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

klint

Centipede100 wrote: »

We're ahead of the game in this forum, doncha know: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4634745

Ah, thanks Centipede, I didn't notice that thread. Full respect to JP for putting up a fight against the airline and for giving the rest of us such useful advice after the hearing.

The encouraging thing is we have only one isolated report of a court failure, against multiple successes in the Court Successes thread, so the evident probability of winning should encourage everyone to claim.

111KAB

MontyWomble wrote: »

Wasn't aware there was a witness / claimant statement to come still, so I'm probably getting a little ahead of myself.
What is an event print out? I am guessing the full breakdown of what occurred and why? If so, this is definitely what I need to get hold of in order to prepare myself of any excuses Monarch could try and come up with in court.
Just so I'm 100% clear, what stages should I be expecting next? I was expecting to receive a court date and this would be all? As mentioned, the last thing I have completed was the allocation questionnaire.

I was given a Court date and the Court instruction was to file (ie send to the Court) and serve (ie send to Monarch) my statement of facts at least 14 days prior to the hearing date. Sometimes this statement is called a witness (ie you) statement or a claimants statement ~ all this follows on some time after you have completed your allocation questionnaire. In my case Monarch read through my claimant statement and tried to tear it apart and submitted to the Court a few days prior (ie nowhere near their 14 day period) to the hearing. They were criticised by the Judge for doing so.
My Event Printout (I do not know if Monarch produce these for every technical/delay problem) was tabled by Monarch to indicate the lengths they had gone to in order to repair the plane. Unfortunately, for them, it all showed other matters which the Judge found 'interesting'.

MontyWomble

111KAB wrote: »

I was given a Court date and the Court instruction was to file (ie send to the Court) and serve (ie send to Monarch) my statement of facts at least 14 days prior to the hearing date. Sometimes this statement is called a witness (ie you) statement or a claimants statement ~ all this follows on some time after you have completed your allocation questionnaire. In my case Monarch read through my claimant statement and tried to tear it apart and submitted to the Court a few days prior (ie nowhere near their 14 day period) to the hearing. They were criticised by the Judge for doing so.
My Event Printout (I do not know if Monarch produce these for every technical/delay problem) was tabled by Monarch to indicate the lengths they had gone to in order to repair the plane. Unfortunately, for them, it all showed other matters which the Judge found 'interesting'.

Thanks again 111KAB, I will await further instruction then from the courts and keep you all updated.

silversue_2

Hi, I hope this is the right thread to post this. If it's not, I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction.

Our flight was delayed for just over 5 hours departing shortly after 8pm. At the airport we were told the delay was due to the aircraft diverting to another country to pick up passengers.

I made our claim for compensation on 26.10.2012. Monarch wrote to me in a letter dated 22.02.2013 refusing our claim. They claim the aricraft scheduled to operate our flight diverted on its' previous flight from Gibraltar to Malaga due to poor weather conditions in Gibraltar, which were below safe landing limits. In order to minimise our delay an aircraft was flown from Gatwick to Luton at the earliest opportunity.

Does this constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'?

Would I be right in assuming Monarch should have standby aircraft available for such a circumstance?

Can they legally refuse my claim because of poor weather in another country which is neither our departure country nor our destination?

In addition to the flight stats for our flight (which does not state a landing time in Dalaman but which I recall was 9.10pm UK time), I have the flight stats of the flight from Gibraltar which landed at Luton Airport at 8.02 pm.

I emailed Monarch, in reply to their letter, asking for proof of the 'extraordinary circumstances' and received in response the following ..... 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.

So, is it now Technical Failure?

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks

silversue_2

Hey Centipede, many thanks for your speedy response - I am IMPRESSED! I think in that case then, I'll go down the small claim route. Cheers.

111KAB

silversue wrote: »

I emailed Monarch, in reply to their letter, asking for proof of the 'extraordinary circumstances' and received in response the following ..... 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.
Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks

This is exactly the same wording as Monarch introduced and was repeated by the Barrister in my case. I would like to say the Judge shot them down in flames but Judges don't use flame guns however what he did do is put them in their place and confirm technical problems do not = extraordinary circumstances. I'm still surprised the message hasn't got through to Monarch yet!

433Barbara

Might not be of any use but makes interesting reading

It mentions not enough aircraft in the fleet, major delay and very frequent tech issues..............

http://www.holidaytruths.co.uk/forum/monarch-airlines-flymonarch-t59702-580.html

foxy1968

Anyone claimed for the Monarch flight from Newcastle to Sanford Orlando 30 August 2008, flight was delayed 10 hrs????

433Barbara

Looks like Margy may have been.

Just type in Sanford in the search box at the top right

friendofbillw2

silversue wrote: »

Hi, I hope this is the right thread to post this. If it's not, I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction.

Our flight was delayed for just over 5 hours departing shortly after 8pm. At the airport we were told the delay was due to the aircraft diverting to another country to pick up passengers.

I made our claim for compensation on 26.10.2012. Monarch wrote to me in a letter dated 22.02.2013 refusing our claim. They claim the aricraft scheduled to operate our flight diverted on its' previous flight from Gibraltar to Malaga due to poor weather conditions in Gibraltar, which were below safe landing limits. In order to minimise our delay an aircraft was flown from Gatwick to Luton at the earliest opportunity.

Does this constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'?

Would I be right in assuming Monarch should have standby aircraft available for such a circumstance?

Can they legally refuse my claim because of poor weather in another country which is neither our departure country nor our destination?

In addition to the flight stats for our flight (which does not state a landing time in Dalaman but which I recall was 9.10pm UK time), I have the flight stats of the flight from Gibraltar which landed at Luton Airport at 8.02 pm.

I emailed Monarch, in reply to their letter, asking for proof of the 'extraordinary circumstances' and received in response the following ..... 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.

So, is it now Technical Failure?

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks

So the issue causing your delay was the knock on effects of some bad weather, yet they then give you their standard wording for a technical failure some of us have seen a hundred times?

The fact that they don't have a different wording for bad weather and technical problems on the ground is just more clear evidence that they don't know what they're doing in the Monarch EU Claims team.

My reading of it is such that passengers on the Gibraltar flight would not have a claim for compensation if they were delayed arriving at their destination. Weather issues directly affecting their flight are exceptional circumstances.

But everyone else whose delay is being blamed on the knock on effects of those problems has a legitimate claim. Knock-ons of any sort are not exceptional circumstances, to be exceptional it must directly affect your flight. The whole point of EC 261/2004 is trying to force airlines to build such slack into their scheduling as they need to ensure that such events do not lead to lengthy delays.

If you are serious about getting your compensation it's time for a NBA letter, then court if you get no joy.

Please keep us posted.