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

D-MAC

Vauban wrote: »

You're out of time for the 2006 claim - six years is your limit.

According to THIS SITE i can claim as far back as 2005...

JPears

D-MAC wrote: »

According to THIS SITE i can claim as far back as 2005...

Technically you can claim back to 2005 as this is when the Regulation became law. However, in UK, Statute of Limitations means that you have no legal standing/right after 6 years so airline can tell you to do one without any fear of legal action having a chance.
Given that 99% of claims require some sort of legal recourse, 6 years is the limit.

cart583

mikaelam - i too have passed ours to flightmole but have been trying to get onto the website for a few weeks and its still saying its down for maintenance so was a bit worried. emailed hugh on friday about this but no answer as yet

Den_ram

Hi! I'm looking for a bit of advice please. My monarch flight from Manchester to Sanford on 5 July 2008 was delayed by 18 hours. I have written to them and they are claiming extraordinary circumstances, that being a technical fault on the number 2 engine inboard pylon. I now wish to take this matter to court, but as the time limit for a claim in Scotland is 5 years, I am out of time. I am only 30 mins from the border and have been advised I can raise a claim in England as this is where we departed. Only problem is I don't know where to start. Do I have to fill in a MCOL or visit the court I wash the case to be heard?!
Many thanks in advance...!! Denise x

romanby1

Den_ram wrote: »

Hi! I'm looking for a bit of advice please. My monarch flight from Manchester to Sanford on 5 July 2008 was delayed by 18 hours. I have written to them and they are claiming extraordinary circumstances, that being a technical fault on the number 2 engine inboard pylon. I now wish to take this matter to court, but as the time limit for a claim in Scotland is 5 years, I am out of time. I am only 30 mins from the border and have been advised I can raise a claim in England as this is where we departed. Only problem is I don't know where to start. Do I have to fill in a MCOL or visit the court I wash the case to be heard?!
Many thanks in advance...!! Denise x

I am not a legal expert but if you departed from an airport in England I think you could use an English County Court. Small Claims can use any court as far as I am aware.

Vauban

LBD has kindly allowed me to post the skeleton defence that Monarch submitted late for the case she won. In the event, the judge refused to accept the skeleton argument, but it's worth taking a look at to see the kinds of arguments airlines are likely to make.

I should add that the document was riddled with typos, which I have tried to fix. It suggests it was put together at short notice.

Experienced commentators, or others, might wish to critique this. I think there are a number of points worth highlighting that will be applicable to many.

Here goes ...

IN THE ... COUNTY COURT

MR LBD MRS LBD Claimant

And

MONARCH AIRLINES Ltd Defendant

SKELETON ARGUMENT

1. This case concerns Parliament andCouncil Regulation (EC) 261/2004, Art 7 the right to a set payment in additionto any compensation for a delayed flight of 250 Euros per passenger for acancelled flight or a delayed flight of over 3 hours.

2. The Regulation aims to encourageairlines who overbook or know of an issue to inform passengers at least 2 weeksin advance and if a cancellation or delay does occur make reasonable efforts toensure the passengers get to their destination. Airlines are also obliged totake care of the passengers of delayed and/or cancelled flights until theyreach their destination. Airlines are not expected to make intolerablesacrifices depending on their size.

There are two relevant tests.

3. i) Was the delay an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of theRegulation

ii) Which couldnot have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken

4. It is submitted that given that Monarchare a relatively small airline and they diverted the earliest available airplanefrom another airport at a significant costs to themselves, the Defendantclearly satisfies that second limb. Further all safety tests had been carriedout and when in taxi it was clear that the problem made it necessary not to flythe plane. The line of Wallentin Judgment quoted in paragraph 14 of theParticulars of Claim refers to question as to whether an airline can alwaysrely upon a technical failure as its maintenance was reasonable in relation tothe second limb.

5. The question is whether the fault of theHMU unit amounts to extraordinary circumstances, which include decisions by airtraffic control and unexpected flight safety shortcomings.

