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

friendofbillw2

klint wrote: »

I'm just wondering whether it is worth stating very clearly all the relevant parts of the EU directive and the cases that set a precedent, to show to Monarch up front that you know your stuff and that therefore they don't stand a chance of winning in court.

I suspect that could be how Perama achieved such an amazing success a few posts ago, with Monarch suddenly admitting defeat out of the blue without him even sending the claim to court.

I don't believe so. Certainly if you go the MoneyClaimOnline route you will have barely enough characters in their form to submit even the most basic of claim particulars.

Monarch's responses as to which they admit and which they defend seem to be totally random. At least, I haven't been able to see a pattern yet.

111KAB

klint wrote: »

I'm just wondering whether it is worth stating very clearly all the relevant parts of the EU directive and the cases that set a precedent, to show to Monarch up front that you know your stuff and that therefore they don't stand a chance of winning in court.

I suspect that could be how Perama achieved such an amazing success a few posts ago, with Monarch suddenly admitting defeat out of the blue without him even sending the claim to court.

There just is not enough space on the MCOL application form. By all means possibly mention relevant clauses it in your NBA letter however I think there are enough people going to court who already 'know their stuff' and who will have already quoted (in full - 7 pages) 261/2004 and the 10 pages of Wallentin. You are lucky if you get 17 lines on the MCOL form never mind 17 pages!

Vauban

klint wrote: »

I'm just wondering whether it is worth stating very clearly all the relevant parts of the EU directive and the cases that set a precedent, to show to Monarch up front that you know your stuff and that therefore they don't stand a chance of winning in court.

I suspect that could be how Perama achieved such an amazing success a few posts ago, with Monarch suddenly admitting defeat out of the blue without him even sending the claim to court.

I don't think so. I was pretty savvy in my NBA and it didn't make much difference. We're still going to court (which I'm fine about).

I suspect Perema's success has got more to do with Monarch's own capacity for fighting cases it knows it cannot win. I would not be surprised to see them settle most of their cases out of court.

433Barbara

Probably known to a lot of you but no harm posting....

Court cases regarding Regulation 261/2004

In the case Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07) of 22 December 2008,[2] the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on the interpretation of Article 5 of the regulation relating to cancellations, specifically paragraph 3 which states:

An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The Court agreed with Wallentin-Hermann that any technical issues during aircraft maintenance don’t constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would allow airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation for canceled flights. This case therefore closed the loophole which had allowed the airlines to abuse passengers by frivolous interpretation of "technical or extraordinary circumstances"; it further defined the phrase and limited its exploitation. The definition of "technical and/or extraordinary circumstances" by the Court now stands firm and solid: any carrier must prove that the alleged mechanical problem leading to the cancellation was "beyond its actual control", the court affirmed in a statement. In its judgment, the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice held:

Extraordinary circumstances” was not defined in the 2004 Regulation, but the phrase was to be interpreted narrowly since article 5(3) constituted a derogation from the principle, indicated in recitals 1 and 2 of the preamble, of protection of consumers, in as much as cancellation of flights caused serious inconvenience to passengers.

Furthermore, in the joined cases of Sturgeon v Condor, and Bock v Air France (C-402/07 and C-432/07),[3] the Fourth Chamber of the European Court of Justice held on 19 November 2009 that despite no express provision in the Regulation to compensate passengers for delay, passengers are now entitled to the compensation as set out in Article 8 for any delay in excess of three hours providing the air carrier cannot raise a defence of "extraordinary circumstances".

"Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation EC 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier."[4]

The fourth Chamber also ruled that under the definition of "extraordinary circumstances", technical faults within an aircraft should not be included and therefore an air carrier cannot rely on a technical fault within an aircraft as a defence from a valid claim under the Regulation.[5] Various passenger rights groups reported the case and encouraged passengers to bring claims against airlines in the event of a delay of over three hours.[6]

The Sturgeon ruling was reconfirmed in a ruling of the European Court of Justice on 23 October 2012 in Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and R (TUI Travel, British Airways, easyjet and IATA) v Civil Aviation Authority.[7]

In the case of Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd (C-12/11), Third Chamber of European Court of Justice ruled that natural disasters such as the eruption of Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull and the subsequent cloud of volcanic ash in 2010, which shut down most of European air traffic, do constitue "extraordinary circumstances", but not "super-extraordinary circumstances" as laid down in the regulation. If it would have constituted the latter, air carriers would have been released from both the obligation to pay compensation and to provide care. However in the court's ruling it only constituted "extraordinary circumstances", which means they still had an obligation of care towards passengers under Art. 5 and 8 of the regulation.[8]

Perama

Perama wrote: »

Firstly, my apologies for lurking around this thread and not contributing. I hope this news makes up for it.

I lodged my claim for delays to flights to and from Manchester and Preveza last October. Went through the usual rigmarole of writing, then filling in the form, then waiting, contacting CAA (to no avail) etc.

Finally, on 4th Jan I got an email rejecting my claim for flight no. MON5643 PVK to MAN on 7/10/12. They claimed EC because of a technical fault (yawn). I replied on 12th Jan setting out the whole nine yards of why they were talking rubbish (thanks to the forum for providing the ammunition). I got a reply on the 12th Feb expressing regret that I was not happy, but refusing to budge. I replied the next day to say I would not let the matter rest and have heard nothing since.

