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

What_todo

I have not sent the NBA yet as I was not sure if I should cite the alleged cracked windscreen or the fact that the plane from Larnaca was delayed and had a knock on effect on our plane. The plane from Manchester to Barcelona was also delayed but I have not seen any reference to that on any thread.
I suppose at this stage, I just need to send the NBA and see what Monarch uses as a defence when we get to court. It just seemed really odd that we were told one version of why we were delayed in Barcelona and a completely different one when the claim was rejected.

Mark2spark

Don't over complicate things is my advice.
Write and tell them that they haven't provided a satisfactory explanation as to why there was a delay, indeed they have provided two different reasons, neither of which constitute EC's, and that if there is not a more reasoned response within 14 days - blah blah - you're going to court without giving them further notice.

tezzatime

Sorry everyone if I'm being a bit lazy here but rather than read 74 pages thought would ask something that may have already been asked

I am proud to say I have had SUCESS in getting compensation from Monarch and they have only taken 2 months to turn it around so am shocked however....

In their correspondence they quote:
'As your arrival delay was in excess of 180 minutes yet less than 240 minutes the amount of compensation payable, in line with EC261/2004, is reduced by 50%.'

2 questions I have are:
1 - Is this correct? I cant find anything that mentions this anywhere at all
2 - Is it worth pursuing them for the full amount or should I be happy with my success?

Thoughts and suggestions greatly appreciated.

Tezza

friendofbillw2

urban469 wrote: »

Posts like this are what make this forum so valuable Centipede100, Mark2Spark and Vauban. So thanks.

I'd just like to double underline that.

If Monarch are watching (as I have no doubt they are), they will see that we all now have the benefit of detailed analysis of the relevant precedents and can point out simply the strengths of our cases, and the weaknesses in their defences as currently framed.

The flood gates will open as soon as some of these cases get through the slow court processes and get to hearing and judgment. If those go our way Monarch won't want to be represented by costly lawyers in cases they lose time after time. They will start to settle on the steps of the court, then slowly further back in the process.

Keep the pressure on, and keep the faith.

Vauban

tezzatime wrote: »

Sorry everyone if I'm being a bit lazy here but rather than read 74 pages thought would ask something that may have already been asked

I am proud to say I have had SUCESS in getting compensation from Monarch and they have only taken 2 months to turn it around so am shocked however....

In their correspondence they quote:
'As your arrival delay was in excess of 180 minutes yet less than 240 minutes the amount of compensation payable, in line with EC261/2004, is reduced by 50%.'

2 questions I have are:
1 - Is this correct? I cant find anything that mentions this anywhere at all
2 - Is it worth pursuing them for the full amount or should I be happy with my success?

Thoughts and suggestions greatly appreciated.

Tezza

You are being lazy, but as you've asked so nicely ...

If your flight was over 3500km (ie your compensation was to be 600E) then if you arrived more than 3 hours late but less than 4, the compensation is halved to 300E. For every other flight (ie less than 3500km) your compensation cannot be reduced by 50%.

Monarch have form for reducing the compensation unlawfully. Write to them with the link to the CAA own web page that makes the payment due very clear. And write to the CAA to complain. That ought to do it (though it may take time). Of course you could always take them to court, and claim the 8% interest as well ...

friendofbillw2

Centipede100 wrote: »

I hate to pour cold water on your assertion above but IMO, since each case is judged on its own merits, I don't think you will find Monarch suddenly backing down as they will both win some cases and lose others based on similar facts about different flights, same as claimants will.

I say this so as to encourage claimants to make their own claim if they wish to pursue this rather than rely on the merits or otherwise of someone else's case and the resulting judgment thereof.

Precedent law is not set in the small claims track so this can be used both by claimants and defendants to their advantage as they see fit.

Fair comment, but Monarch will definitely get to a point where they only fight cases where they feel they have a good chance of winning in court given the particular circumstances.

At the moment they are forcing everyone to play a long game. They can't, IMO, keep that up for ever, and as soon as news starts popping up on here as to 'how you win in court' (the two pages preceding this being grist to that mill) the flood gates begin to open.

Vauban

The 'pede is of course right in the points he makes about precendent and the oft capricious natures of justice: some judges will go one way, some another. But on the assumption that most of the cases that come onto this forum are broadly similar (a delay caused by a technical problem that renders a plane unavailable) we will, I suppose, start to get a sense of the percentage of people who are successful in the court process. And if more people win than lose, on balance, then I think Monarch would need to reconsider the economics of their recalcitrance. To defend and win, after all, may cost them more than to concede a fair claim. But all this is just speculation: the cases are only just beginning, I think.

andythomas

However, if you have been given a reason for EC for a particular flight which differs entirely from a reason given to someone else on the exact same flight, then its its worth referring back to it in some way.

If you are able to get a copy of the letter sent to the other person that has a different EC reason for the exact same flight, its worth submitting that to the court, dont you think??

greeneyedlad

has anyone had their claim rejected from a Thomson flight?
I dont see any flights beginning TOM denied above.
not sure which thread to post in now as i was posting in the Thomson one but just had phone call from Thomson today saying as the flight was Monarch to now contact them. This has been going on since November & im fed up now having to start the ball all over again applying to Monarch

Ich_2

has anyone had their claim rejected from a Thomson flight?

The liability rests with the airline that actually operated the flight irrespective of it having a flight number of someone else (code sharing)
What did it actually say on the side of the aircraft? (if you can remember)