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

statictom

Having waited weeks with no response from Monarch, despite letters, claim forms and phone calls, I rang their EU claims department today. I informed them that today was the final day of my NBA letter and since I had heard nothing from them was proceeding to Court.
The operator (well trained) seemed shocked and armed with only my post code and surname, was immediately able to bring up on her computer screen the letter printed below. She said she would e-mail the response and the date on the letter just happens to be today`s date.



Our Ref sw/134897-145532
21 May 2013


Dear Mr Gunn,
Re: ZB525 Almeria to Manchester on 31st October 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 the aircraft that was scheduled to operate your flight experienced a failure of the passenger address system which rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate. Engineers attended the aircraft and traced the fault to the PA amplifier. We made arrangements for a replacement part and engineers to be shipped down to Almeria from the UK in order for the rectification work to be carried out.
Despite Monarch’s best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers to an alternative aircraft from within our fleet and as a consequence, the departure of your flight was unavoidably delayed. However, your flight departed at the earliest opportunity once the aircraft was declared serviceable.
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.
Yours sincerely,
Danielle
EU Claims Advisor
Monarch Airlines




I was given the chance to read it - and knew what to expect.
I informed the claims adviser that I did not agree with this fault being an EC and asked if she had actually read the letters I had sent. She then asked me to e-mail them to her which I have done.
(despite all letters being sent recorded delivery)

I am now starting MCOL claim today, having sent Monarch a strongly worded e-mail informing them that I will contest this in court. I feel that I have acquired enough info from this site and other outlets to put together a strong case against them.

Makela2009

statictom wrote: »

Having waited weeks with no response from Monarch, despite letters, claim forms and phone calls, I rang their EU claims department today. I informed them that today was the final day of my NBA letter and since I had heard nothing from them was proceeding to Court.
The operator (well trained) seemed shocked and armed with only my post code and surname, was immediately able to bring up on her computer screen the letter printed below. She said she would e-mail the response and the date on the letter just happens to be today`s date.



Our Ref sw/134897-145532
21 May 2013


Dear Mr Gunn,
Re: ZB525 Almeria to Manchester on 31st October 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 the aircraft that was scheduled to operate your flight experienced a failure of the passenger address system which rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate. Engineers attended the aircraft and traced the fault to the PA amplifier. We made arrangements for a replacement part and engineers to be shipped down to Almeria from the UK in order for the rectification work to be carried out.
Despite Monarch’s best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers to an alternative aircraft from within our fleet and as a consequence, the departure of your flight was unavoidably delayed. However, your flight departed at the earliest opportunity once the aircraft was declared serviceable.
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.
Yours sincerely,
Danielle
EU Claims Advisor
Monarch Airlines




I was given the chance to read it - and knew what to expect.
I informed the claims adviser that I did not agree with this fault being an EC and asked if she had actually read the letters I had sent. She then asked me to e-mail them to her which I have done.
(despite all letters being sent recorded delivery)

I am now starting MCOL claim today, having sent Monarch a strongly worded e-mail informing them that I will contest this in court. I feel that I have acquired enough info from this site and other outlets to put together a strong case against them.

I agree with previous comments made on this site - they only seem to take you seriously when you file a claim. I filed mine on 15th April and have already had a response saying they are not going to defend and will be paying up. Good luck

433Barbara

Does anyone know (& I'd especially like to hear from those of you who have gone to court) if you have to be very 'vocal' if it does go to court etc?

I'm not very confident but could get through the 'yes/no' and brief outline etc.

Do any representatives from Monarch turn up, or is it just defence submitted via post/e-mail etc and not in person?

Also wouldn't the courts mainly look at all the evidence, in that what 'fob off excuse' Monarch have put and then make a decision from there?

It's just that through YOUR help, I've managed (like I'm sure many others on here have) to gather quite a lot of information and I'm reluctant to give approx £600 to a claim firm (4 passengers delayed 31 hrs so max payout) who hasn't had to do the 'donkey work' so to speak.

Finally, in my opionion, I'm thinking that a 31 hour delay would have been avoidable if as per the Wallentin case stipulates

“all of its resources” short of “intolerable sacrifices” had been applied.

