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

toptree

Hi
Has anyone been successful in asking their insurance company to fund getting legal assistance in taking Monarch to court ?
My household insurance includes family legal protection cover which apparently includes dealing with contractual disputes. I am told that if the insurance company believes I have reasonable grounds for taking Monarch to court then they will appoint a lawyer to act on my behalf. I am hoping that this will then persuade Monarch to settle. I will keep you posted.

colingreathead

I have been reading this forum and have seen that the flight pevious to our fight was delayed. quote (MON303 Man - Sanford 15/6/2012 Computer replaced and headwinds on previous flight Knock on) Compensation was denied for claimants on this flight siteing EC (613). Our flight was MON302 Sanford to Manchester 15/06/12 That ment that the plane we were waiting for was late due to the previous flight to that. Does that mean that they can deny my claim for compensation as that would be a knock on, knock on. How many knock on's can they site from one fault

NorthumberlandLady

Surly a 'knock on' is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' the word extraordinary means something out of the ordinary yet this is a regular occurrence for Monarch!

skinnybloke

suejayjay wrote: »

Flight ZB655 Malaga to Manchester. I had a four hour delay from Malaga to Manchester in may 2012 - thirteen people in our party with a handicapped young man (my son), wrote to monarch and filled in THIRTEEN separate claims forms and recd letter back saying plane delayed due to someone having a heart attack and plane being diverted hence delay - fair enough but when I checked with airport - no diversion on the flight had been recorded - wrote back telling them this and my reply back was stated as a different date and different excuse - problem with hydraulic leakin the airframe above cargo door. Think I am now at the point where I want to give up but don't really want them to get away with it.

See my item on previous page (Page 71). Monarch replied to me that delay was due a medical emergency on a different flight as well even though at the airport at the time I was told it was due to lost luggage.

Monarch seem to accommodate more that their fair share of unwell people on their flights.

Its hard work but I am going to batter Monarch until I receive compensation or it is proved that I am not legible.

Dont let them get away with it!!!!!

urban469

So, I've just had a very interesting response to my NBA. This was my NBA, sent more than a month ago (legal proceedings have since started, and they've filed an acknowledgment of service, something which Keithley has forgotten in his reply to me below).

Anyway, their reply does something very very useful: it shows me exactly how they intend to defend their case:

Thank you for your letter addressed to John Marry and for your patience whilst awaiting a response whilst l investigated this case further.

Please accept my apologies for the dissatisfaction you have registered regarding the handling of your claim for compensation in accordance with EC261/2004. I can certainly appreciate how frustrating it is to feel your claim has not been handled correctly.

Turning firstly to your reference to Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (c-22/11) in the Finnair decision, the ECJ was considering whether or not the carrier could invoke the extraordinary circumstances defence in relation to a claim for compensation for denied boarding under Regulation 261/2004. Although the background to the decision to deny boarding was that a previous Finnair flight had been cancelled due to a strike at Barcelona airport, this was irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mr Lassoy was entitled to compensation for denied boarding under Regulation 261. Under the Regulation the extraordinary circumstances defence is only relevant to claims for compensation for cancellation or delay.

In this case, Finnair sought to argue that the extraordinary circumstances defence should also apply in cases where the decision to deny boarding had been taken against a background of an extraordinary circumstances event. The ECJ confirmed the position in the Regulation: that the extraordinary circumstances defence could not be invoked in relation to a claim for compensation for denied boarding. As such there are no parallels between your claim for compensation and the facts of the Finnair case.

Turning now to our rejection of your claim as you are aware The European Court of Justice in WalIentin -v- Alitalia held that technical defects which come to light during maintenance, or an account of a failure to maintain, do not, per se, constitute extraordinary circumstances in themselves, but “technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control”.

As you are aware an aircraft within our fleet developed a fault within the number one engine. Initially the aircraft arrived from its previous rotation with compressor vane messages and after engineers assessed the aircraft it was discovered fuel was leaking from the hydro mechanical units. The aircraft was bought into the hangar for numerous engine runs and for rectification work to take place. In light of rectification work necessary our operations team were aware this could have a severe impact on other flights within our programme therefore amendments were made to minimise the disruption experienced. Whilst it is unfortunate you suffered your own delay I can
confirm that all reasonable efforts were made for you to travel on the first available aircraft and this fault was not detectable prior to the event.

