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

roo987

My flight was delayed due to pilot illness which Monarch said is extraordinary. Being a HR Manager I know that there is nothing about staff sickness which is extraordinary, it happens all the time and it is how you as a business manage absence which is important.

I submitted my claim at the end of October 2012. I received my response from Monarch refusing my claim which I then submitted to the CAA in March. They acknowledged my letter but I havent heard anything since. I do not want to give up on this because the manner in which we treated by Monarch was not terrible for example we were all promised a meal on the plane and when we boarded the pilot announced there was no food on board etc. They did take us to a hotel for lunch at approximately 2.00pm Turkish time but we were also promised an evening meal. We landed at Gatwick at midnight (2.00am Turkish time). So we were all starving. Should I wait for the CAA or look to go down the small claim court? Please can anyone advise.

Vauban

roo987 wrote: »

My flight was delayed due to pilot illness which Monarch said is extraordinary. Being a HR Manager I know that there is nothing about staff sickness which is extraordinary, it happens all the time and it is how you as a business manage absence which is important.

I submitted my claim at the end of October 2012. I received my response from Monarch refusing my claim which I then submitted to the CAA in March. They acknowledged my letter but I havent heard anything since. I do not want to give up on this because the manner in which we treated by Monarch was not terrible for example we were all promised a meal on the plane and when we boarded the pilot announced there was no food on board etc. They did take us to a hotel for lunch at approximately 2.00pm Turkish time but we were also promised an evening meal. We landed at Gatwick at midnight (2.00am Turkish time). So we were all starving. Should I wait for the CAA or look to go down the small claim court? Please can anyone advise.

Proceed with a small claim. Piliot illness is not an extraordinary circumstance, but an inevitable part of running a business - as you say.

The CAA will take forever to respond to your claim (I wrote in January, and am still waiting), and even if they find in your favour Monarch are likely to resist (the CAA has no powers of enforcement). So it is court now or court much later, in my view.

111KAB

Vauban wrote: »

The CAA will take forever to respond to your claim (I wrote in January, and am still waiting), and even if they find in your favour Monarch are likely to resist (the CAA has no powers of enforcement). So it is court now or court much later, in my view.

I tabled letter from NEB (AESA Spain) at my hearing as plane departed (eventually!) from Palma. Judge said he was disregarding this letter (even though content was in my favour) as it had no jurisdiction in respect of UK law.

So basically I went to quite a lot of trouble to get the letter and I may as well have submitted a Burger King wrapper

JPears

111KAB wrote: »

I tabled letter from NEB (AESA Spain) at my hearing as plane departed (eventually!) from Palma. Judge said he was disregarding this letter (even though content was in my favour) as it had no jurisdiction in respect of UK law.

So basically I went to quite a lot of trouble to get the letter and I may as well have submitted a Burger King wrapper

:T:T:T:T
Lol, thats made my day....:rotfl:

friendofbillw2

Mr Postie today bears interesting correspondence from the direction of Luton.

Point 2 of Monarch's defence put me to 'strict proof' I was on their delayed flight, so I made a Data Protection Act Subject Access Request.

Their letter follows :

"(My name)
(My address)

31 May 2013

Dear Mr Xxxxx

We write further to your request under the Data Protection Act 1998 received in our offices on the 21st of May. I note that your request specifically relates to confirmation as to whether your name appears on the Passenger Name Record. I can confirm that your name does in fact appear on the Record. As the lawyer responsible for your claim against Monarch Airlines for compensation under Regulation 261/2004 I am assuming that you have made this request to overcome the hurdle of us putting you to strict proof that you were in fact on flight ZBxxx. Given the above I can assure you that this is not a point we will take in court on this matter.

Please can you confirm if this satisfies your subject access request?

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Group Lawyer
Monarch Airlines"


Hope this will be of help to others sweating on their 'strict proof you were on the flight' point. Make a DPA SAR and they fold like a cheap suit. If you want my letter to them as a template, PM me.

Quite why they raised this asinine point in the first place when THEY hold the PNRs is quite beyond me. As it is formally in their defence, I will certainly be putting these letters in my ever growing court bundle. 'The defendant is obviously as tricky as a ten foot snake, your honour'.

111KAB

111KAB wrote: »

I tabled letter from NEB (AESA Spain) at my hearing as plane departed (eventually!) from Palma. Judge said he was disregarding this letter (even though content was in my favour) as it had no jurisdiction in respect of UK law.
So basically I went to quite a lot of trouble to get the letter and I may as well have submitted a Burger King wrapper

I actually emailed AESA and thanked them for their help (even though I had to send 7 emails and 2 letters) and I have just had this reply....


Dear Sir,
Thank you for the information provided in your email.
We would also like to congratulate you for the happy end of your complaint and for your useful blog.
Kind regards,

Divisi!n de Calidad y Protecci!n al Usuario
Direcci!n de Seguridad de la Aviaci!n Civil y Protecci!n al Usuario
Agencia Estatal de Seguridad A!rea
Avda. General Per!n, 40.
28020 MADRID
http://www.seguridadaerea.es/aesa/lang_castellano/

lancs_ms

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Quite why they raised this asinine point in the first place when THEY hold the PNRs is quite beyond me. As it is formally in their defence, I will certainly be putting these letters in my ever growing court bundle. 'The defendant is obviously as tricky as a ten foot snake, your honour'.

