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

maghater

DavePollard wrote: »

From other posts it would appear that from the time you notify the airlines that you are taking legal action to the date for the Court hearing is at least 5 months.This would mean if I was to start today it would be not until sometime in November before my case was heard and in my personal circumstances any date between October and the end of November would not be viable as I am likely to out of the country for most of this time Therefore what I am going to say will probably be met by many contributors on this forum as "Not Playing The Game". I have decided to wait for a couple of months to see the results of some of the earlier cases which I believe may start to heard during May.I am aware every case is different but it will allow me to play the percentage game. If say 75% of the cases are won that gives a indication of the way the judgements are going. However if 75% of the cases are won by Monarch then the chances of winning are likely to be a lot less. I put in my claim to Monarch for a flight in 2011 I understand I do not have to take my case to court for at least 12 months after my claim was rejected, so I would have nothing to lose by waiting. I apologise for my stance but it is the best opinion for me personally.

It makes a lot of sense

Vauban

DavePollard wrote: »

From other posts it would appear that from the time you notify the airlines that you are taking legal action to the date for the Court hearing is at least 5 months.This would mean if I was to start today it would be not until sometime in November before my case was heard and in my personal circumstances any date between October and the end of November would not be viable as I am likely to out of the country for most of this time Therefore what I am going to say will probably be met by many contributors on this forum as "Not Playing The Game". I have decided to wait for a couple of months to see the results of some of the earlier cases which I believe may start to heard during May.I am aware every case is different but it will allow me to play the percentage game. If say 75% of the cases are won that gives a indication of the way the judgements are going. However if 75% of the cases are won by Monarch then the chances of winning are likely to be a lot less. I put in my claim to Monarch for a flight in 2011 I understand I do not have to take my case to court for at least 12 months after my claim was rejected, so I would have nothing to lose by waiting. I apologise for my stance but it is the best opinion for me personally.

You have nothing to apologise for! There are lots of good arguments for waiting - everyone wants to see how it plays out for the "pioneers". If you want to be patient - and recognise that there are no precedents (ie my possible victory won't help yours) - that's fine. The 8% interest is good too. The only arguments against waiting are: 1) if the airlines are already overloaded defending their cases, they might be more inclined to settle when the pressure is on (a lot of their defences seem pretty poor cut n paste jobs); 2) you need to be confident your airline will still be in business six months from when you start the claim - if they go bust, you get nowt!

TomLikesSausages

Both what Dave Pollard and Vauban say makes a lot of sense. I certainly did not realise that it took so long (about 5 months) before a case was heard in court. I am now going to hold fire for 3 months by which time some of the "Pioneers" Small Claim Court cases will have had a judgement passed. Then we will have some indication of the percentages of cases won or loss and at that stage I will make a decision whether to proceed. Presumably these will not only involve Monarch but other airlines as well. I fully accept if any Airlines goes into Administration/Bust I will get nothing but on the other hand if this happens I will not have forfeit my Small Claims court fee . Good luck to all the "Pioneers" and hope you efforts are successful. You set a wonderful example to those of us than are more cautious. Reading through the Forums some cases are due to be heard towards the end of this month.

Mark2spark

The problem is extended by the airlines blindly deciding to defend every single case in a knee jerk way, and then starting to settle just before a hearing.
I can't see the point of that, unless keeping the money in the bank till the very last second is *that* important to them.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

The problem is extended by the airlines blindly deciding to defend every single case in a knee jerk way, and then starting to settle just before a hearing.
I can't see the point of that, unless keeping the money in the bank till the very last second is *that* important to them.

I think it is a silly strategy too - except that by their obdurance perhaps 95% of folk at deterred from proceeding with their claim. At least initially. But, as others have noted, if it becomes clear that legal action offers a near certainty to securing your compensation, far more people will be motivated to take it. And the damn bursts.

BillLucas

TomLikesSausages wrote: »

Both what Dave Pollard and Vauban say makes a lot of sense. I certainly did not realise that it took so long (about 5 months) before a case was heard in court. I am now going to hold fire for 3 months by which time some of the "Pioneers" Small Claim Court cases will have had a judgement passed. Then we will have some indication of the percentages of cases won or loss and at that stage I will make a decision whether to proceed. Presumably these will not only involve Monarch but other airlines as well. I fully accept if any Airlines goes into Administration/Bust I will get nothing but on the other hand if this happens I will not have forfeit my Small Claims court fee . Good luck to all the "Pioneers" and hope you efforts are successful. You set a wonderful example to those of us than are more cautious. Reading through the Forums some cases are due to be heard towards the end of this month.