I've been a bit busy since then, but had just got around to thinking about taking them to court. Imagine my surprise (to say the least) when I got an email this afternoon to say that their legal team had reviewed my claim and concluded that I am entitled to compensation and a cheque for the sterling equivalent of 400 euros for each claimant would follow within 21 working days!

I'm still in shock! Has something happened at Monarch? Has the Chief Exec converted to Christianity? Are they having a laugh? Who knows' I'm just relieved.

By the way, in all this time, they have still not replied on my claim for the outbound flight: MON 5642 MAN to PVK on 30/9/13. I have reminded them of this and that in the letter they issued at the time, they said the flight was delayed for "operational reasons". I therefore assumed that they wouldn't be using the EC argument. Mind you, today's email does say: "if you have another claim for an alternative delayed flight to the above this will be responded to separately". Who knows? Another miracle might occur!

Thanks again to all those that have given freely of their advice and experience. If anyone wants more details of my claim, please shout.

Simon

Just to update on the mystery of why Monarch should just change it's mind:

I received an email this morning from no other than the Acting Director of the Air Transport and International Affairs Division of the Greek CAA. It covers a letter addressed to me advising me of Monarch's decision. It also has a copy of an email from Monarch to the Greek CAA in which Monarch tells them that although they initially refused my claim, they have now decided to pay and that they would let me know. They also referred to another couple on the same flight (who are not known to me). Interestingly, the email from Monarch to the Greek CAA was sent before the email to me.

From this exchange, I can only imagine that the Greek CAA have successfully leaned on Monarch to pay up. I doubt it's a coincidence that they told the Greek CAA before me. I don't know how they got details of my case; maybe our CAA got in touch.

So, as I still have an outstanding claim for the outbound flight, I plan to remind Monarch and thank the Greek CAA for their help and ask them to intervene again!

I'll keep everyone posted.

Simon

NH195

Just had a 'EC' response to my claim on ZB959 Palma to Birmingham 14th August 2012. 'Our records show that your flight was scheduled to be operated by an Air Explore aircraft which we had sub-charted for the sumer season. Unfortunately, the aircraft developed a crack in the First Officer's window and a replacement had to be sourced and fitted. As the estimated time of the repair would have meant an overnight stay at the airport for the passengers, and in order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within our fleet. It was unfortunate that despite our best efforts we were unable to transfer passengers on your flight to an aricraft chartered from a thrid party carrier, as would be our aim in circumstances such as this. Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstances that could not have reasonably been prevented ny Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to acepted your claim for compensation for the reasons given".

I don't believe this is an allowable EC, so what should I do next to progress my claim?

Nick

Vauban

NH195 wrote: »

Just had a 'EC' response to my claim on ZB959 Palma to Birmingham 14th August 2012. 'Our records show that your flight was scheduled to be operated by an Air Explore aircraft which we had sub-charted for the sumer season. Unfortunately, the aircraft developed a crack in the First Officer's window and a replacement had to be sourced and fitted. As the estimated time of the repair would have meant an overnight stay at the airport for the passengers, and in order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within our fleet. It was unfortunate that despite our best efforts we were unable to transfer passengers on your flight to an aricraft chartered from a thrid party carrier, as would be our aim in circumstances such as this. Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstances that could not have reasonably been prevented ny Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to acepted your claim for compensation for the reasons given".

I don't believe this is an allowable EC, so what should I do next to progress my claim?

Nick

Write then an NBA letter, and then start legal proceedings. Or transfer your case to a no-win no-fee company (who'll take 30%).

janbou

Hi there, pleased you've finally had response in financial terms from them. We are at beginning of process with different kind of delay. Flew from Gatwick with initial 30 min delay to be handed note saying we were dropping off crew in Faro, which caused hour and half delay, then unfortunately unable to land due to horrendous weather and diverted to Tenerife, we finally landed nine and half hours later, no offer of food or drink offered on board. Monarch saying, not surprisingly extraordinary circumstances. Their response has totally ignored the first diversion which could have stopped all of this as weather would not have set in and we could have landed. Wish us luck in pursuing it!:mad:

Vauban

janbou wrote: »

Hi there, pleased you've finally had response in financial terms from them. We are at beginning of process with different kind of delay. Flew from Gatwick with initial 30 min delay to be handed note saying we were dropping off crew in Faro, which caused hour and half delay, then unfortunately unable to land due to horrendous weather and diverted to Tenerife, we finally landed nine and half hours later, no offer of food or drink offered on board. Monarch saying, not surprisingly extraordinary circumstances. Their response has totally ignored the first diversion which could have stopped all of this as weather would not have set in and we could have landed. Wish us luck in pursuing it!:mad:

If you can proove that other flights were landing at the airport at the time that you were scheduled to then I think you have a case. But it is far from straightforward, and I can see how a judge would take a different view.

433Barbara

Just had a thought............

I've spent hours/days on looking up all the information (Sturgeon, Nelson v TUI and Wallentin etc etc) along with lots of other stuff I could find towards putting my case together (should it go to court)

Would it not be a help to have all the documents in a 'pool' of resources so everyone can get access (to the ones they need/required) (if possible?), along with template letters from stage of 1 claim through to witness statement etc?

If not could we provide links to all resources?

I don't mind providing what I have etc or admin help in any way.

It just seems silly that possibly hundreds of people are on here in the same boat and are trudging through loads of internet stuff when we could simplify it?

I'm also thinking this would help EVERYONE know what information to gather?