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

LBD

[QUOTE=Lapduc;60234877
Just to repeat my flight was from Birimingham which was presumambly diverted to Luton to pick up those passengers, leaving us stranded.
Any advice welcome ...or do we just add this to the list of Monarch rejections?[/QUOTE]

The aircraft that arrived at Luton for us came from Gatwick...we were told ...

Eve4ever

Update on my MCOL claim - Morgan , the Monarch lawyer has just called me to have a friendly chat. She wanted to make me a extremely generous offer of £200. ( I have 600 euros plus £60 fees and interest of £64 and counting outstanding)

To summarise , she is insisting the engine thrust failure discovered on the previous flight was the EC and therefore this would be their defense. She quoted Wallington as the case law (anyone heard of this?) . I said I don't believe this was the case so unless she was prepared to offer the full outstanding amount I would like to discuss this in front of a judge. She started getting a little annoyed at this point so upped her offer to £300 plus costs. I said I would drop the interest and that was my final offer. Then it got nasty, she said if it goes to court and they have to pay for a barrister to go to Liverpool ( :rotfl: ) then she would use this conversation as proof that I was unreasonable and would be seeking their costs from me when they win, which she is confident they would.

So, why are they making me an out of court settlement then??

You know what. I may now just employ a local solicitor to represent me on this absolute no brainer. I have a letter from Monarch stating that both of my flights were delayed due to changes in their operational schedule and they have aleady paid me for one flight. I know this would increase Monarch's losses on this when I win but I don't appreciate being threatened.

Word of advice to anyone else going down the MCOL route, do not have any cosy chats on the phone !!!

Vauban

Eve4ever wrote: »

Update on my MCOL claim - Morgan , the Monarch lawyer has just called me to have a friendly chat. She wanted to make me a extremely generous offer of £200. ( I have 600 euros plus £60 fees and interest of £64 and counting outstanding)

To summarise , she is insisting the engine thrust failure discovered on the previous flight was the EC and therefore this would be their defense. She quoted Wallington as the case law (anyone heard of this?) . I said I don't believe this was the case so unless she was prepared to offer the full outstanding amount I would like to discuss this in front of a judge. She started getting a little annoyed at this point so upped her offer to £300 plus costs. I said I would drop the interest and that was my final offer. Then it got nasty, she said if it goes to court and they have to pay for a barrister to go to Liverpool ( :rotfl: ) then she would use this conversation as proof that I was unreasonable and would be seeking their costs from me when they win, which she is confident they would.

So, why are they making me an out of court settlement then??

You know what. I may now just employ a local solicitor to represent me on this absolute no brainer. I have a letter from Monarch stating that both of my flights were delayed due to changes in their operational schedule and they have aleady paid me for one flight. I know this would increase Monarch's losses on this when I win but I don't appreciate being threatened.

Word of advice to anyone else going down the MCOL route, do not have any cosy chats on the phone !!!

Eve,

Thanks for sharing this. It tells you a lot about how Monarch are handling this. I have heard similar stories from three others.

Others will chip in with thoughts but mine are:

a) Monarch wouldn't be offering you £360 if they thought they were going to win in Court;
b) it is true they can hire an expensive QC: but the small claims court will take a dim view of it, and will not order you to pay their costs (nor will you be able to reclaim your legal costs - only fees, I think): so this is purely a scare tactic.
c) Wallentin is relevant to your case - she is right on that. Indeed, it's the reason you are likely to win it: its the key judgement that decrees technical issues are not extraordinary circumstances.

This is truly shocking behaviour from Monarch's lawyer. Is it even legal?

Eve4ever

Vauban wrote: »

Eve,

Thanks for sharing this. It tells you a lot about how Monarch are handling this. I have heard similar stories from three others.

Others will chip in with thoughts but mine are:

a) Monarch wouldn't be offering you £360 if they thought they were going to win in Court;
b) it is true they can hire an expensive QC: but the small claims court will take a dim view of it, and will not order you to pay their costs (nor will you be able to reclaim your legal costs - only fees, I think): so this is purely a scare tactic.
c) Wallentin is relevant to your case - she is right on that. Indeed, it's the reason you are likely to win it: its the key judgement that decrees technical issues are not extraordinary circumstances.

This is truly shocking behaviour from Monarch's lawyer. Is it even legal?

Thanks Vauban, I assume you meant to say the court will not make me pay their costs?

I'm confident in this case, whether I represent myself, which I have done before and was praised by the court staff for or I ask a solicitor for an hour of his time, I'll decide nearer the time. I'll read up on the case law now I have the correct spelling and keep you all posted

111KAB

Well done Eve :T:T:T

RichardAli+Family

Had email today from Monarch refusing compensation for 5 hour delay on ZB613 2330 LPA-MAN on 3/11/12 (eventually flew 4/11/12!). A #2 engine fault on another flight that had to divert to Dalaman was given as their reason for the delay but they also cited it as an 'Exceptional Circumstance', whilst commenting that safety and service were priorities for them! Have replied that if safety really was a priority then their maintenance wouldn't let an engine develop such a fault, and if service was a priority then why didn't they hire another plane or have sufficient stand-by/ maintenance capacity to make another of their own planes available?

Vauban

It's like Wallentin and Sturgeon never happened ...

Winton_Girl

Vauban wrote: »

The simple answer is that they can't. But even one cracked windscreen isn't extraordinary, if - as Monarch's own defence says - it results from exposure to extreme temperatures and hih altitudes (ie the normal business of flying).

Was your flight blighted by this issue. Which was it?

Flight was diverted to Athens due to a craked windscreen ZB248 Gatwick to Sharm 14/01 2012
10 Hour delay , at Athens airport !

richardw

Monarch do read this, so perhaps delete that post if you don't want them to know what you're thinking re post 1307.

Ich_2

The simple answer is that they can't. But even one cracked windscreen isn't extraordinary, if - as Monarch's own defence says - it results from exposure to extreme temperatures and hih altitudes (ie the normal business of flying).

Just thinking this through a bit, the windscreen is designed to cope with the conditions it will encounter in normal use and flight, it is not designed to fail in anyway.
So it could be said that it is extraordinary when it does.

Though the frequency of failures is another matter!