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

russetred

That's my small claim papers in today and I've been told that the court date will likely be 30 May.
I got the sheriff clerk to check over my claim and it does go as a small claim. If the initial sum of money claimed is under £3000 then no matter how much extra is added by way of interest or court fees it goes through as a small claim in Scotland.
My wording was okay, thanks to everyone on here, and the only addition I had to make was to state i had booked the flights from my home address therefore my local court had jurisdiction.
I have been told the first court date will probably be a preliminary hearing and there may be a second date to hear all the evidence if Monarch put up a defence.

111KAB

Good luck russetred.

MontyWomble

I logged onto MCOL this morning as a response was due by tomorrow. It has now been updated to say that Monarch have submitted their defense, I am unable to see this online though.

Does this get posted out to you does anyone know?

Thanks

111KAB

MontyWomble wrote: »

I logged onto MCOL this morning as a response was due by tomorrow. It has now been updated to say that Monarch have submitted their defense, I am unable to see this online though.

Does this get posted out to you does anyone know?

Thanks

Yes it will be posted to you - normally takes a couple of days. Typical Monarch way of dealing with matters ie they leave it until the last (legal) moment to submit defence.

MontyWomble

Exactly! Was hoping to push for a judgement and that they wouldn't respond, oh well.

Was submitted early this week so might receive something in the post today, will keep you all informed if so

MontyWomble

Well.... response received and I can confirm Monarch are experts in Ctrl X, C and V. Received an almost identical response as Vauban. All they have changed is point 5 and flight number within point 4. Lazy lazy Monarch.

From what they have said it doesn't even sound like it was out flight that suffered the cracked windscreen.

Point 6 makes no sense either. Which aircraft had to return to the stand?! Certainly not mine as as didn't board until the 13 hour delay was over. I notice Vauban questioned this also, can only assume another poor copy and paste job that they have left on!

I am by no means as knowledgable / experienced as most of you so would appreciate your feedback / thoughts


The Defendant was at all material times acting the in the capacity of an aircarrier for the·purposes of these proceedings.

2) The Claimant is put to strict proof as to whether he was actually on the said flight.

3) Subject to paragraph 2, the Defendant admits that the Claimant's flight was delayed.

4) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant for flight MON5028 Manchester toZakynthos. The Defendant intends to rely upon the defence of extraordinary circumstances as provided under EURegulation 261/2004.

5) The Defendant submits that the aircraft scheduled to operate the Claimants flight suffered a delay as a reaction to an aircraft within the fleet suffering a cracked windscreen.


6) An aircraft cannot fly with cracks in the windscreen as once the aircraft is airborne the cracks willspread and there is a risk that the cabin will begin losing pressure.Consequently the aircraft had to return to stand and the passengers unloaded whilst necessary engineering work was undertaken.

7) As a result the Claimant's flight MON5028 was delayed. The Defendant submits thatthis constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.

8) TheDefendant intends to rely upon the decisioninWallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia) wherethe court held that "technical problems are covered by those exceptionalcircumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise ofthe activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control". The Defendantsubmits that cracks in the windscreen can arise without any initial indications given theyare subjectto extreme changes in temperature andaltitude. Consequently the cracks and the resulting delay were in fact beyond the Defendant's control.

9)Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the testof Wallentin. Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipmentand the financial means at its disposal, it would not have been able...to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it wasconfronted',fromleading to the delay. The Defendant submits that the crack in the windscreenand resulting delay were unavoidable and that it took all reasonable measureswithin its power and resources to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay. The Defendant reiteratesParagraph 9 of the Defence herein.

10) TheDefendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimantas alleged or at all.

11) TheDefendant submits that it is not liable to Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.



12) The Defendant admits thatthe Claimant has an inherent right to interest subject to liability being established.

TheDefendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true to the bestof its belief andknowledge.

Hestar

I've received a reply from Monarch regarding the 50% reduction to my compensation (as below). It seems to make sense to me after reading the EU regulation but everybody seems to believe it doesn't imply. My flight was between 3250km with a delay of 3hr40.

Can somebody please clarify? I have received the 50% cheque and am unsure whether to cash it or not.

Response from Monarch:

"As you may know, the original wording of EC261/2004 seemed to apply compensation only to situations where a passenger’s flight was cancelled. The European Court of Justice in the “Sturgeon” case equated delay to cancellation and thus made it possible for compensation to be paid in respect of flight delays as determined by the distance travelled, the route and the length of the delay. However, the court has also laid down that compensation could be halved provided the delay was less than 4 hours in duration."

EU Regulation, Article 7.2:

"2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked

(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or

(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or

(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),

the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %."

lisafoster

Hestar wrote: »

I've received a reply from Monarch regarding the 50% reduction to my compensation (as below). It seems to make sense to me after reading the EU regulation but everybody seems to believe it doesn't imply. My flight was between 3250km with a delay of 3hr40.

Can somebody please clarify? I have received the 50% cheque and am unsure whether to cash it or not.

