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

Mark2spark

Guys, I'm not convinced that adding flights to the denied list serves any purpose any longer?
Flights paid out on I can see is useful info.
Anything else is going to be EC according to Monarch?

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Guys, I'm not convinced that adding flights to the denied list serves any purpose any longer?
Flights paid out on I can see is useful info.
Anything else is going to be EC according to Monarch?

I concur: the pattern is "extraordinarily" clear.

Mark2spark

Sheriffphil wrote: »

Hi monarch ZB 613 Las Palmas to Manchester 28/07/2012 delayed 4hrs 5mins. Claim denied outward bound aircraft burst tyre on landing transferred to first avail aircraft in fleet EC.
ZB 613 Las Palmas to Manchester 02/08/2010 delayed 6hrs 5 mins. Claim denied, outward bound aircraft developed engine fault which required repair transferred to first avail aircraft in fleet.EC.
I have complained to CAA who believe we have a claim but advised to contact EB presumably in Spain.
Anyone have an e-mail address for them. ?
Would a uk court entertain this claim or do Monarch win again.
Please add these flights to the denied list.
Many thanks.
The sheriff !!

Same flight numbers for both out and return legs?

Neither of the reasons given are EC's.

Sheriffphil

hi Mark2spark. Both were return flights from Gran Canaria same flight number but different dates.
CAA website says each country should have an EB to deal with 261 but can't find an email address for the Spanish one. I'm struggling a bit now will give CAA a ring later today. Both were evening/night flights and it wasn't much fun stuck in an airport with a small child with a 5 euro voucher each when everything closed at midnight !!

AnneMarie4687

I am new to this forum so forgive me if I am posting something that is not relevant. I have 2 claims with Monarch for both the outbound and return flights in September 2011. The outbound flight I received a 50% payment for a delay of 3hours 38 minutes. I am trying to take this matter up with the CAA who after 3 months they have still not responded. This is a point of law they should clarfy. I see I am not the only person suffering from being ignored by the CAA. The other claim for the return flight has been dismissed for extraordinary circumstances namely rudder problems. I am considering taking this matter to the Small Claims Court but reading through this forum it does seem to take ages. What is the average time and can one object to the date when it is set as I work part time 3 days a week and will lose pay if I go to Court on one of these days, which financially defeats the purpose. Rudder problems does appear to be a constantly re-occuring issue with Monarch. Has anyone had a result from the Small Claims court about rudder problems being an extraordinay circumstance,.Thank you for any feedback

statictom

On 31/3/13 I submitted an application for compensation to Monarch re a 7hr 20 mins delay on behalf of my family.
The flight was delayed due to a fuse having blown in the internal tannoy system where the captain could not speak with his cabin crew.
I then completed their usual forms and sent them back with copies of all passorts as requested.
With these forms came a number of statements from Monarch:-
1. Due to legal reasons Monarch is unable to consider claims brought more than 2 yrs after the day of arrival of flight concerned?
2. They then list the CAA Guidance of the meaning of Extraordinary Circumstances as including and not limited to the following:-
Aircraft Technical faults discovered just before flight or during flt.
Damage to aircraft caused by:
Acts of sabotage or terrorism.
Bird Strikes
Ground incurred damage (ie baggage truck, air bridges, etc)
Lightening strikes
Pepperpot event (large hailstones)
Severe turbulence
Heavy landing or foreign body damage
Catastrophic engine failure, or engine surge
de-pressurisation
Electronic hardware/software conflicts which indicate that aircraft is not fit to fly and can not be easily cleared.
Hidden manufacturing defects that impinge on flight safety.
Meteorological conditions incompatible with operations of flt
Security Risks
Unexpected flight safety shortcomings
Strikes
Political instability.

It states all this info can be found on the CAA site. I have checked and there is nothing of the sort. EO Circs are listed on the CAA site as per EU 261/2004.

I have not been put off by all this guff and am continuing with my claim.

Just for information as to how far Monarch are going to try and deter passengers making claims.

My next step is to send them NBA letter, then County court.

I have gathered a vast amount of evidence - mostly from this site and armed with EU 261/2004 and the Sturgeon findings and the case of Mr & Mrs Halsall who won their case re an Engine Fault in the courts, I am ready to take on Monarch.

I will also be pointing out their failure of care to passengers in respect of meals/refreshments, no phone calls being allowed and no issue of notices informing passengers of their right to seek compensation. The latter being an offence under the Civil Aviation Regs 2005.

