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

Vauban

Eve4ever wrote: »

Summary

Flights:
5/5/12 - MAN - SSH ZB684 5 hours 25 mins delay
12/5/12 - SSH - MAN ZB685 4 hours 30 mins delay

Correspondence between June 2012 and Feb 2013. Sent several letters and 2 sets of claim forms (the first lot got "lost" in the post)and finally decided I was sick to death of being messed about by Monarch and started legal action to recover 1200 euros plus interest. A week later they sent me a cheque for £519 for one of the flights.

March - offer from Monarch of £200 plus costs - Turned down
May - further offer of £300 plus costs by letter - ignored

Last week - finally received notice of my court date and the hearing fee of £80 became payable. As this cost would be payable by Monarch, when I won, I thought it only fair to give them one last chance to settle in full. Rang Morgan and pointed out the extremely desperate attempt to claim tech issues as EC would never apply with my case as they admitted in their defence that it was a previous flight which suffered a break down not not my plane which completed another flight scheduled before mine. I also explained this is not a personal injury claim where the amount of compensation is variable, that the amount of fixed compensation has been set by an EU high court so Monarch are failing to meet their responsibilities by expecting me to accept less than the fixed amount.
Morgan gave up and agreed to pay the remaining amount of the MCOL claim by BACS before the the hearing fee was due.
Payment received Thursday !!! :beer:

Final note to Morgan as she told me I hurt her feelings by calling her nasty in this thread, if you want to be liked and respected at work, stop trying to defend the indefensible and get a job with a reputable company

Well done - great result. Make sure you post on the Court Success Thread - I think you are the 40th success! (Ask for a cake, or something)

As she appears to be reading this forum, I would add a personal plea to Ms. Mulay to end all of this silliness. The law is perfectly clear; and the game for Monarch is surely up. Why damage what remains of its corporate reputation by continuing to deny people their statutory rights? It's not how responsible companies are meant to behaviour - or responsible lawyers for that matter.

111KAB

Eve4ever wrote: »

Final note to Morgan as she told me I hurt her feelings by calling her nasty in this thread, if you want to be liked and respected at work, stop trying to defend the indefensible and get a job with a reputable company

Well done and I 100% totally agree with this statement - a trained solicitor should understand the law.

D-MAC

klint wrote: »

For the address, see post 2551 by friendofbillw2.

Is this about your delay caused by ground workers placing the steps wrongly and damaging the plane?

Was your letter the first contact with Monarch? What did you say in the letter? Did you get a certificate of posting? If you've already told them you would go to court after 14 days, I think it's time for you to make your court claim. They are notorious for dragging their heels.

Thanks klint
Yes it was my first contact with them.
Told them the normal stuff plus about the hotel we were sent to having no food for my kids.
Didn't get anything to say that it had been posted

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

As she appears to be reading this forum, I would add a personal plea to Ms. Mulay to end all of this silliness. .

I am sure Ms Mulay, presumably a member of a professional body, is scrupulous in not allowing her obligations to her employer to override her professional and ethical responsibilities.

It is one thing to repesent your employer's interests in the best light possible but some of the things reported on this board (and I am NOT referring to Ms Mulay here), eg saying there is a 2 year limit for claims, appear to be deliberate untruths which would/should lead a professional person into serious trouble with their governing body.

If I ever receive a communication from an airline solicitor, I will read it with great attention to detail and have no qualms about having words with The Law Society if I have any"issues".

margy

111KAB wrote: »

Maybe if you gave more info - where to/from ~ date etc and if after looking at flightstats you still have problems post on here and someone may find info for you.

Hi sorry it was from newcastle to sanford airport 30th August 2008 delayed for apron 9 hours

Vauban

margy wrote: »

Hi sorry it was from newcastle to sanford airport 30th August 2008 delayed for apron 9 hours

This is what flightstats is showing:
ZB 365 Newcastle to Sanford, 30/08/08
Scheduled departure: 8:35 AM
Actual departure: 4:57 AM
Scheduled arrival: Unknown
Actual arrival: 12:08 PM
Delay status: Unknown

So not very helpful, but this sonetimes happens.

However you were given a number to call weeks ago where you can ask Monarch directly for this info. Have you tried that? And you don't actually need to know the exact times to make a claim in any case: it's just another hoop designed to deter claimants.

My advice would be to give them a call on Monday and, if you get no easy answers, not to mess about further and just get your claim in.

Mark2spark

David_e wrote: »

I am sure Ms Mulay, presumably a member of a professional body, is scrupulous in not allowing her obligations to her employer to override her professional and ethical responsibilities.

It is one thing to repesent your employer's interests in the best light possible but some of the things reported on this board (and I am NOT referring to Ms Mulay here), eg saying there is a 2 year limit for claims, appear to be deliberate untruths which would/should lead a professional person into serious trouble with their governing body.

If I ever receive a communication from an airline solicitor, I will read it with great attention to detail and have no qualms about having words with The Law Society if I have any"issues".

What about the 50% reduction when it doesn't apply?
Monarch have a lot of rebuilding of customer confidence to do.

David_e

Mark2spark wrote: »

What about the 50% reduction when it doesn't apply?

I've not seen that but certainly any situation where matters are presented as fact when they are not. If I had evidence of a solicitor doing that, I would be straight on to The Law Society.

If it was just a person from "Customer Relations" I would be writing to whoever the Minister for Consumer Affairs is. Maybe also a letter to the Chief Executive of the relevant airline pointing out that they can expect their reponse to these matters to be well publicised on this forum with the resulting extremely negative publicity.

LBD

Sorry been away for a few days, it will come as no surprise that Monarch have failed to make payment within the 14 days......aw shame guess it will be the baillifs ha ha ha happy reading Monarch

kelou

Been following this thread with great interest, and after the great advice from before got my claim forms in a while back and heard nowt (kind of guessed that was to be expected!) and did email to chase and still heard nothing back at all, but today my Mum got a reply from Monarch saying the delay was an extraordinary circumstance.

They say the delay was caused by a fault with the nose wheel landing en route to Gatwick, and the fault was with a selector switch. They say that the fault was a EC that they were not reasonably able to prevent. Now to my mind surely that is just a glorified way of saying that it was a mechanical fault so unlikely to be an EC. Suspect I ought to just stop even trying to communicate and get court proceedings in place, any opinions? Also they mention chartering another flight, but they already had another plane going to Faro at 2 ish that afternoon which as far as I am aware took off when it ought to, and yet we were stuck in the airport until that evening, so it feels a bit unfair to say they did all they could when I feel they clearly didn't.

Also a bit perplexed why they have not bothered to contact me, even though it was me that sent in all the forms for our whole party (5 claims) and they have only replied to my Ma. Feel very irritated with Monarch even though I knew they were unlikely to be very helpful, always hopeful I guess!