I can confirm, having reviewed your case, I am satisfied that our initial assessment is correct and the delay you encountered was a result of extraordinary circumstances. As such I must respectfully decline your request for compensation.

I realise this decision may provoke you to take further action which you, of course, reserve the right to do. I can confirm we will be more than happy to provide any information requested by our regulatory body or a court of law.

Yours sincerely

Paul Keithley

Head of Customer Services

andythomas

I recently had a similar letter, and Monarch seem to interpret WalIentin -v- Alitalia as technical defects DO constitute extraordinary circumstances, whereas everyone else agrees that it doesnt!

Most people agree that technical defects are inherient in a normal operation of an airline, whereas monach do not - I suppose that means that in their normal operations they NEVER have any technical problems, eh?? :think:

Its about time someone like the CAA listed in black and white what is, and what isnt an extraordinary circumstance, so that the airlines have to take note!

TomLikesSausages

It would appear to me until a few claims courts hearings have made a decision we do not have any indication in whose favour they will rule. Most conrtibutors on this forum including myself are convinced Monarch are incorrect with both the extraordinary circumstances and reducing claims by 50% under the Sturgeon case senario.However Monarch are digging their heals in and will not budge once they have come to their decision. Have any small claims court hearings taken place on this issue. Has anyone got a date up and coming in the next month. It seems that some people applied for a small claims court hearing as early as November so do we will all have to wait 4 months after applying. what would be helpful to everyone once the cases have been heard whether the trend will be in favour of the claimant or the airline

NicksTheMan

TomLikesSausages wrote: »

It would appear to me until a few claims courts hearings have made a decision we do not have any indication in whose favour they will rule. Most conrtibutors on this forum including myself are convinced Monarch are incorrect with both the extraordinary circumstances and reducing claims by 50% under the Sturgeon case senario.However Monarch are digging their heals in and will not budge once they have come to their decision. Have any small claims court hearings taken place on this issue. Has anyone got a date up and coming in the next month. It seems that some people applied for a small claims court hearing as early as November so do we will all have to wait 4 months after applying. what would be helpful to everyone once the cases have been heard whether the trend will be in favour of the claimant or the airline

I fully concur. Until a few cases have been heard by the Small Claims Court it will not be known how the land lies in respect of Monarch's defence. With such a long wait for cases to heard there seems litlle point in paying out Court fees if the majority of cases come out in favour of monarch. Is there a list of dates for pending cases. Surely some must be heard soon.

ceraliam

Hi below is a copy of an email I received from Monarch:-

Thank you for your email.

I can see from our records that correspondence regarding your claim was sent to
you on the 22/02/2013, please find a copy of this below:


Our Ref

22 February 2013

Dear Ceraliam

Re: MON1829 Corfu to Manchester on 31st May 2010

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied.
Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined
by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that due to an aircraft from within our fleet having sustained significant damage after having been hit by a ground vehicle, there were insufficient aircraft from within our fleet to operate your flight on time. In order to reduce the delay to your departure, we transferred passengers to the
first available aircraft from within our fleet to operate your flight.

Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further assistance or information.

Yours sincerely,

EU Claims Team

We were told at the time about the accident to the plane but this was not our plane it was another flight but they used our plane to then transport the passengers to their destination and we had to wait for that flight to return to Manchester pick up passengers and then fly out to Corfu for us.
Is it worth pursuing this claim further or can anyone advise on wether this does constitute as "extraordinary circumstance"

IF ANYONE HAS HAD ANY CLAIMS REFUSED FOR THE SAME FLIGHT/DATE I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU.
THANKS FOR ANY REPLIES RECEIVED SO FAR.

111KAB

Ceraliam - you have my thoughts from an earlier post. AndyT - the CAA have their list and will not deviate and in any event their decision would not be binding. TLS and NTM - having attended Court last week the Judge explained to me that even in his Court there were 3 Judges that day who could make different decisions. This was a small Court (of 220 in the Country) so I'm afraid ALL of you have to pursue your own claim as there is no point in relying upon 'others'.