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

lily74

Mixed News
Flight MON1828 - 25th may 2008 - Successfully Claimed

Flight MON1829 - 2nd June 2008 - Claim Denied
Apparently out flight was originally a ThomsonFly aircraft? And owing to an unscheduled maintenance within their fleet, they did not have an aircraft to operate our flight so the contract was cancelled and our flight was moved to Monarch Airlines.
They were then unable to operate our flight on time because of this unscheduled flight and so our flight was split into 2 airlines (I remember this and the other airline was Thomsons!!)

They are saying that this was exceptional circumstances so we have no claim
Firstly, my flight was with Monarch, that is why I had a Monarch flight number!
Secondly, in front of us in the queue was a Monarch airlines stewardess who contacted Monarch and she was told as far as they were concerend there was no delay (unfortunately I dont have her contact details)
Third, strange how this delay happened on both the outgoing and return flights

What should I do now? CAA or straight to Court?

111KAB

lily74 wrote: »

What should I do now? CAA or straight to Court?

CAA waste of time and effort.

diggerb

From reading various posts it appears that some judges are insisting on one claim one seat which as has been stated is ludicrous and yet others are allowing multiple claims.If this was to happen can you question it citing other judges rulings as examples of a correct judgement.

LBD

diggerb wrote: »

From reading various posts it appears that some judges are insisting on one claim one seat which as has been stated is ludicrous and yet others are allowing multiple claims.If this was to happen can you question it citing other judges rulings as examples of a correct judgement.

Its county court and as such am sure this does not set a precedent.... am not sure about pointing out to the judge/magistrate that he is wrong( even if subtle) by stating other judges/magistrates treat them as one...

perhaps asking if he coudl expalin the reason he felt they should be individual claims,given it was one booking, although is that really important...

Theothers whith much more knowledge will pehaps give a better response than mine...

good luck

Vauban

LBD wrote: »

Its county court and as such am sure this does not set a precedent.... am not sure about pointing out to the judge/magistrate that he is wrong( even if subtle) by stating other judges/magistrates treat them as one...

perhaps asking if he coudl expalin the reason he felt they should be individual claims,given it was one booking, although is that really important...

Theothers whith much more knowledge will pehaps give a better response than mine...

good luck

To some extent it is a moot point. For claims involving one family, for example, you can ask the judge to consider as one - noting that if you were to win the case it would save the court's time and money to discharge the party in one go, rather than to insist on separate claims. It doesn't really influence the issues at hand.

You might also make the point though that, if the airline was found against and accepted the judgement, you would hope they would not resist paying out for the full party.

romanby1

diggerb wrote: »

From reading various posts it appears that some judges are insisting on one claim one seat which as has been stated is ludicrous and yet others are allowing multiple claims.If this was to happen can you question it citing other judges rulings as examples of a correct judgement.

We submitted a claim in the Small Claims Court Fast track and were advised by our local CC to claim as 1st claimant and 2nd claimant on the same form.. Initially we got 2 lots of correspondence from Salford, but after it was in our local CC the correspondence was in my wifes name as 1st claimant as she made the holiday booking.
We have as mentioned previously settled out of court with thomsons after a load of the usual B******t.
They seemed to be keen to settle as we had 3 weeks left before the hearing to return the papers back to the CC.

GothicMaiden

Congratulations, 111KAB! Well played!! :T:T

We have just returned from another holiday in Turkey (Thomas Cook with no delays) and found a letter from Monarch on our mat. I had sent our NBA before we flew so was hoping that there might be good news inside. Well, it pays to be optimistic.

This letter was actually signed by 'someone' from the EU Claim Team with an illegible and anonymous scribble.

"Dear Mrs GothicMaiden,

Thank you for your further correspondence.

We do understand your disappointment by the outcome of your claim. We can assure you that we have thoroughly investigated all aspects of your claim in line with the applicable legalisation. Having reviewed your case we are satisfied that we have provided sufficient information to explain our decision regarding your claim and our initial assessment of your claim was correct and delay compensation will not be paid.

Yours Sincerely,"

What a surprise! I am now compiling my MCOL submission, of course.

For new readers, our flight last October from Dalaman, Turkey was delayed 8 hours due to the First Officer on the previous flight (from London, Gatwick) becoming sick before reporting for duty.

As I understand it, crew sickness is not extraordinary circumstances as it is 'inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity'. If I have been following this wonderful forum correctly. Never mind that it was not even on our flight! We all know, I expect, that airlines keep spare crew on stand-by for just such situations. They either do not employ enough or those they have must be a sickly lot!

I may be back with questions for our more senior and experienced forumites.

Oh, I nearly forgot: there was a Monarch flight listed on the departures board at Gatwick ... DELAYED!!

111KAB

GothicMaiden wrote: »

Congratulations, 111KAB! Well played!! :T:T
As I understand it, crew sickness is not extraordinary circumstances as it is 'inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity'. If I have been following this wonderful forum correctly. Never mind that it was not even on our flight! We all know, I expect, that airlines keep spare crew on stand-by for just such situations. They either do not employ enough or those they have must be a sickly lot!
Oh, I nearly forgot: there was a Monarch flight listed on the departures board at Gatwick ... DELAYED!!

Thank you! Your analysis is correct. Monarch had quite a few long'ish delays over the weekend particularly from Gatwick to Faro and Palma. The Palma delayed passengers were put up in a rough hotel in Magaluf - quite a bit on the internet showing parties outside the hotel at 4.00 am.

jocrad74

Surprise surprise, claim denied on the grounds of "extraordinary circumstances" for a technical fault.

However, I understand from the BBC Watchdog programme that the European Court have stated that EC can only be applicable to the flight on which the tech fault occurred, not subsequent flight sectors, so in the process of preparing my NBA letter asking them to reconsider on this basis. Also quoted the "you should have enough parts/planes to deal with these situations, not an EC".

We'll see how we get on, MCOL next step if not!

111KAB

jocrad74 wrote: »

Surprise surprise, claim denied on the grounds of "extraordinary circumstances" for a technical fault.
However, I understand from the BBC Watchdog programme that the European Court have stated that EC can only be applicable to the flight on which the tech fault occurred, not subsequent flight sectors, so in the process of preparing my NBA letter asking them to reconsider on this basis. Also quoted the "you should have enough parts/planes to deal with these situations, not an EC".
We'll see how we get on, MCOL next step if not!

Good luck however Monarch are likely to force you into Court or at least you will need to submit claim. They are unlikely to pay out where by doing so this would leave other potential claimants on your flight to seek compensation. The likelihood is that they have had more than just your claim for this flight and once the numbers build up the compensation level becomes higher. By the way a technical fault does not = an extraordinary circumstance in all cases.