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

GingerC

I'm confused.
Monarch are saying MON5643 7 OCT 2012 scheduled dep 13:15 from PVK to MAN was delayed for the same 'extraordinary circumstances' reason (#2 C-duct engine fault, replacement coming from Memphis) as ZB743 7 OCT 2012 scheduled dep. 20:30 flight from Malaga (AGP) to LGW.
I have to assume our plane was expected to land in MAN at 15:15 then magically get to Malaga to return that evening.
However, ZB654 left MAN actually at 07:14 and landed Malaga (AGP) at 10:44 so this has to be a different plane, since it flew.
So, I am at an utter loss to see what the Monarch plan was as far as shuffling planes around, as there is no evidence of a possible plane flying or being cancelled or delayed that would fit a scenario of Monarch planning to use the same plane PVK to MAN then AGP to LGW. Either two separate planes had identical faults on the same day (isn't this reason enough to ground the fleet?) or some (how shall we say it) misinformation is being given to people.
Sorry if this sounds confusing. It is.

111KAB

Stewil wrote: »

I have given my response after carefully reviewing not only this site but studying the previous legal judgements and have decided to bypass the CAA and go straight to the county court, I have the inclination time and money to pursue this so any advise u can give for my court case would be gratefully received I intend to follow this to its end for all our benifit as we all seem to have one thing in common, a distain for how they treat us once our money is in there bank!
I will provide any further information needed and receive any advice gratefully
Thanks guys

Firstly good luck! Ensure you send a (14 day) NBA action letter to Monarch and I assume if you have discounted the CAA your departure delay was from the UK. IMO it is still worth contacting the CAA as you can run that approach in tandem with your Court claim as there is a possibility you may get the CAA response/support prior to (possibly) going to Court. The CAA support can only assist in the presentation to the Judge although it will obviously not get Monarch to pay up.

111KAB

medical wrote: »

Pls how do you sign the electronic claim form?
Many thanks
Medical

Just type your name in the box > it comes out in printed form but an actual 'signature' is not required.

111KAB

Plustwokids wrote: »

Thanks in advance for any advice given

Having read your post I think you have a sound case for compensation however to pursue same requires tenacity and patience.
If you are unsure of situation or doubt you can manage any possible Court appearance I suggest you approach a no win no fee firm. You will probably have to pay a small amount for their initial letter writing exercise then underwrite your/their court application costs but it is better, IMO, than walking away.
Assuming you achieve the desired result the firm will then charge around 30% of you award but 70% is better than zero! Due to time delay in getting to court the no win no fee firms still in their infancy so difficult to recommend one particular firm but flightmole (Hugh) seem to be attracting a few claimants.

Plustwokids

Thanks kab111 .

I agree 70% of something is better than nothing! I will get the ball rolling with Flight mole and let the forum know as I progress.

Good Luck to everyone !

medsec54

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Your delay appears related to mine the day before. Monarch quoted 'rudder problems' to me, so at least their story is consistent.

I have just received the following:
Re: MON1507 21st September 2011 Fuerteventura to Gatwick

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 suffered a rudder fault prior to departure from Gatwick, rendering the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly. As a consequence and in order to minimise disruption, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft.

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.

So the Rudder problem took quite a while to fix! We received a letter which quoted 'Technical problem' but unfortunately I did not keep it.

Vauban

medsec54 wrote: »

I have just received the following:
Re: MON1507 21st September 2011 Fuerteventura to Gatwick

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 suffered a rudder fault prior to departure from Gatwick, rendering the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly. As a consequence and in order to minimise disruption, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft.

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.

So the Rudder problem took quite a while to fix! We received a letter which quoted 'Technical problem' but unfortunately I did not keep it.

I feel I've read this letter more than once - more than three dozen times, actually. So forgive me if I've ceased to be surprised. But at least you now know what your options are - they're the same as everyone else's.

coffdrops

Having sent an email to request further information regarding the reasons for my refusal, I have decided to write to the CAA as back up for future court action. I am also preparing the NBA letter while I wait for a response from Monarch (assuming they bother) and just wondered if anyone knows the name of Monarch's company secretary or whether it should just be addressed FAO the secretary?

Vauban

coffdrops wrote: »

Having sent an email to request further information regarding the reasons for my refusal, I have decided to write to the CAA as back up for future court action. I am also preparing the NBA letter while I wait for a response from Monarch (assuming they bother) and just wondered if anyone knows the name of Monarch's company secretary or whether it should just be addressed FAO the secretary?

Good luck with that - I'm guessing though you won't get much more info from them.

Company Secretary should be fine. But only send the NBA letter only if you are prepared to initiate court proceedings. And don't expect to hear back from the CAA any time soon. As one poster recently noted, he's awar of a dozen people who wrote to the CAA before Christmas. None has had a resolution!

coffdrops

Vauban wrote: »

Good luck with that - I'm guessing though you won't get much more info from them.

Company Secretary should be fine. But only send the NBA letter only if you are prepared to initiate court proceedings. And don't expect to hear back from the CAA any time soon. As one poster recently noted, he's awar of a dozen people who wrote to the CAA before Christmas. None has had a resolution!

I'm not really expecting any further info, but it's given them the chance to hopefully provide me with more ammunition.
So assuming I decide to use a company such as Flightmole, does that mean I shouldn't submit an NBA, presumably because they would take care of it, or should I submit it and then pass the case over to Flightmole?
Apologies for all the questions, I just want to get it right!

I take your point about the CAA. I think it's probably worth doing anyway, but for the sake of 20 minutes and a cuppa in front of the pc.