One reason only - a further obstacle put in your way. They are playing the percentages; they know that the harder they make it the more people will fall by the wayside.

lancs_ms

roo987 wrote: »

My flight was delayed due to pilot illness which Monarch said is extraordinary. Being a HR Manager I know that there is nothing about staff sickness which is extraordinary, it happens all the time and it is how you as a business manage absence which is important.

I submitted my claim at the end of October 2012. I received my response from Monarch refusing my claim which I then submitted to the CAA in March. They acknowledged my letter but I havent heard anything since. I do not want to give up on this because the manner in which we treated by Monarch was not terrible for example we were all promised a meal on the plane and when we boarded the pilot announced there was no food on board etc. They did take us to a hotel for lunch at approximately 2.00pm Turkish time but we were also promised an evening meal. We landed at Gatwick at midnight (2.00am Turkish time). So we were all starving. Should I wait for the CAA or look to go down the small claim court? Please can anyone advise.

Roo, the CAA will reply in many months time telling you they can't deal with a flight that departed from Turkey.

NSKT

[FONT=&quot]I'm a newbie on here however I've been following the forum with great interest please bear with me as its quite a detailed first posting.

I sent in a claim for compensation with Monarch in November 2012 as we were delayed on a flight to Crete in July 2007. (Delayed Monarch flight MON 5248)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So based on other forum members experiences with Monarch it came as no great surprise when Monarch rejected my claim citing EC with the following response - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight had a loss of utility busses and would not reset due to a ground power unit tripping, rendering the aircraft unsafe to fly. Engineers attended the aircraft and ascertained that maintenance work was required. The brake system control unit was then replaced by our engineers and the aircraft was declared serviceable. Unfortunately these events led to a delay to your flight. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I then issued a NBA to Monarch and also submitted my complaint to the CAA whom came back with the standard response "of being inundated with complaints and will take a while to respond" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Monarch eventually responded to the NBA with the following - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I am sorry that you are disappointed by the outcome of your claim, 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have noted your reference to taking legal action in the respect of your claim. If you feel this is the course of action you need to take please ensure all correspondence is addressed as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John Marray[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Head of Group Legal[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Monarch[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Prospect House[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Prospect Way[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Luton[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bedfordshire[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]LU2 9NU[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Based on the above I decided to engage a claims company, they responded with the following -. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The rules around Limitation stipulate that Court proceedings must be issued within 6 years of the issue at hand – in this instance your delayed/cancelled flight.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the event that we take a claim on and miss the Limitation date then we become professionally negligent as a firm and as such we then become responsible for any damages that you could have claimed. On that basis we have to risk assess every potential claim and report back to our professional indemnity insurers regarding our potential negligence claims and our internal policies to minimise our exposure. With that in mind our internal policy is that we cannot accept any aviation claims within 6 months of Limitation, and this is purely because of the pre-action protocol that we must go through and the relatively new area of Law which we are dealing with.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We have a great deal of sympathy with your position and appreciate how frustrating it must be for the airlines to continually ignore you, but in this particular instance there is nothing we can do. I share xxxxxxx assessment that the information provided by the airline likely does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance, but it would unfortunately be a breach of all of our internal policies."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So I thought I'll get a second opinion and contacted another claims company whom have also decided not to take on my claim by stating - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Following review of this matter and the description of events you have supplied I regret I will not be making an offer to receive an assignment of the operable debts of compensation in this particular case. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have been receiving many submissions from passengers with claims dating from 2007. For most airlines - including Monarch - I am making a current decision not to accept assignments where the delay is more than 5 years old.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The claims will very likely be time barred in a UK jurisdiction at the latest after 6 years and this will oblige initiation of court process and will not allow other passengers to benefit from those actions. I am necessarily obliged to divert disproportionate attention and resources to these cases and these will become time barred for the remaining cadre of passengers.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is simply a commercial assessment of the value of your debts to xxxxxx and you should not be influenced or guided by this in any way as to the merits of your potential claim and in respect of pursuing recovery of the same by your own actions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In this respect you should be aware that your claims could be prejudiced if you do not take steps to recover the compensation by initiating court proceedings within six years of the anniversary of the delay, although some air carriers are also advancing a 2 year time bar applies to the UK Jurisdictions."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Meanwhile the CAA have also responded to my complaint recently -[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]After reviewing your file, it appears that your flight was more than five and a half years ago. We are experiencing a very significant increased demand for our services at the moment, and as a result we are currently unable to deal with your complaint case within the next six months. As such, we wanted to make you aware that in the UK the time limit for bringing a claim to court for compensation is six years from the date of the delayed flight. If you wish to go to court to seek compensation you would therefore need to submit your claim to a small claims court within 6 years from the date of your flight."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whilst both claims companies have given differing reason for not taking on my claim, I'm well aware of the limited time frame I have to bring the claim to court as the 6 year deadline will be up on in middle of July. The only option available to me now is to issue an MCOL however I'm not very confident about attending Court and doubtful of a positive outcome based on the responses received from the claims companies.

