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

433Barbara

GOOD LUCK TO ALL FACING COURT THIS WEEK.

I'd just like to say that the advice that is on these threads and advice that has been given to me personally is very much appreciated.:T

Good luck to all................. I hope to read positive threads in the very near future.

JPears

romanby1 wrote: »

I see your point in that particular case but the wording in the judgement
Quote
Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

In our case we were denied boarding at the scheduled time for take off and another plane was scheduled to be our flight but the same Flight No.

I think the operative word is rescheduling.

It is obvious that a problem with another aircraft on a different route in a defendants flight cannot be tranferred to later flight with a separate flight No and route.

The reason being the airlines are scheduling too many flights with too few aircraft.

The whole point of 261/2004 is the European Parliament attempting to make the airlines delay passengers less and penalise them if they do.

Most would agree with the sentiments of your statement, but Finnair case is a tricky one to use as it can cut both ways, unless your case is similar to Finnair. I think it unwise to rely on as your main arguement, and judge will probably be fed up if you've exhausted all the other arguments in "The Reg", Wallentin and Sturgeon

433Barbara

OMG....(don't get excited..... it's denying my claim)

I have just received this today from Monarch regarding my claim

From: EU Claim [EUClaim@Monarch.co.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2013 11:51
To: XXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: FLIGHT DELAY COMPLAINT - ref XXXXXXXX

Our ref XXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXX

Thank you for your email.

As advised in our previous communication, we do understand the inconvenience and frustration that can be experienced during periods of operational disruption and every effort is made to minimise the impact this has on your travel plans. We also acknowledge our obligations during such situations. As such, we have procedures in place to ensure we are assessing such claims in accordance with the applicable legislation. Having reviewed your case we are satisfied that our initial assessment of your claim was correct.

The European Court of Justice in Wallentin –v- Alitalia held that technical defects which come to light during maintenance, or an account of a failure to maintain, do not, per se, constitute extraordinary circumstances in themselves, but “technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control”. Thereafter providing illustrative examples of technical problems that would amount to extraordinary circumstances (including such events as a manufacturing defect, airworthiness issue etc). On account of the technical failure, details of which we have already provided to you, we remain unable to offer you compensation under Regulation 261/2004.

If you remain unhappy with our decision you can refer the matter to the Civil Aviation Authority who can be contacted at [email]passengercomplaints@caa.co.uk<mailto:passengercomplaints@caa.co.uk[/email]>

Kind Regards
David Bulut
Monarch EU Claims Advisor
[email]euclaim@monarch.co.uk<mailto:customer.relations@monarch.co.uk[/email]>

From: XXXXXXXXXX
Sent: 14 May 2013 11:10
To: EU Claim
Subject: FLIGHT DELAY COMPLAINT - ref XXXXXXX
Importance: High

FLIGHT DELAY COMPLAINT - ref XXXXXXX

Following the recent Watchdog programme that was broadcast 8 may 2013 I write by way of an update.

This particular programme gave clear, concise and exact details as to what the European Courts have ruled as ‘EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES’.

The circumstances you report on your letter are NOT covered under the extreme circumstances rule.

I have sought legal advice and I await your response before issuing NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS.

foxy1968

Hi, just after a bit of advise to whether it is worth taking my claim further or giving up ?
We travelled with Monarch in Aug 2008 from Newcastle to Sanford Orlando and experienced a 9hr 22mins delay. After reading the Martin Lewis information on how to claim we sent our letter of compensation off and after the deadline of 28 days this is the excuse they came up with.
Our records show that we had an air data system failure which left us unable to produce any long haul flight plans. This resulted in delays to our Airbus A330 long haul flying programme. Despite Monarch’s best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers on your flight to an aircraft chartered from a third party carrier, or to an alternate aircraft from within the Monarch fleet, as would be our aim in circumstances such as this. Consequently, these events led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight.

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.


Any advise information would be much appreciated as I feel this is just a cop out not to pay by the airlines, they could all use the excuse EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES !!!!!!
Many Thanks

friendofbillw2

433Barbara wrote: »

...extraordinary circumstances (including such events as a manufacturing defect, airworthiness issue etc)...

More cobblers from Monarch.

