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

klint

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

If you filed the claim on MCOL you will be able to see online whether the claim has been acknowledged. You would also be able to get default judgment if it hasn't.

I sent an N1 form by post. There was not enough room on the MCOL form to enter all family members as joint claimants.

I just rang the court and they said the defendant hasn't replied to my claim yet, and that therefore I could go ahead and apply for a default judgement.

However, I'm still not convinced Monarch hasn't actually replied, as the court took two weeks to process my initial claim and serve it to Monarch, so I wouldn't be surprised if Monarch's reply is in fact sitting in the court's in-tray.

I will apply for judgement anyway; I guess I have nothing to lose by doing that. Except the fun of the fight - I was really looking forward to seeing them in court.

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

As long as the claim was sent to the registered office it will be deemed correctly served. But it is iffy to address it to 'Company Secretary' as that title has been obsolete since Companies Act 2006 came into force.

Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. According to Monarch's website, John Marray's official job title is "Head of Group Legal" but I named him as "Company Secretary" on my claim form. I trust that's not really going to count against me.

romanby1

klint wrote: »

Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. According to Monarch's website, John Marray's official job title is "Head of Group Legal" but I named him as "Company Secretary" on my claim form. I trust that's not really going to count against me.

If they were to jibb about the serving of the papers if you are at court you could say to the judge they should have been passed to the relevant department assuming they were sent to the correct address. It is the small Claims Court and is less formal than an open County Court and you are a layman where the law is concerned.

klint

romanby1 wrote: »

If they were to jibb about the serving of the papers if you are at court you could say to the judge they should have been passed to the relevant department assuming they were sent to the correct address. It is the small Claims Court and is less formal than an open County Court and you are a layman where the law is concerned.

I've just looked at the Companies Act 2006 and it appears that I'm ok:

Section 270: Private company not required to have secretary

(1)A private company is not required to have a secretary.

(2)References in the Companies Acts to a private company “without a secretary” are to a private company that for the time being is taking advantage of the exemption in subsection (1); and references to a private company “with a secretary” shall be construed accordingly.

(3)In the case of a private company without a secretary—

(a)anything authorised or required to be given or sent to, or served on, the company by being sent to its secretary—

(i)may be given or sent to, or served on, the company itself, and

(ii)if addressed to the secretary shall be treated as addressed to the company; and

(b)anything else required or authorised to be done by or to the secretary of the company may be done by or to—

(i)a director, or

(ii)a person authorised generally or specifically in that behalf by the directors.

In fact, it appears that John Marray, Head of Group Legal, is also nominated as Company Secretary. Even if Monarch didn't have a company secretary, according to the legislation above, my claim would still have been deemed to have been served on the company itself. But for anyone wondering about this in future, yes it's ok to send it either to John Marray or just to Monarch Airlines.

[Update: just noticed that Centipede had beat me to it by 3 minutes :-) ]

friendofbillw2

I stand corrected! Fair comments all.

So just to knock this on the head, the best way to effect service of anything formal is simply to send by first class post (I suggest obtaining free proof of posting at the Post Office) to

Monarch Airlines Limited
Prospect House
Prospect Way
London Luton Airport
Luton
Bedfordshire
LU2 9NU

That is the current registered office, and has been so for many years.

Addressing it to any individual or officer is unnecessary complication, but unlikely to be a problem.

Aedus

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

But when there is independent data out there, why would you rely on what the company you are claiming from tell you over the phone?

And you do actually need exact timings (and distance) to know precisely how much you are due.

Because no matter how much they try to stretch extraordinary circumstances, they won't flat out lie to someone.

They know full well that if they lie to passengers, and the truth is discovered it will land them in trouble, trouble they don't want. Every response they've given to people is a real reason, not a lie. It may not be extraordinary circumstances, but the fundamental reason behind the delay is the truth.

111KAB

Aedus wrote: »

Because no matter how much they try to stretch extraordinary circumstances, they won't flat out lie to someone.

From experience (particularly in respect of two Court hearings) I beg to differ - complete and utter lies were 'tabled'.

4poc

klint wrote: »

However, I'm still not convinced Monarch hasn't actually replied, as the court took two weeks to process my initial claim and serve it to Monarch, so I wouldn't be surprised if Monarch's reply is in fact sitting in the court's in-tray.

Court told me on two occasions that they wait for 10 days after due date. The defendant failed to file the directions questionnaire within the deadline, court waited 10 days, then sent them another reminder giving them another 10 days to reply or else...I am now waiting & hoping for the "or else":D

Aedus

111KAB wrote: »

From experience (particularly in respect of two Court hearings) I beg to differ - complete and utter lies were 'tabled'.

Lawyers are paid to lie. I'm talking with regards to the claim team themselves.

blondmark

Aedus wrote: »

Because no matter how much they try to stretch extraordinary circumstances, they won't flat out lie to someone.

They know full well that if they lie to passengers, and the truth is discovered it will land them in trouble, trouble they don't want. Every response they've given to people is a real reason, not a lie. It may not be extraordinary circumstances, but the fundamental reason behind the delay is the truth.

Is that a fact? Well I've just accused Thomson of lying in the Thomson forum and I have documentary evidence to back it up so I don't think they'll be suing me for libel anytime soon.

Technically lying under a Statement of Truth is a contempt of court but I very much doubt that my county court judge will be giving them a spell inside to reflect on their dishonesty.

blondmark

Aedus wrote: »

Lawyers are paid to lie. I'm talking with regards to the claim team themselves.

Q. How can you tell if a lawyer is lying?

A. His lips are moving.