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

Vauban

Martin85 wrote: »

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.

I am not a lawyer - and this is not the place to get legal advice. But the point at dispute is not whether technical failures affected TLS's flight (he has a letter confirming that is the case), but rather whether such failures constitute ECs within the context of a claim for compensation made under 261/04. The fact that Monarch did not describe the technical failures as extraordinary in their 2011 letter (which was presumably not a claim for compensation under 261/04) is neither here nor there.

TLS could wait to see the lie of the land, as is suggested. But there are no guarantees that a court would definitely find in his/her favour - even if all other small claims courts had. There are no precedents set, I understand, in the small claims court. (And who knows for how long Monarch will be in business?)

I think the best idea, as suggested, is for TLS to find a NWNF claims company who will take this on - up to and through court. That way s/he gets two thirds of what's due.

friendofbillw2

blondmark wrote: »

... 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.

Thanks for clarifying. Sending to the "Company Secretary" may not be best as that office was made obsolete after implementation of Companies Act 2006. Not all companies will have one now, and could use your addressing of correspondence to a non-existent officer to demonstrate non-compliance with the rules.

friendofbillw2

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

Your delay appears related to mine the day before. Monarch quoted 'rudder problems' to me, so at least their story is consistent.

Rollyone

ZB521 01/06/12 Antalya-Manchester.
Wrote to Monarch in november 2012 and have just received four cheques for £346 each ! Thanks for the advice issued, the treatment we received and lack of information and anight sleeping on nice bumpy plastic chairs at antalya airport warrants the compensation received. Tip to all awaiting claims, keep pestering and chasing. Thanks again:j

4poc

I know a few of you would say:"Told you so!", but i did send another letter to Monarch asking them a few questions after they sent rejection letter. At least they wrote back within 4 days!
"Thank you for your letter of response....i have noted the further questions you have raised within your correspondence and do appreciate that you still feel entitled to compensation. I can confirm that in accordance with CAA guidelines, we have provided sufficient information to support our decision regarding your claim.
I realise that you are intending to take further action regarding your claim. I can confirm that we will be more than happy to provide further information, on request, to our regulator or a court of law".

The info they provided is EC, the fact that the aircraft was servicable on the previous flight rotation which confirms that the tech fault was unexpected and unforeseen and that the ruptured left hand left bleed duct was the only defect of this nature since 2007 (my flight was July 2008) therefore confirming the reason for the delay was e/ordinary. I have noted that they are not paying for the mundane tech faults, like cracked windscreens either. So i can't see why they have mentioned the rarity of the tech fault on a 3rd previous flight?
It seems Monarch are determined to weed out whoever they can by pushing things court's way and they know only a few determined will go there...

Vauban

4poc wrote: »

I know a few of you would say:"Told you so!", but i did send another letter to Monarch asking them a few questions after they sent rejection letter. At least they wrote back within 4 days!
"Thank you for your letter of response....i have noted the further questions you have raised within your correspondence and do appreciate that you still feel entitled to compensation. I can confirm that in accordance with CAA guidelines, we have provided sufficient information to support our decision regarding your claim.
I realise that you are intending to take further action regarding your claim. I can confirm that we will be more than happy to provide further information, on request, to our regulator or a court of law".

The info they provided is EC, the fact that the aircraft was servicable on the previous flight rotation which confirms that the tech fault was unexpected and unforeseen and that the ruptured left hand left bleed duct was the only defect of this nature since 2007 (my flight was July 2008) therefore confirming the reason for the delay was e/ordinary. I have noted that they are not paying for the mundane tech faults, like cracked windscreens either. So i can't see why they have mentioned the rarity of the tech fault on a 3rd previous flight?
It seems Monarch are determined to weed out whoever they can by pushing things court's way and they know only a few determined will go there...

At the (very real) risk of being a boring old fart, it doesn't matter as a point of law whether the technical failure was rare or unexpected. The Wallentin judgement is very clear on this point in para 36:

"As was stated at paragraph 27 of this judgment, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the technical problems cited by the air carrier in question in the main proceedings stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of its activity and are beyond its actual control. It is apparent from this that the frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded."

Nor does it matter if the airplanes are maintained properly, and then something breaks out of the blue. Wallentin explains this is because, even if something unexpectedly breaks, the onus is on the airline to do everything short of "intolerable sacrifices" to stop the problem from leading to cancellation (or, as decreed by Sturgeon subsequently) serious delay. Therefore, as para 43 concludes:

"In view of the foregoing, the answer to the third question referred must be that the fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation."

I rest my case, m'lud.:D

Hestar

Can anyone shed some more light around the 50% compensation reduction rule? I believe it derives from Article 7.2 but it doesn't seem to add up with what I have been told that it only applies to flights of over 3500km....I can't seem to find that stated anywhere...

For reference my flight was delayed by 3hr40 and the distance was 3250km.

Mark2spark

OP list up to date

Missymoo123

aaaagggggggghhhhhhhhh!! Sent my original letter by recorded delivery months ago, no reply. sent an NBA 2 weeks ago. received a letter this morning saying they "appreciate the dissatisfaction but cannot find my initial correspondence" received the email with signature proof from royal mail and it looks like its been written by a chimp!! How these people fly aircraft is beyond me. Rant over!

Vauban

Missymoo123 wrote: »

aaaagggggggghhhhhhhhh!! Sent my original letter by recorded delivery months ago, no reply. sent an NBA 2 weeks ago. received a letter this morning saying they "appreciate the dissatisfaction but cannot find my initial correspondence" received the email with signature proof from royal mail and it looks like its been written by a chimp!! How these people fly aircraft is beyond me. Rant over!

So what d'ya gonna do, Missymoo?