"once the aircraft scheduled to operate the flight was discovered to have technical difficulties. In particular, what efforts the Defendant made to provide a spareaircraft or crew, to lease an aircraft from another provider, or to book the Claimant and his family alternative flights, including from other airlines,servicing similar routes that day. Any of these resolutions would have been consistent with the Defendant’s obligationto deploy “

I welcome any feedback etc
Thanks
Barbara

Vauban

Makela2009 wrote: »

I agree with previous comments made on this site - they only seem to take you seriously when you file a claim. I filed mine on 15th April and have already had a response saying they are not going to defend and will be paying up. Good luck

I think Makela's point is very well made, and echoes what others have been saying for some time. Another one for the court success thread!

I wonder too whether, as more people start the MCOL process, Monarch's capacity to defend the most hopeless cases has fallen away?

friendofbillw2

Vauban wrote: »

I wonder too whether, as more people start the MCOL process, Monarch's capacity to defend the most hopeless cases has fallen away?

I wondered about this in post #1482 about six weeks ago. Others didn't think so at the time, but we may now be past the tipping point.

111KAB

433Barbara

No you do not have to be vocal but you do need to be assertive/confident and this really depends upon your doing full research. In my case Monarch sent a local barrister however don't let this put you off - PM me if you require specific details/comments. You are already on the right track with regard to your thoughts re Wallentin etc. Good luck

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

433Barbara

No you do not have to be vocal but you do need to be assertive/confident and this really depends upon your doing full research. In my case Monarch sent a local barrister however don't let this put you off - PM me if you require specific details/comments. You are already on the right track with regard to your thoughts re Wallentin etc. Good luck

I've never given evidence in a small court (though ironically I have in the High Court). I'm certain 111KAB's advice is good though - and indeed a little bit of nervousness and lack of polish will only add to the authenticity of your claim. Especially if you've mastered your material!

433Barbara

Thanks 111KAB and Vauban again for info.

Just boils down to what classes as 'material'.

I have letters, invoices and bit of other information etc I've gathered through the help of others here.

Some other forum (Dibb - Disney & Trip Advisor) info regarding my flight from Manchester end before it got to us, just trying to touch base with others in relation to flight delay, what excuse etc.

Basic info on Monarch poor time keeping, how many aircrafts in the fleet etc.

What else could I source or would this suffice do you think?

thanks

111KAB

433Barbara wrote: »

Basic info on Monarch poor time keeping, how many aircrafts in the fleet etc.
thanks

Useful information and may help a Judge however if they only had two planes and these were both delayed this isn't really the point. The fact that YOUR plane was delayed due to a technical problem which Monarch say is an extraordinary circumstance is the key. Planes go 'tech' every day so a technical problem is an ordinary circumstance not an extraordinary one.

LBD

Vauban wrote: »

Even if the technical failure was discovered on the day of the flight, it doesn't make it extraordinary circumstances. It's well worth showing to the court the inconsistency of the explanation (assuming you have it in writing) but don't box yourself into the position where acceptance that the fault was discovered on the 3rd means you have no case. You do.

lol I do indeed have it in writing.....and did a trawl this am, and found some stats and info on the fleet, funnily enough they have 37 aircraft not 33!!!..

here is their response...

Dear Mr and Mrs how dare you have the audacity to claim from us!



Re: lighFt ZB3566 Luton to Rome on 3rd April 2012



Thank you for taking the time to contact us in respect of your flight.



I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence. Providing our passengers with safe and efficient service is our first priority. I would like to reassure you that every effort is made to ensure the flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so, we aim to get you to your destination at the earliest opportunity. That said, our ability to keep disruption to a minimum is always dependant on the resources available to us on the day.



In some circumstances, passengers may be entitled to compensation under European Union laws.

However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. 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. In addition, the CAA has provided some guidance on its views of “extraordinary circumstances” (please see the guidance notes accompanying the 261 compensation claim form).



Our records show that upon arrival of a previous flight, the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was found to have a fuel valve fault. Engineers attended the aircraft and were able to establish the fault, however unfortunately as the rectification work was carried out it became apparent that several replacement components would be required. These components were transferred to Luton via taxi from the airports at which they were stored and then fitted. It was also unfortunate that, due to the nature of the defect, this was a time consuming process and the aircraft was taken out of service for your flight. As a result and in order to minimise the length of your delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.



Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch. I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.



Yours sincerely,



EU Claims Advisor



Monarch Airlines