So the question is - Are Monarch actually correct in saying this was an EC and is this in all probability why the claims companies are not interested in taking up my claim?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I will be grateful for your thoughts and advise.

[/FONT]

Vauban

NSKT wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]I'm a newbie on here however I've been following the forum with great interest please bear with me as its quite a detailed first posting.

I sent in a claim for compensation with Monarch in November 2012 as we were delayed on a flight to Crete in July 2007. (Delayed Monarch flight MON 5248)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So based on other forum members experiences with Monarch it came as no great surprise when Monarch rejected my claim citing EC with the following response - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight had a loss of utility busses and would not reset due to a ground power unit tripping, rendering the aircraft unsafe to fly. Engineers attended the aircraft and ascertained that maintenance work was required. The brake system control unit was then replaced by our engineers and the aircraft was declared serviceable. Unfortunately these events led to a delay to your flight. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I then issued a NBA to Monarch and also submitted my complaint to the CAA whom came back with the standard response "of being inundated with complaints and will take a while to respond" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Monarch eventually responded to the NBA with the following - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I am sorry that you are disappointed by the outcome of your claim, 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have noted your reference to taking legal action in the respect of your claim. If you feel this is the course of action you need to take please ensure all correspondence is addressed as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John Marray[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Head of Group Legal[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Monarch[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Prospect House[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Prospect Way[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Luton[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bedfordshire[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]LU2 9NU[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Based on the above I decided to engage a claims company, they responded with the following -. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The rules around Limitation stipulate that Court proceedings must be issued within 6 years of the issue at hand – in this instance your delayed/cancelled flight.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the event that we take a claim on and miss the Limitation date then we become professionally negligent as a firm and as such we then become responsible for any damages that you could have claimed. On that basis we have to risk assess every potential claim and report back to our professional indemnity insurers regarding our potential negligence claims and our internal policies to minimise our exposure. With that in mind our internal policy is that we cannot accept any aviation claims within 6 months of Limitation, and this is purely because of the pre-action protocol that we must go through and the relatively new area of Law which we are dealing with.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We have a great deal of sympathy with your position and appreciate how frustrating it must be for the airlines to continually ignore you, but in this particular instance there is nothing we can do. I share xxxxxxx assessment that the information provided by the airline likely does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance, but it would unfortunately be a breach of all of our internal policies."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So I thought I'll get a second opinion and contacted another claims company whom have also decided not to take on my claim by stating - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Following review of this matter and the description of events you have supplied I regret I will not be making an offer to receive an assignment of the operable debts of compensation in this particular case. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have been receiving many submissions from passengers with claims dating from 2007. For most airlines - including Monarch - I am making a current decision not to accept assignments where the delay is more than 5 years old.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The claims will very likely be time barred in a UK jurisdiction at the latest after 6 years and this will oblige initiation of court process and will not allow other passengers to benefit from those actions. I am necessarily obliged to divert disproportionate attention and resources to these cases and these will become time barred for the remaining cadre of passengers.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is simply a commercial assessment of the value of your debts to xxxxxx and you should not be influenced or guided by this in any way as to the merits of your potential claim and in respect of pursuing recovery of the same by your own actions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In this respect you should be aware that your claims could be prejudiced if you do not take steps to recover the compensation by initiating court proceedings within six years of the anniversary of the delay, although some air carriers are also advancing a 2 year time bar applies to the UK Jurisdictions."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Meanwhile the CAA have also responded to my complaint recently -[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]After reviewing your file, it appears that your flight was more than five and a half years ago. We are experiencing a very significant increased demand for our services at the moment, and as a result we are currently unable to deal with your complaint case within the next six months. As such, we wanted to make you aware that in the UK the time limit for bringing a claim to court for compensation is six years from the date of the delayed flight. If you wish to go to court to seek compensation you would therefore need to submit your claim to a small claims court within 6 years from the date of your flight."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whilst both claims companies have given differing reason for not taking on my claim, I'm well aware of the limited time frame I have to bring the claim to court as the 6 year deadline will be up on in middle of July. The only option available to me now is to issue an MCOL however I'm not very confident about attending Court and doubtful of a positive outcome based on the responses received from the claims companies.

So the question is - Are Monarch actually correct in saying this was an EC and is this in all probability why the claims companies are not interested in taking up my claim?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I will be grateful for your thoughts and advise.

[/FONT]

They have all given you the same response, essentially: you are so close up to the deadline, and they are all so busy, they cannot guarantee that they would bring your case to court within the next few weeks, as you acknowledge is necessary.

So you have two choices, not three. Start court proceedings, or walk away. You ask whether the technical issue is an EC. Almost certainly not. But that doesn't guarantee you that a judge would definitely agree with that view. The odds favour you - but there are no guarantees. And taking an airline to court requires some effort and talent. If you're not up for it, let it go.