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

friendofbillw2

Fair comment, but as they replied to my paper forms by email, I am going to carry on with that method of communication. I have an acknowledgement email from Monarch which therefore gives not only proof of sending, but proof of receipt.

And I'm not saying that I won't take further action on receipt of their defence. Obviously that depends on the substance of their defence!

What I am saying is if they neither pay nor provide a defence, I will take legal action without further reference to them.

As I said, I'll post updates in due course.

friendofbillw2

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Fair comment, but as they replied to my paper forms by email, I am going to carry on with that method of communication. I have an acknowledgement email from Monarch which therefore gives not only proof of sending, but proof of receipt.

And I'm not saying that I won't take further action on receipt of their defence. Obviously that depends on the substance of their defence!

What I am saying is if they neither pay nor provide a defence, I will take legal action without further reference to them.

As I said, I'll post updates in due course.

Here is their acknowledgement :


Thankyou for your e-mail. This is an auto response to acknowledge receipt of youre-mail.



Ifyou have attached an EU claim form:

We willprocess the claim and confirm to you in a further e-mail that your claim hasbeen accepted. In the meantime, if we require any additional information fromyou we will be in touch and let you know.



Ifyou are enquiring about a previously submitted claim:

Pleasebe aware, that we will need some time to investigate the circumstancessurrounding your delay. This may involve obtaining feedback from a numberof different areas of the business and in some circumstances, third partysuppliers.





Ouraim is to process all claims as quickly as possible however, please be awarethat due to the large number of enquiries we have received, this may takelonger than expected.



We will notifyyou once our investigations are complete and we would like to thank you foryour patience and understanding.





Kind Regards,



Customer Service Team
Monarch

Mark2spark

Pre action protocol's require you to send the NBA by snail mail to the company secretary at the registered address.
So forget email apart from using it as a back up copy.

BARCARMAD

Hi,

I was on the above flight, with its departure delayed by over 3 hours and I'm certain it arrived over 3 hours late also. Monarch are claiming it arrived under 3 hours late and I've checked all the websites which have flight details on and this flight always says arrival unknown.

Was anyone else on this flight and have the same problem?
Can anyone tell me if they are able to find its arrival time?

Many thanks

Vauban

For those of you interested in taking Monarch to Cohrt, I've posted some questions about the allocation questionnaire - and what questions the court should put to Monarch - here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60185975&postcount=5

TomLikesSausages

Flight MON 1506 on 21st September 2011 from Gatwick to Fueteventura; Claim denied due to extraordinary circumstances. Reason Given Rudder Problems. Please Mark could you add to list of denied claims

We received a letter from Monarch in October 2011 when we complained.
Part of the text which we consider the most relevant, from their 2 page letter stated "With regard to your outward flight,you are already aware that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed a technical fault with a rudder problem at Gatwick the day before. The only immediate available spare had to be sent from France. rectification work was due to be carried out during the early hours of 21st September. Given that technical problems are unpredictable as to where and when they occur, every delay situation is different and requires optimum solution. the repair took longer than anticipated and unfortunately there was no other aircraft available to reduce the delay of 5 hours 35 minutes

There was no mention in their original letter of extraordinary or unusual circumstances which they no claim to be the case.

We have sent a copy of everything to the CAA asking them to investigate and will await their response in due course as we consider because of the original correspondences from Monarch our case may be slightly different as the company had already given a full explanation. Whilst we are aware that probably in the long run the best course of action is to take Monarch to court we do not feel comfortable doing so, especially as we are now pensioners. It probably customers like us that Monarch can use their "Bully Boy" tactics to scare us off.

However what is anyone's opinion, in view of Monarch's letter if October 2010 and them not mentioning any extraordinary circumstances at the time; would this fact strengthen our case to any great degree.Thank you for any advise.

Vauban

TomLikesSausages wrote: »

Flight MON 1506 on 21st September 2011 from Gatwick to Fueteventura; Claim denied due to extraordinary circumstances. Reason Given Rudder Problems. Please Mark could you add to list of denied claims

We received a letter from Monarch in October 2011 when we complained.
Part of the text which we consider the most relevant, from their 2 page letter stated "With regard to your outward flight,you are already aware that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed a technical fault with a rudder problem at Gatwick the day before. The only immediate available spare had to be sent from France. rectification work was due to be carried out during the early hours of 21st September. Given that technical problems are unpredictable as to where and when they occur, every delay situation is different and requires optimum solution. the repair took longer than anticipated and unfortunately there was no other aircraft available to reduce the delay of 5 hours 35 minutes

There was no mention in their original letter of extraordinary or unusual circumstances which they no claim to be the case.

We have sent a copy of everything to the CAA asking them to investigate and will await their response in due course as we consider because of the original correspondences from Monarch our case may be slightly different as the company had already given a full explanation. Whilst we are aware that probably in the long run the best course of action is to take Monarch to court we do not feel comfortable doing so, especially as we are now pensioners. It probably customers like us that Monarch can use their "Bully Boy" tactics to scare us off.

However what is anyone's opinion, in view of Monarch's letter if October 2010 and them not mentioning any extraordinary circumstances at the time; would this fact strengthen our case to any great degree.Thank you for any advise.

Dear TLS,

I'm afraid that Monarch's failure to mention EC's in their earlier letter would have no bearing, in my opinion, on their usage of it now. It would only really matter in Court anyhow, and as you're ruling that out then there's no where else for you to take this. You are not going to shame or reason them into reviewing their stance, I'm afraid.

I agree with you about bully boy tactics. It's disgraceful behaviour. But their strategy has worked - at least in your case. At least you can take confort from the fact you are unlikely ever to fly Monarch again, and will tell all your friends not to.

Vauban

blondmark

Mark2spark wrote: »

Pre action protocol's require you to send the NBA by snail mail to the company secretary at the registered address.
So forget email apart from using it as a back up copy.

... that is to "a person holding a senior position within the company" posted to "any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction which has a real connection with the claim" (including the Company Secretary at the Registered Office). Part 6 Civil Procedure Rules.

111KAB

TomLikesSausages wrote: »

Whilst we are aware that probably in the long run the best course of action is to take Monarch to court we do not feel comfortable doing so, especially as we are now pensioners. It probably customers like us that Monarch can use their "Bully Boy" tactics to scare us off.

In that case why not use a no win/no fee firm as you will at least get around 70% of the due amount.

Martin85

I would have thought that TomLikesSausages (post 1275) had a cast iron case against Monarch in view of the fact in their letter to him in 2011 (well before the current EU ruling) they admitted the delay was due to a technical fault which they do not describe as anything but routine. There is no mention of Extraordinary or unusual circumstances. I know little of the law but it would appear Monarch are changing there tact to suit them ,surely the letter is the first point of admission. Is there is a legal beaver that perhaps could explain why this may not be the case. Maybe TLS should wait to see what a couple of court rulings decides, to get some indication of the lie of the land, before deciding how to proceed. I understand their reluctance/nervousness to go to court and the CAA do not seem to be interested in getting involved in any aspects of this ruling.