6. Wallentin Para 26 — technical issuesarising from a failure to maintain are not extraordinary circumstances. That isnot the case here. Technical problems identified during routine maintenance arenot extraordinary circumstances. This was not and could not reasonably beidentified during routine maintenance as the HMU is basically a self enclosedunit provided by a third party. This was beyond the control of the Defendant. Apotential of this part makes flight a safety risk, it is not expected and notdue to a failure to maintain — it is clearly out of ordinary as far as anairline is concerned and not inherent in the normal exercise of its activity.What was the airline to do — it was no a standard problem which could be fixedby engineers at the time? It was an unexpected safety risk which led them tofly another plane empty to take passenger to their final destination.

7. Fundamentally, it is submitted that thetest amounts to whether or not the delay was the Defendant's fault. Was itcaused by their operational failings or their failure to maintain or deal withordinary minor failings. Airplanes are subject to strict safety requirements. Afault arising from a part not operating which is not due to lack of maintenanceor checking is not the Defendant's fault. Customers are yet further protectedfollowing a finding of extraordinary circumstances in that the airline muststill make reasonable efforts depending [sic]

8. It is submitted that this claim is notwhat this Regulation is intended for nor should and could be applied to. Thiscompensation is punitive in nature as rights to other compensation for food,accommodation and any other losses exist independently. It is to encourageairlines not to make commercial decisions to delay or cancel flights or fail tomaintain their aircraft or not make efforts to supply alternative travel.

9. These cases are flooding the airlines atpresent. Genuine cases where the failures were their fault and due to their ownfailings are settled. It is submitted that cases such as these where there wasa genuine unexpected safety issue are clearly outside the ambit of the Regulation.

jenn1ewest1

Vauban wrote: »

LBD has kindly allowed me to post the skeleton defence that Monarch submitted late for the case she won. In the event, the judge refused to accept the skeleton argument, but it's worth taking a look at to see the kinds of arguments airlines are likely to make.

I should add that the document was riddled with typos, which I have tried to fix. It suggests it was put together at short notice.

Experienced commentators, or others, might wish to critique this. I think there are a number of points worth highlighting that will be applicable to many.

Here goes ...

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Thanks LBD and Vauban can I just ask is this all that they actually submitted,as I have prepared mine in readiness for my court date and was worried it wasnt long enough however now I am feeling much more confident about the amount of information that I have compiled for my witness statement
JH

friendofbillw2

That skeleton argument is very poorly drafted.

The most interesting point for me is that they make no reference at all to the other question posed by Wallentin - did the fault occur as part of the normal activity of an air carrier?

It's obvious why this wasn't mentioned. This isn't sabotage, terrorism or force majeure related. It was fairly and squarely within normal activities. Therefore absolutely, positively NOT extraordinary circumstances.

Vauban

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

That skeleton argument is very poorly drafted.

The most interesting point for me is that they make no reference at all to the other question posed by Wallentin - did the fault occur as part of the normal activity of an air carrier?

It's obvious why this wasn't mentioned. This isn't sabotage, terrorism or force majeure related. It was fairly and squarely within normal activities. Therefore absolutely, positively NOT extraordinary circumstances.

I agree: it is the key point. Some airlines are trying to argue that if the airplane was maintained properly and the tech failure was unexpected, then this is not inherent in the flight experience and therefore extraordinary. It is utter nonsense, and one must not let them away with it. There is nothing in the regulation to say this is so. The examples provided - sabotage, etc - make it doubly clear.

Frankly airlines are required by law to maintain their planes adequately - failure to do so would be a matter for prosecution. It is an inevitable and inconvenient truth that technical failures nevertheless occur, even if planes are subject to maintenance checks. And no technical failure should be predictable, for if it were surely we would expect the part to be replaced just before it failed?

I have final question though that I think it would be worth bowling at a defence barrister. The airline claims this particular technical malfunction was not inherent in the operation of the airline: so can they name a technical failure that is inherent in the operation of the business, and what distinguishes the two? It exposes the absurdity of their position.

Leedsteacher

We have followed all the steps and have evidence from the Spanish version of the CAA that our daughter's 16 hour delay was not an extraordinary circumstance. However monarch don't agree! We are now looking at taking them to the small claims court and wondered if anyone has successfully managed this with monarch and how we should go about it. What evidence might we need to provide? How did you word the claim? Thanks