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

Aedus

111KAB wrote: »

Totally agree with this sentiment however ....
1) The law is the law and Monarch are hell bent on not recognising it in the majority of claims and
2) In my case, Monarch, (stupidly) decided to defend a case with solicitors, barristers, two Court sessions, award to me including time off work etc etc which must have cost them thousands when I was prepared to settle for 400€. So the effect on the Airline industry is also down to the airlines themselves (in my case Monarch) not just claimants.
3) In addition they are now threatening an appeal so on top of the thousands more thousands.

I can agree with that too. The problem with some Airlines right now is they deny a lot of legitimate claims, so when there is any claims which weren't really their fault, people are still pursuing them because they feel the Airline is fobbing them off like they've done with everyone else. I think with Monarch their reasons are legitimate, the technical faults being EC's are ridiculous, but in this particular case, I personally wouldn't pursue it, so long as it wasn't an excessive 10+ hour delay

I think with your case there may be a simple reason why they defended it to death, lets say on a random flight delay, 2 people have made a claim for 400 Euros, Monarch deny them compensation, the 2 passengers then take the matter to court, in Monarchs eyes, there is no point defending it, because it's not worth the cost, so they just pay the 2 people 800 Euros to get rid of them.

Now lets take another flight, lets say 90 people have made claims against that flight, 2 people again take this to court, if Monarch give up and think "There's no point defending it", they then have to go back and pay all of the 90 passengers claiming, 400 Euros each, which would amount to 36,000 Euros, the amount they would pay to defend the matter in court against 2 people wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Also if they try and defend it in court they will still stand by their decision to reject the other claims and say "Well, that judge may not have agreed with us, but we feel due to the circumstances another judge may well do", so they will still refuse compensation for the rest.

111KAB

Aedus agree but just to bear in mind my case was for a 26 hour delay which was so cut 'n dry there was no chance of them winning and to now suggest an appeal is ridiculous.

romanby1

111KAB wrote: »

Aedus agree but just to bear in mind my case was for a 26 hour delay which was so cut 'n dry there was no chance of them winning and to now suggest an appeal is ridiculous.

I agree but an apeal might show them and other airlines the futility of rejecting legitimate claims.
I am not sure of the costs that may be involved in 111KAB defending the appeal though.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

There isn't going to be any appeal, the original DJ gave the airline short shrift and even Monarch are not that stupid!

Pleaase God don't let there be an appeal. If Kim gets in the papers once more, he'll be insufferable!:rotfl:

Benw15

Aedus wrote: »

It's up to you, as you say it's not something which was in their control. One thing I will say about Monarch, is the reasons they give you are truthful, they don't lie about claims, so the reasons you've been given are the real reasons behind the delay.

There's two standpoints, compensation wise it is worth pursing because it was a knock-on delay, so a decision for compensation should go in your favour (Key word here is "should"). Morally it's your choice, as you say, it wasn't their fault, so do you feel that you should claim compensation from them? A lot of cases come down to a moral view, you have to think about the effect on the Airline industry if everyone pursues claims when in some cases, it wasn't the Airlines fault. Only you can really decide where to take your claim from here.

Thanks for the response.

I/We do not use Monarch anymore. Numerous delays of 1-2 hours without explanation in the past. By far the worse airline I have travelled with.

As I said though its quite interesting that our delay was 3 -4 hours longer than every other flight that day, considering this was an airport issue.

Like you say, I will have to decide where I morally stand with this before I decide whether I pursue it.

klint

Benw15 wrote: »

As I said though its quite interesting that our delay was 3 -4 hours longer than every other flight that day, considering this was an airport issue.

While I agree with Aedus that Monarch wouldn't deliberately lie in their rejection of your claim, I have doubts about their competence in checking the right reason for the right flight.

Their original reply gave an excuse about a totally different flight, and there are at least two other claimants on this forum thread that have reported the same experience. So, even if they mentioned the correct flight number and date to you, I still wouldn't be sure that the reason given refers to your flight, especially, as you say, it doesn't make sense because no other flight was delayed.

If I were you, I would point that out and ask them to re-confirm their reason (and if that really is the reason perhaps they could attempt to explain why an airport-wide issue affected only your flight.)

Mark2spark

amc1 wrote: »

Hi Vauban, I did have a quick look at the FAQs but couldn't (certainly initially) find any reference to NBA and how it's done. Could you point me to the thread pls. Thanks, Andy

Really? It's quite clearly marked.
It says:

Centipede100 Template letter This is the 'Notice Before Action' letter (NBA or LBA)

Explanation of the legal process of NBA, 14 days notice before court claim.


It's the 21st and 22nd line down.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4421185

Do we need to make it clearer if people can't see it? :cool:

amc1

thanks, not sure how I missed that.

Poundzhound

amc1 wrote: »

thanks, not sure how I missed that.

I sent you a PM with the links about 11:00 yesterday. Had to do it that way, as I'm not allowed to post links on the main forum.

Adie_Cartwright

I have received an Acknowledgement of Service notice from HMCTS stating that Monarch intend to defend the whole of my claim. However, on checking the online details I noticed that the claim is for £1500 and should be for 1500 euros. This is possibly my mistake, though i am sure I stated the claim in euros. I can find no way of amending this online, and wonder if the claim will be thrown out, or whether any Judgement will be made for a lesser amount? Can anyone help?