore, the Sturgeon judgement established that an Extraordinary Circumstance is something not inherent in the normal operation of an aircraft. Even if the fault was with the aircraft on which I was due to fly, Monarch would need to establish that it did everything possible to avoid the engine failure that it cites as the reason for the delay.

I am convinced that, as I have established by talking to other passengers on other Monarch flights who have been delayed, the company is routinely rejecting valid claims, knowing that most claimants would not seek redress through the courts.

The breakdown of the amount claimed is as follows:
£214.11 (which is equivalent to €250, according to the Reuters exchange rate on 20/03/2013; €250 is the amount I am entitled to, according to EC Regulation 261/2004)
+ £12.12 (interest at 8% per annum, for the period 01/07/2012 and 20/03/2013)
+ £25.00 (MCOL court costs)
= £251.23

Mark2spark

All looks good except claim is against Monarch Airlines, not Mr John Marray.

Ich_2

Monarch would need to establish that it did everything possible to avoid the engine failure that it cites as the reason for the delay.

Is it not that they have to show that they did everything reasonable to mitigate the effect of that engine failure by using their resources to the fullest?

urban469

Ich wrote: »

Is it not that they have to show that they did everything reasonable to mitigate the effect of that engine failure by using their resources to the fullest?

Thanks! I'll say that instead.

urban469

Mark2spark wrote: »

All looks good except claim is against Monarch Airlines, not Mr John Marray.

Thanks so much Mark. Actually, there's only space for 1080 characters on the MCOL claim form (which is a lot less than what I've entered). How does MCOL work? If I enter the following, will I get a chance later to set out my full argument? (i.e. can I challenge their spurious defence of Extraordinary Circumstances at a later stage in the MCOL process?)


On 21 June 2012, I was due to fly with Monarch Airlines from London Gatwick to Milan Malpensa on flight number ZB7206 (my Monarch booking reference was R4J1HS). Departure was delayed from 1600 to 1930. Arrival was delayed from 1855 to 2220.

Under EC Regulation 261/2004, I am entitled to €250 compensation for this delay of more than three hours.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Tui & others v CAA confirmed the applicability of compensation for delay as set out in the Sturgeon case. As such, I am seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004 for this delayed flight.

Mark2spark

I did wonder how you got so many words onto the MCOL form.
Yes, there is a chance to do more wordings later, but if it's more reassuring to you, go the direct Form N1 route, I believe you can download one of them.
It costs a few pounds more to file a more regular county court claim, but it's pennies (and refundable when you win) in the big scheme of things.

urban469

Centipede100 wrote: »

Corrected the above statement of claim for you!

Thanks Centi!

Mark2spark wrote: »

I did wonder how you got so many words onto the MCOL form.
Yes, there is a chance to do more wordings later, but if it's more reassuring to you, go the direct Form N1 route, I believe you can download one of them.
It costs a few pounds more to file a more regular county court claim, but it's pennies (and refundable when you win) in the big scheme of things.

I feel more comfortable with the MCOL route – I haven't done any research into N1. And if there is a chance to submit a witness statement later, then I guess they're both the same in the long run...right?