Vauban

AnneMarie4687 wrote: »

I am new to this forum so forgive me if I am posting something that is not relevant. I have 2 claims with Monarch for both the outbound and return flights in September 2011. The outbound flight I received a 50% payment for a delay of 3hours 38 minutes. I am trying to take this matter up with the CAA who after 3 months they have still not responded. This is a point of law they should clarfy. I see I am not the only person suffering from being ignored by the CAA. The other claim for the return flight has been dismissed for extraordinary circumstances namely rudder problems. I am considering taking this matter to the Small Claims Court but reading through this forum it does seem to take ages. What is the average time and can one object to the date when it is set as I work part time 3 days a week and will lose pay if I go to Court on one of these days, which financially defeats the purpose. Rudder problems does appear to be a constantly re-occuring issue with Monarch. Has anyone had a result from the Small Claims court about rudder problems being an extraordinay circumstance,.Thank you for any feedback

That's quite a breathless post. Paragraphs can be useful.;)

You've posted the point about the 50% reduction multiple times, but you will also have seen others have aksed the same question - and had it answered. Assuming your flight was not over 3500km, Monarch have no right in law to reduce your compensation by half. Have you rung the CAA to follow up your email of three months ago?

The small claims court is not quick - and it requires some hard work. Perhaps about five months on average between starting the process and it going before a DJ for judgement?

You can tell the Court, when they send you an "allocation" form what days/dates are impossible for you.

Rudder problems are no an extraordinary circumstance, in my view. But only your judge will be able tell you that - and different judges do come to different conclusions (there are no precedents in the small claims court).

Vauban

statictom wrote: »

I then completed their usual forms and sent them back with copies of all passorts as requested.
With these forms came a number of statements from Monarch:-
...

It states all this info can be found on the CAA site. I have checked and there is nothing of the sort. EO Circs are listed on the CAA site as per EU 261/2004.

I have not been put off by all this guff and am continuing with my claim. Just for information as to how far Monarch are going to try and deter passengers making claims.

Yes. I agree. I think it is shocking, and the fact that they cite the CAA in this misleading rubric ought to induce the CAA to deal with it. And yet they somehow don't ...

Good luck with your court action. If Monarch are claiming technical failures are extraordinary circumstances, make sure you have chapter and verse of the Wallentin judgement: that's the one that goes into great detail explaining why going tech ain't extraordinary ...

PeteG1

statictom wrote: »

....

With these forms came a number of statements from Monarch:-
1. Due to legal reasons Monarch is unable to consider claims brought more than 2 yrs after the day of arrival of flight concerned?
2. They then list the CAA Guidance of the meaning of Extraordinary Circumstances as including and not limited to the following:-
Aircraft Technical faults discovered just before flight or during flt.
Damage to aircraft caused by:
Acts of sabotage or terrorism.
Bird Strikes
Ground incurred damage (ie baggage truck, air bridges, etc)
Lightening strikes
Pepperpot event (large hailstones)
Severe turbulence
Heavy landing or foreign body damage
Catastrophic engine failure, or engine surge
de-pressurisation
Electronic hardware/software conflicts which indicate that aircraft is not fit to fly and can not be easily cleared.
Hidden manufacturing defects that impinge on flight safety.
Meteorological conditions incompatible with operations of flt
Security Risks
Unexpected flight safety shortcomings
Strikes
Political instability.....
.

I think this comes from an old claim form. Monarch changed it in Feb (it's called version 1 now) -


The 2 year time limit is no longer there, and the guidance section now only says...
You may not be entitled to compensation despite suffering a delayed flight where the delay was caused by Extraordinary Circumstances.
They'veleft off the list of conditions.

Don't be put off by these "conditions". They are intended to deter people from claiming their rights. The EU regulation is worded quite differently, and you have a right to compensation UNLESS the airline can prove ECs.

Also note the point which offers reduced compensation for any flight delays between 3 and 4 hours is contary to the reg. That reduction only applies if the flight is longer that 3500km.

Hestar

Centipede100 wrote: »

It does only apply to flights longer than 3500 kms in which case the compensation is halved from 600 to 300 euros. It doesn't affect any other distance band.

Thanks, but do you have a reference to where there is stated? Is it Article 7.2?

Has anybody had any luck talking to the CAA about Monarch trying to reduce claims by 50%? I spoke to Monarch Claims Dep today and they said it's what their legal department are stating and there's nothing they can do about it. If I want to follow up on it I have to speak to the CAA but I'm not expecting them to be of much help.

Thanks in advance!