Response from Monarch:

"As you may know, the original wording of EC261/2004 seemed to apply compensation only to situations where a passenger’s flight was cancelled. The European Court of Justice in the “Sturgeon” case equated delay to cancellation and thus made it possible for compensation to be paid in respect of flight delays as determined by the distance travelled, the route and the length of the delay. However, the court has also laid down that compensation could be halved provided the delay was less than 4 hours in duration."

EU Regulation, Article 7.2:

"2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked

(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or

(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or

(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),

the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %."

This information is on the main MSE and CAA site:

How much compensation are you due?
Up to 1,500km, eg, London to Paris 3 hours+ €250 (£215)

1,500km-3,500 km, eg, London to Istanbul 3 hours+ €400 (£345)

3,500km+, eg, London to New York 3-4 hours €300 (£259)

4+ hours €600 (£515)
Sterling figures based on the early February 2013 exchange rate of €1.16 euros to £1

The 50% reduction in compensation is only on flights of more than 3500km that were delayed by more than three and up to 4 hours. You are entitled to €400 per person.

Hestar

lisafoster wrote: »

This information is on the main MSE and CAA site:

How much compensation are you due?
Up to 1,500km, eg, London to Paris 3 hours+ €250 (£215)

1,500km-3,500 km, eg, London to Istanbul 3 hours+ €400 (£345)

3,500km+, eg, London to New York 3-4 hours €300 (£259)

4+ hours €600 (£515)
Sterling figures based on the early February 2013 exchange rate of €1.16 euros to £1

The 50% reduction in compensation is only on flights of more than 3500km that were delayed by more than three and up to 4 hours. You are entitled to €400 per person.

Thanks for the reply. I am owed €400 per passenger, but Monarch have halved the compensation.

However, reading through Article 7.2 it does seem to imply that the airline is able to halve the compensation - can you clarify how that clause doesn't apply to flights that are less than 3500km?

Many thanks in advance for your help!

urban469

MontyWomble wrote: »

Well.... response received and I can confirm Monarch are experts in Ctrl X, C and V. Received an almost identical response as Vauban. All they have changed is point 5 and flight number within point 4. Lazy lazy Monarch.

From what they have said it doesn't even sound like it was out flight that suffered the cracked windscreen.

Point 6 makes no sense either. Which aircraft had to return to the stand?! Certainly not mine as as didn't board until the 13 hour delay was over. I notice Vauban questioned this also, can only assume another poor copy and paste job that they have left on!

I am by no means as knowledgable / experienced as most of you so would appreciate your feedback / thoughts


The Defendant was at all material times acting the in the capacity of an aircarrier for the·purposes of these proceedings.

2) The Claimant is put to strict proof as to whether he was actually on the said flight.

3) Subject to paragraph 2, the Defendant admits that the Claimant's flight was delayed.

4) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant for flight MON5028 Manchester toZakynthos. The Defendant intends to rely upon the defence of extraordinary circumstances as provided under EURegulation 261/2004.

5) The Defendant submits that the aircraft scheduled to operate the Claimants flight suffered a delay as a reaction to an aircraft within the fleet suffering a cracked windscreen.


6) An aircraft cannot fly with cracks in the windscreen as once the aircraft is airborne the cracks willspread and there is a risk that the cabin will begin losing pressure.Consequently the aircraft had to return to stand and the passengers unloaded whilst necessary engineering work was undertaken.

7) As a result the Claimant's flight MON5028 was delayed. The Defendant submits thatthis constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.

8) TheDefendant intends to rely upon the decisioninWallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia) wherethe court held that "technical problems are covered by those exceptionalcircumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise ofthe activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control". The Defendantsubmits that cracks in the windscreen can arise without any initial indications given theyare subjectto extreme changes in temperature andaltitude. Consequently the cracks and the resulting delay were in fact beyond the Defendant's control.

9)Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the testof Wallentin. Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipmentand the financial means at its disposal, it would not have been able...to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it wasconfronted',fromleading to the delay. The Defendant submits that the crack in the windscreenand resulting delay were unavoidable and that it took all reasonable measureswithin its power and resources to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay. The Defendant reiteratesParagraph 9 of the Defence herein.

10) TheDefendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimantas alleged or at all.

11) TheDefendant submits that it is not liable to Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.



12) The Defendant admits thatthe Claimant has an inherent right to interest subject to liability being established.

TheDefendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true to the bestof its belief andknowledge.

Really interesting, thanks for sharing this.

POINT 2
How are you going to do this? Booking confirmation or boarding pass wouldn't suffice (because you could've printed this out and not travelled to the airport). Maybe you have a black and white photocopied letter (like I do) that was handed out by check in staff, apologising for the delay?

POINT 6
So, they are claiming that because another aircraft had a fault which made it dangerous to fly, this is an extraordinary circumstance which means they are not liable to pay compensation for your delay. That's an easy one to challenge:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59278849&postcount=8