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

klint

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

Doesn't the Wallentin judgment set a precedent? In that case, Mrs Wallentin-Hermann booked flights for herself, her husband and her daughter. Yet she sued Alitalia on her own and won compensation for all three of them.

111KAB

Mark - you can move this one > ZB959 PMI - BHX 03&04/07/12 hydraulic pipe failure 'up' your list into the Court Success heading if you wish. :j :j :j

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/took-monarch-over-26-hour-delay-4283663

Many thanks to Centipede, yourself and Vauban for all your help.

:T

Having been through the process I will be around to help others and indeed if you were one of the 200 + people on this same flight please PM me and I will advise regarding your claim.

Mark2spark

klint wrote: »

Doesn't the Wallentin judgment set a precedent? In that case, Mrs Wallentin-Hermann booked flights for herself, her husband and her daughter. Yet she sued Alitalia on her own and won compensation for all three of them.

Yes, but that was heard all the way through to the European Court.
The cases that are hitting the UK courts now, such as 111KAB's, are County Court, and the small claims track.
There's a difference, it's not High Court, and doesn't set a precedent.
Another judge could theoretically hear a case from another passenger on 111KAB's flight, and arrive in favour of the airline.
Perhaps unlikely in that case given that there's now press coverage of the flight. But I'd bet that another judge - 111KAB's one for instance, hearing JPears case would almost certainly arrive in favour of the passenger. JP was just unlucky to be bamboozled by QC 'bullies' - it could happen to any of us. They are experts at manipulating courts in favour of their clients remember, the rules don't count as late submission of paperwork etc all show. Just the win at any costs.

Mark2spark

111KAB wrote: »

Mark - you can move this one > ZB959 PMI - BHX 03&04/07/12 hydraulic pipe failure 'up' your list into the Court Success heading if you wish. :j :j :j

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/took-monarch-over-26-hour-delay-4283663

Many thanks to Centipede, yourself and Vauban for all your help.

:T

Having been through the process I will be around to help others and indeed if you were one of the 200 + people on this same flight please PM me and I will advise regarding your claim.

Cheers 111KAB, I'll move it.

Can you confirm the reports that you only claimed 200 euros at the start, as per the newspapers statement?

trello

Hi

Has anyone had Monarch agree to mediation-what kind of questions do they ask? I have received an email that they have agreed and the date is near the end of this month

:beer:

111KAB

trello wrote: »

Has anyone had Monarch agree to mediation-what kind of questions do they ask? I have received an email that they have agreed and the date is near the end of this month:beer:

Read my thread re mediation. Mine was a waste of time so went to Court. Mediator phones two parties separately and goes 'back and forth'. I had cast iron case and all Monarch offered at mediation was my £35 court cost back - nothing more. I said I would accept my claim (500€) with no interest. They said I hadn't got a cat in hells chance and they looked forward to their Barrister winning their case in Court. I was awarded £650 in Court last week.

111KAB

Mark2spark wrote: »

Cheers 111KAB, I'll move it.

Can you confirm the reports that you only claimed 200 euros at the start, as per the newspapers statement?

I realised that in July last year that I had got to wait until October 21st (as it transpired) for the EU ratification. I thought it may be a struggle with Monarch so immediately after the delay I emailed Monarch and informed them I would accept 200€ per person if they just got on with it and BACS paid me within 7 days. They never replied to my email!

Al1972

Hi - quick query.

Me and my family were on a flight from Manchester to SSH in Nov 2010. Mid-flight the aircraft windscreen cracked, we returned to Manchester as we were told that this could not be fixed in SSH but only in the UK. We flew out the next day and arrived exactly 24 hours later than expected. Do you think i should pursue a claim against Monarch? Thanks, Allan

111KAB

Al1972 wrote: »

Hi - quick query.

Me and my family were on a flight from Manchester to SSH in Nov 2010. Mid-flight the aircraft windscreen cracked, we returned to Manchester as we were told that this could not be fixed in SSH but only in the UK. We flew out the next day and arrived exactly 24 hours later than expected. Do you think i should pursue a claim against Monarch? Thanks, Allan

Centipede is really your man to comment however to my way of thinking the problem was an unexpected flight safety shortcoming BUT you were say 2 hours into your flight so it took Monarch 22 hours to sort out the cracked screen. Cracked screens do take this long to repair HOWEVER they should have sourced you and your fellow passengers a replacement plane rather than make you wait at Manchester whilst they repaired yours. Another thing to check on is the statement that it could not be fixed in SSH as I'm sure I have read of other Monarch planes being repaired there with the same problem. Looks to me as though they took the easy route out for them without passenger consideration.
As I say Centipede is your man but I would be interested to hear what others think.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Centipede is really your man to comment however to my way of thinking the problem was an unexpected flight safety shortcoming BUT you were say 2 hours into your flight so it took Monarch 22 hours to sort out the cracked screen. Cracked screens do take this long to repair HOWEVER they should have sourced you and your fellow passengers a replacement plane rather than make you wait at Manchester whilst they repaired yours. Another thing to check on is the statement that it could not be fixed in SSH as I'm sure I have read of other Monarch planes being repaired there with the same problem. Looks to me as though they took the easy route out for them without passenger consideration.
As I say Centipede is your man but I would be interested to hear what others think.

I am not sure that we should accept that technical failures in flight constitute flight safety shortcomings. There is nothing in the Regulation or case law that suggests this is so. Indeed quite the contrary:

"Although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such [flight safety] shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in that recital, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin."

So I would want to know firstly why the airplane cracked. Is it because it hit a foreign object or subjected to severe weather? Or was it because it was subject to temperature and altitude pressures that constitute the normal experience of flying. If the latter, how is the occasional crack caused by such phenomenon "not inherent in the normal exercise" of flying?

Paragraph 24 of Wallentin is quite important in this respect:

"In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity."

So as 111KAB says, if something goes tech - engine failure or cracked windscreen - the obligation is on the carrier to fix the problem speedily. Or get you onto another plane. There is nothing in the law that says if the tech problem arises mid-flight then the airline is exemped. Indeed, as Wallentin notes, the type of technical issues that may be regarded as "extraordinary circumstances" are things like terrorism, sabotage or a fleet-wide recall/grounding.

Of course, a judge could take the view that it is hardly reasonable for the airline to get you to your destination in these circumstances under the three hour limit. But the airline must still show that they used every effort short of intolerable sacrifice to get you there as quickly as possible: and a 24 hour delay does not seem to me to demonstrate that at all. Quite the contrary.

I think you have a case, but you'll need to work hard to argue it well.