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

111KAB

LBD wrote: »

Got response from the court.... cant believe it....clearly stated on all forms, local court due ot husbands health issues and lack of mobility....
So where do Northampton allocate it!!!!!!!!
Yup you got it LUTON

Presume from the exclamation marks you don't live in Luton Phone up, explain the situation and they should transfer to your local court - also worth sending an email.

LBD

111KAB wrote: »

Presume from the exclamation marks you don't live in Luton Phone up, explain the situation and they should transfer to your local court - also worth sending an email.

Its a little over 100 miles from us, and I put all this in the question form..:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Do you think it worth filling in the N271?

Will phone Tuesday, will send Email today, was thinking of sending special delivery as well, just to make sure...

Thanks 111KAB, oh its getting:beer::beer: closer lol

111KAB

LBD wrote: »

Its a little over 100 miles from us, and I put all this in the question form..:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Do you think it worth filling in the N271?
Will phone Tuesday, will send Email today, was thinking of sending special delivery as well, just to make sure...

May as well go the 'whole hog' and send N271 (Form N271 transferring the case to the Debtor's home Court - for those unaware of what it is) + phone + email but think special delivery a bit overkill

LBD

111KAB wrote: »

May as well go the 'whole hog' and send N271 (Form N271 transferring the case to the Debtor's home Court - for those unaware of what it is) + phone + email but think special delivery a bit overkill

Ah right sorry did not knwo that part, on the letter it states at the bottom, N271 Notice of transfer of proceedings....

As Monarch are the debtor, lol perhaps not the most appropriate form then... thanks again...:beer::beer::beer:

statictom

Since Monarch have now indicated on my MCOL claim that they will defend their case against me fully, I now need to begin putting together my Court Bundle.
I would appreciate any help or advice anyone can give me on this point.

I have no tickets for the flight from Oct 2010, but have obtained copies of bank statements showing I paid Monarch for flights, and extra payments for pre-booked seats and meals. I also have evidence of paying for parking at Manchester Airport. So by the law of probability I was on that plane.
I will rely heavily on the Wallentin judgement to prove my point that a blown fuse in the planes PA system was not the end of the world and should not be classed as an EC.

I was wondering if I should:

1. Refer to events leading up to the delay in so much that Monarch failed in their duty of care with minimal refreshments being provided, no access to telephone/text/e-mail facilities and most of all No written notice issued regarding passengers rights (This is an actual offence under the Civil Aviation(Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regs of 2005. This carries a £5000 fine.

2. Can I introduce stats to show the number of planes in Monarch fleet and the age of some of the planes (some 25 yrs, some 21 yrs - average age of fleet being 14 yrs). Also make reference to the fact that they have very poor punctuality records as shown in monthly print outs.
Also the fact that they do not have a standby/reserve plane to help when tech matters arise.

Or should I just stick to the basic facts and push to prove that a fuse blowing in the PA system is not an EC.

Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Mark2spark

statictom wrote: »

Since Monarch have now indicated on my MCOL claim that they will defend their case against me fully, I now need to begin putting together my Court Bundle.
I would appreciate any help or advice anyone can give me on this point.

I have no tickets for the flight from Oct 2010, but have obtained copies of bank statements showing I paid Monarch for flights, and extra payments for pre-booked seats and meals. I also have evidence of paying for parking at Manchester Airport. So by the law of probability I was on that plane.
I will rely heavily on the Wallentin judgement to prove my point that a blown fuse in the planes PA system was not the end of the world and should not be classed as an EC.

I was wondering if I should:

1. Refer to events leading up to the delay in so much that Monarch failed in their duty of care with minimal refreshments being provided, no access to telephone/text/e-mail facilities and most of all No written notice issued regarding passengers rights (This is an actual offence under the Civil Aviation(Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regs of 2005. This carries a £5000 fine.

2. Can I introduce stats to show the number of planes in Monarch fleet and the age of some of the planes (some 25 yrs, some 21 yrs - average age of fleet being 14 yrs). Also make reference to the fact that they have very poor punctuality records as shown in monthly print outs.
Also the fact that they do not have a standby/reserve plane to help when tech matters arise.

Or should I just stick to the basic facts and push to prove that a fuse blowing in the PA system is not an EC.

Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

IMO you only have to show evidence of purchasing 'the service', as the 'test' is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' as in a criminal court.
You clearly satisfy this hurdle.
A reference to the fact that Monarch hold a passenger list and that their requirement for evidence when they already hold such evidence doesn't go amiss IMO.

1) You would normally offer a short chronology of the events leading up to the delay, which would state obvious things like the lack of perverse weather conditions, normal airport operations, general lack of obvious EC's. Failing to comply with EU261 in reference to care would be mentioned, but not something to press home a point on.

2) Not worth it IMO. A reference to minimum turn around times to equal maximum profit whilst not allowing for tech issue recovery in line with EU261 would be better.

"stick to the basic facts"
Yes, this is the crux. The tech issue is not an EC and you should provide various snippets from Wallentin that show what the ECJ has said about what airlines have to do, right up to intolerable sacrifices.
Fixing tech issues speedily is inherent in the airlines normal course of activity, and the technical sophistication of an aircraft means that tech issues are part and parcel of normal operations. That's the main bit.

Good luck! Post back with the final draft

russetred

I received this reply on Friday to my counter offer.

Dear Russetred family,
We write further to the above matter. Thank you for your reply received today in our offices. I note your counteroffer and have decided to increase our offer to £2200 plus your costs. Please can you confirm if our offer is acceptable to you? Further can you please clarify how much you paid to issue this claim as we were told by the court it was £71 and we want to ensure we are refunding you the correct amount. We consider our offer to be reasonable and hope that this matter can be settled amicably. For ease I have included my email address at the bottom of this letter to save you any further postage.
We trust you find the above in order.

111KAB

So russetred are you going to accept or are you sticking for the full amount/court????

statictom

Thank you Mark2spark for your invaluable comments re post #2021.

When I put together my statement can it be in "plain English" or does it have to go along the lines of "the claimant" this and "the defendant" that?

I will exhibit all attachments to the statement, like EC261/2004, Full Wallentin-Hermann case, proof of purchase of flights, etc, etc.

Mark2spark

Plain English, as long as everything is legible, is fine statictom. No point in trying to be a lawyer and tying yourself in knots.
But referring to yourself as the claimant might be just as easy really.

For the avoidance of doubt and all that