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

Vauban

433Barbara wrote: »

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?

Isn't it all in the FAQs?

433Barbara

Sorry, just thought I was helping

Vauban

433Barbara wrote: »

Sorry, just thought I was helping

I'm yellow-carding you for passive-aggression.;)

If you honestly think something is missing from the FAQs, make the suggestion. But I think it's a pretty good resource that captures most of what anyone needs. It's a pity lots of folk never seem to read them. (See: I can do passive-aggressive too:D)

433Barbara

As a Newbie............. it's a daunting task to know where to find stuff

I meant nothing more than to help people...... No aggression on any level or means.

I mentioned in previous threads that my comments may be known and common knowledge to many but I'm just trying to give back what I have gotten out of this forum.

JPears

433, Vauban is being sarcastic with his humour. He isn't having a personal dig at you. Those of us who have been on this forum some time know that it takes a considerable amount of reading up on the matter to have a real chance of getting anywhere. All the info is there it takes a bit of finding and that is useful in the trials and tribulations that follow

Vauban

433Barbara wrote: »

As a Newbie............. it's a daunting task to know where to find stuff

I meant nothing more than to help people...... No aggression on any level or means.

I mentioned in previous threads that my comments may be known and common knowledge to many but I'm just trying to give back what I have gotten out of this forum.

Forgive me Barbara: I'm only teasing, and not meaning to have a go.

You're right that it takes quite a bit of effort to pick out the info required; it's not straightforward. I do get frustrated though with folk (not you!) who come on here to ask questions that have been asked dozens of times before.

No one will get anywhere unless they're prepared to put the effort in. And even when people spend their own time to pull together FAQs and useful links, folk don't always seem to use them.

433Barbara

JPears wrote: »

433, Vauban is being sarcastic with his humour. He isn't having a personal dig at you. Those of us who have been on this forum some time know that it takes a considerable amount of reading up on the matter to have a real chance of getting anywhere. All the info is there it takes a bit of finding and that is useful in the trials and tribulations that follow

Thanks J Pears

I was just hoping to simplify/help the process, I'm an Administrator by trade so hey...................

I totally appreciate 100% all those who have helped and the advice I've been given on here.... it's help immensely.

I just wanted to give something back (if I could)

pavr27

Hi All

First post.

I have claimed compo for ZB246, 13th Oct 2012, LGW-Sharm, delayed by 4h17mins.

No surprise, Monarch have refused - claiming exceptional circumstances (delay was due to a technical fault - an air duct leak)

Went through the MCOL process, they sent through a defence as expected. (I'd post a link to the scanned defence, but cannot apparently as I'm a newbie!)

So I'm taking them to court.

Court hearing came through very quickly - and it's on 6th June!

My case will be similar to that posted in this forum previously (which is a very comprehensive response to all their points in their defence. I cannot now find the post, nor remember who it was by - I hope the OP does not mind me using it!)

I'm hoping it won't get to court and that they will settle beforehand - but I'm wondering whether anybody has already had to go all the way to court?

I really do hope I can win this if I have to go to court.


Edit - their defence is below - google converted a scanned image, so apologies for any typos

1)The Defendant was at all material times acting in the capacity of an airline carrier for the purpose of these proceedings.

2)The Claimant is put to strict proof as to whether he was actually on the said flight 28246.

3) Subject to paragraph 2, the Defendant admits that the Claimant's flight was delayed.

4)The Defendant denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all and intends to rely upon the defence of extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004.

5)The Claimant’s flight was originally scheduled to operate on however on the 13 October 2012 during turnaround of the aircraft at London Gatwick, the ECAM display in the cockpit showed a warning that there was a leak on the left hand side bleed in the left hand wing. The warning displayed was checked with the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and showed as a no dispatch item. Therefore the aircraft was declared unserviceable and unsafe
to fly whilst immediate engineering work began.

6)The leak was traced to the left hand side wing ducting inboard behind the Kruger flap. The seals at the duct joint required replacement. The bleed air duct takes hot air from around the engine and circulates it around the aircraft for use in air conditioning and other such systems.

7)If such a fault had not been rectified at the time it could have resulted in the hot air escaping into the aircraft structure which could potentially cause severe damage to the aircraft. The Defendant cannot fly the aircraft with such a fault.

8) The Defendant submits that it has a full defence to the Claimant's claim under Article 5 (3) of Regulation 261/2004 which states 'an operating carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation (delay) is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.’

9) The Defendant intends to rely upon the decision in Walletin (0549/07 WaI/entin-Hermann
circumstances—toque extent that they events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control". Moreover the court held 'the resolution of a technical problem caused by the failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity’. The Defendant submits that duct seal failure in the left hand side wing ducting inboard was not as a result of failiure to maintain the aircraft. On the contrary the part in question where the leak was found is checked approximately every 15 weeks (or every 1000 flight hours) therefore such a fault is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraordinary and clearly unpreventable.

10) Moreover the Defendant intends to rely upon the fact that the aircraft had previously
completed its previous flying sector of London Gatwick to Faro back to London Gatwick without any issues. The Defendant submits that this clearly shows that the resulting delay was in fact beyond its control as the aircraft had been cleared to fly its previous sectors before the fault materlalised.

11) Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the test of Wallentin
(C-549/O7 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia). Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would not have been able... to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted', from leading to the delay. The Defendant submits that the duct seal failure and the resulting delay were unavoidable. The Defendant submits that it has deployed all its resources and financial means at its disposal to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay.

12) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all. 13) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.

14) The Defendant admits that the Claimant has an inherent right to interest subject to liabifity
being established.

111KAB

pavr27 wrote: »

Court hearing came through very quickly - and it's on 6th June!
I really do hope I can win this if I have to go to court.

Firstly best wishes Post any questions but you are really going to rely upon Wallentin and the fact that a technical problem does not equate to an extraordinary circumstance.

Poundzhound

Vauban wrote: »

You're right that it takes quite a bit of effort to pick out the info required; it's not straightforward. I do get frustrated though with folk (not you!) who come on here to ask questions that have been asked dozens of times before.

No one will get anywhere unless they're prepared to put the effort in. And even when people spend their own time to pull together FAQs and useful links, folk don't always seem to use them.

Your efforts are appreciated Vauban. Also other posters who've contributed useable information. I agree with 433Barbara, though. :T
I'm currently hauling together all the info I feel will help me counter EC effectively.