I fully concur with TLS sentiments. I also am going to wait for 3 months to see the early results of the Small Claims Court. At that stage there should be some indications of the percentage of successful or unsuccessful claims. If the former then surely Monarch might throw in the towel and settle rather than incurring the legal cost of defending cases or have gone out of business. If mostly unsuccessful then I will not have wasted my money on court fees. I do not how much it costs Monarch for legal costs for each case but it must be quite considerable and I am certain unless they are have a good proportion of success in defending the claims there must be a time when they consider they are throwing money away. But it is Monarch we are talking about. Good luck to all of you that are due to have their case heard over the next few months. There are some very knowledgeable people who have a good grasp of the law, who have have contributed valuable information.

skinnybloke

Hi - a while back I posted on this forum a reply I received from Monarch regarding a delayed flight which is as follows:

Re: Flight ZB955 Palma to Birmingham on 04th October 2012

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 the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was unavailable due to crew being unavailable after operating a previously delayed flight, this delay was caused by a medical emergency involving a passenger causing the aircraft to divert and incur and delay. Unfortunately these events led to a delay in the outbound flight to Palma, and consequently delayed scheduled departure time of your flight. As a consequence and in order to reduce the length of your delay, your flight was operated on the first available aircraft with a new crew from within the Monarch fleet.

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 Advisor
Monarch Airlines

I replied back to Monarch with:

Thank you for your reply.

At Palma airport the staff said that the problem was due to a luggage problem on a flight from Israel causing a knock on affect, not a medical emergency.

Regardless of whether there was an medical emergency, as the medical emergency was not on my flight, I still believe that Monarch have no defence under EC 261 recital 14

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with the flight number of the plane with the 'medical emergency' so that I can follow this up with the CAA.

to which I got a very curt reply from a Monarch EU Claims Advisor Mr. David Bulut

We have provided enough information regarding your claim to explain why we feel this constitutes as extraordinary circumstances. Despite your request we will not be providing any further information or documentation unless requested by the courts or Civil Aviation Authority.

Very Nice!!!!

statictom

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.

I have noticed the above statement is included in all letters being sent by Monarch to passengers making claims.

What utter rubbish - the ECJ clearly state what they believe are E.C.
and the list is certainly not non exhaustive.

I will include this little piece of info with the rest of my useful info I have gathered from this wonderful site, ready for when I have to take Monarch to court. So far - 2 letters + claim forms to them with no response. Now forwarded letter before action to them and not even hopeful of a response then.
Looking forward to a chance to really show how poor this Airline have been in dealing with my case.

BigRedManc

Re my previous posts 730 & 1058. Above flight was delayed 27 hours after the inbound aircraft was grounded at Fuerteventura due to what Monarch described as a "Flap Defect". Replacement aircraft sent to Lanzarote the next day.

Responded to Monarch pointing out that in my view, a flap defect is a technical failure, not an EC. Their response was a short E-Mail stating "we are satisfied that out initial assessment of your claim was correct". I E-mailed back asking them to rationalise why a flap defect was NOT a technical failure.

Their response was to quote Wallentin v Alitalia, and say that "technical problems are covered by those exceptionalcircumstances 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"

They go on to state that the EU ruling then provided illustrative examples of technical problems that would amount to extraordinary circumstances including such events as a manufacturing defect, airworthiness issues etc.

Are any of you guys 'n gals close enough to the legal side of things to judge whether they have a point, or is it all just waffle???

friendofbillw2

BigRedManc wrote: »

Are any of you guys 'n gals close enough to the legal side of things to judge whether they have a point, or is it all just waffle???

It's all just waffle.

Ask yourself, is a flap defect 'inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned'?

Of course it is. Therefore a simple flap defect, with no other aggravating circumstances, is not 'extraordinary'.

If it was extraordinary, Monarch would be duty bound to inform the manufacturer urgently as it may affect safety across the fleet. Did they do this? I very much doubt it.

It is a technical fault. It is not extraordinary circumstances.