Paragraph 26 of the Wallentin judgement gives only three specific examples of circumstances which the court then considered extraordinary.

These are :

- hidden manufacturing defects
- acts of sabotage
- acts of terrorism

Here is paragraph 26 so you can see these mentioned in the judgment :


26 However, it cannot be ruled out that technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism.

Lifted from the full judgment here :

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0549:EN:HTML

So, Wallentin gives a very simple two-fold test for extraordinary circumstances :

(i) did they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned, and
(ii) are they beyond the air carrier's actual control.

If the answer is they are not inherent, and they are beyond its control, they are extraordinary.

All other cases are not extraordinary circumstances. It's that simple.

Steviek_2

I have submitted a claim for a friend for ZB546/ZB547 Man to Arrecife and return both delayed by 4 hours 6 & 13/5/12
In the first page of denials you have ZB546 as Man to TFS on 17.8.12 does this mean the flight nos I have quoted are incorrrect?

111KAB

On 3rd/4th July 2012 my wife and I suffered a delay inexcess of 3 hours due to a technical problem on a Monarch Airlines flight fromPalma de Mallorca. The airline claimed the technical problem was anextraordinary circumstance and as such they were not obliged to pay us anycompensation.

The compensation sought was 500€ being 250€ each. MonarchAirlines refused to pay compensation so accordingly we submitted a claim viaMCOL (Money Claim on-line) and attended Worcester County Court with a MonarchAirlines Barrister on 4th April 2013. Monarch Airlines submitted their evidencelate and they 'forgot' to include a relevant page in the Judge's copy ofevidence.

Consequently the Judge ordered another hearing for June 4th2013. Again Monarch Airlines failed to submit their evidence correctly. MonarchAirlines were again represented by a Barrister, Mr Virk. The Defendant wasallowed to state the Monarch Airlines case first and to be quite honest it wascompletely lacking. I tried to interrupt as Mr Virk's statement included commentswhich were totally incorrect. The judge asked that I keep quiet and allow theDefendant to state the Monarch Airlines case.

Following this I fully expected to be allowed 'my time inCourt' however the Judge then ruled before I could get a word in. He statedthat the Monarch Airlines defence was completely and utterly incorrect and thata technical problem could not be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance.Accordingly he awarded us the compensation plus 5% interest thereon from thedate of delay, reimbursement of our court and hearing costs, travellingexpenses including car parking fees, an allowance for attending court and aloss of earnings provision in respect of my wife attending court.

For various reasons I cannot release all the details due tothe future involvement of two newspapers however there will be a press releasewithin 24 hours where I will mention the people who assisted me (you know whoyou are) throughout the past 11 months. I still fail to understand why MonarchAirlines sought to defend a case they had no chance of winning and spentthousands of pounds instead of just settling the 500€ from day one. The factthey chose to do so I see as a bully boy tactic and I'm glad the judge agreed!

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

For various reasons I cannot release all the details due tothe future involvement of two newspapers however there will be a press releasewithin 24 hours where I will mention the people who assisted me (you know whoyou are) throughout the past 11 months. I still fail to understand why MonarchAirlines sought to defend a case they had no chance of winning and spentthousands of pounds instead of just settling the 500€ from day one. The factthey chose to do so I see as a bully boy tactic and I'm glad the judge agreed!

Brilliant news, my friend! I am delighted for you - and indeed for us all. Well done for having the competence, courage and convinction to see this through to its inevitable end.

Monarch: HANG YOUR HEAD IN SHAME.

111KAB

Centipede (in particular), Mark2Spark and Vauban - Gentlemen - thank you so much for your support, assistance and general friendship over the past few months.

At times I felt I was going round in circles. It wasn't a question of the money (this is going to charity anyway if/when Monarch pay up) it was the matter of how over 200 people on an Airbus plane were not treated with any respect by Monarch Airlines.

If they cannot treat their customers better then they do not deserve to be in business. As Vauban says "Monarch hang your head in shame".

433Barbara

What a fantastic result for you 111KAB :beer:............ and all others on here, in that Monarch has not only lost the case but they will no doubt have to answer to their executives as to WHY they would contend and spend ridiculous amounts.

Here's hoping there will be more good news from others soon.:)

Once again well done. It's down to you and other on here that keep all of us going with hope

People power