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

klint

LBD wrote: »

I have just completed the Request for Warrant of Execution :)

You might want to read these posts:

l.walton wrote: »

Here is some information which I found out the hard way, I think this is an appropriate thread for posting this:

If you get no response from the airline after the date set by MCOL and still no response from them after you are issued a default judgement then your next step is to pay for a warrant of execution.

Now if you do this on MCOL then your warrant is passed on to the local County Court bailiffs who, in general, seem to be useless. I was informed that they could not do anything as they were not allowed into the airline's building by security.

The option that I should've gone with, is a High Court Enforcement Officer, which I only found out after further research. Their fee is about £60 compared to the £100 for the county court bailiffs and they are paid on results, rather than the salaried county court bailiffs. This option is not on MCOL and requires some form filling but is almost definitely a better option.

http://thesheriffsoffice.com/

I hope this helps someone. I could've definitely used this information, I am currently debating whether to pay the extra £60 for the high court enforcement officers on top of the £160 that I have already spent on my claim.

georgewn.1 wrote: »

It is my understanding that the high court sheriff can force entry to a commercial property in the execution of his duty.
When the day comes my first choice will be the high court sheriff.

I'm not making any recommendations as I have no personal experience of either the Warrant of Execution or the above organisation, but just reporting what I've previously read. In fact, I may soon be in the same position as you, as I've applied for a judgement and will wait and see if Monarch send me the money or remain silent as they have been doing.

andy68_2

I recently tried to claim for compensation from Monarch for a 13 hour delay on 19th Aug 09 - MON 1498 LGW-AYT. Initial letter sent to Monarch and they replied rejecting my claim stating the delay was due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. They detailed the fault and subsequent reason for the delay as follows:

[FONT=&quot]Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed a ‘bleed valve control unit’ fault. Engineers attended the aircraft after the crew reported that the left engine pressure ratio indications were fluctuating, and were able to change the bleed valve control unit. However, it was unfortunate that the team were unable to immediately complete the requisite tests as the engine run-up bay was in use by another airline. As such the tests were run at the earliest opportunity and it was found that further engineering work was required. The Monarch ‘Smart Team’ were then dispatched and after some time, were able to rectify the fault. As a consequence of these events, regrettably there was a delay to the scheduled departure time of your flight. In order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.
[/FONT]


I have replied rejecting their claim of 'EC' and said that I would take the legal route but they are sticking by their initial statement.



I would appreciate thoughts and comments on Monarch's statement and whether they can reasonably claim 'EC' on this occasion.


Many Thanks,
Andy

friendofbillw2

andy68 wrote: »

I recently tried to claim for compensation from Monarch for a 13 hour delay on 19th Aug 09 - MON 1498 LGW-AYT. Initial letter sent to Monarch and they replied rejecting my claim stating the delay was due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. They detailed the fault and subsequent reason for the delay as follows:

[FONT=&quot]Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed a ‘bleed valve control unit’ fault. Engineers attended the aircraft after the crew reported that the left engine pressure ratio indications were fluctuating, and were able to change the bleed valve control unit. However, it was unfortunate that the team were unable to immediately complete the requisite tests as the engine run-up bay was in use by another airline. As such the tests were run at the earliest opportunity and it was found that further engineering work was required. The Monarch ‘Smart Team’ were then dispatched and after some time, were able to rectify the fault. As a consequence of these events, regrettably there was a delay to the scheduled departure time of your flight. In order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given. [/FONT]



I have replied rejecting their claim of 'EC' and said that I would take the legal route but they are sticking by their initial statement.



I would appreciate thoughts and comments on Monarch's statement and whether they can reasonably claim 'EC' on this occasion.


Many Thanks,
Andy

Noooo!!! Not the pressure ratio indicators fluctuating...and at a time when the run-up bay is occupied!

The Monarch 'Not-So-Smart Team' (these jokers have watched too many episodes of Thunderbirds...) confirm that these two combined can cause a backlog of bulsheite which sometimes overflows into the email server, leading to the sort of replies some customers experience. Sorry you have fallen victim to this.

To clear the channel and allow resumption of normal pressure ratios, I recommend an NBA, then 14 days later, a quick blow through with a County Court claim form.

But seriously...

These are not extraordinary circumstances at all. Normal technical issues. Compensatable if leading to delays over 3 hours. End of.

433Barbara

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Noooo!!! Not the pressure ratio indicators fluctuating...and at a time when the run-up bay is occupied!

The Monarch 'Not-So-Smart Team' (these jokers have watched too many episodes of Thunderbirds...) confirm that these two combined can cause a backlog of bulsheite which sometimes overflows into the email server, leading to the sort of replies some customers experience. Sorry you have fallen victim to this.

To clear the channel and allow resumption of normal pressure ratios, I recommend an NBA, then 14 days later, a quick blow through with a County Court claim form.

But seriously...

These are not extraordinary circumstances at all. Normal technical issues. Compensatable if leading to delays over 3 hours. End of.

SSSOOOO funny Friend of Bill.

can't stop grinning :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Vauban

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

To clear the channel and allow resumption of normal pressure ratios, I recommend an NBA, then 14 days later, a quick blow through with a County Court claim form.

As Monarch's defence counsel I feel obliged to point out that the
backlog of bulsheite overflowing into the email server was not caused by faulty maintenance and could not have been predicted. It is therefore classes as "extraordinary nonsense", and should not believed by anyone with legal training or indeed a cognitive ability of any kind.

LBD

The Small Claims track is a part of the County Court system which is set up to handle defended cases that are normally below £10,000 in value.

Judgments awarded in the Small Claims Court are County Court Judgments (CCJs), which can still be transferred to the High Court for enforcement, provided they are over £600.

Costs are not normally awarded in the Small Claims Court. A judge may decide to move a case out of this track and into another if it is complex.
Should you require any further information or have any questions please contact us where our team will be happy to assist you.

It appears as the amount is under £600 will not be able to do that, so bad publicity is the route now...

delayed flight, late court and claimant submissions and late barrister and now late payment!!!!!!

Perhaps we should refer to them as the LATE MONARCH

LBD

klint wrote: »

You might want to read these posts:





I'm not making any recommendations as I have no personal experience of either the Warrant of Execution or the above organisation, but just reporting what I've previously read. In fact, I may soon be in the same position as you, as I've applied for a judgement and will wait and see if Monarch send me the money or remain silent as they have been doing.

I already have the county court judgment, the order states payment to be made within 14 days......

But we already knew they would fail as they have failed in and with everything else.....:mad:

andy68_2

Thanks for the comments and replies, there were actually 3 of us travelling therefore I will be claiming for all 3 passangers in my party.

Den_ram

Hi, after a bit of advice please!!
I am in the middle of filling my MCOL form.
My delayed flight was July 2008, so outwith the time limit to claim in Scotland, where I live. I am only 30 mins from the border and if I have to attend court I would like it to be at my nearest court over the border, ie Carlisle.
Do I have to state anything in the statement part of the MCOL.
I know on the scottish small claims site you contend that your local sheriff court have jurisdiction and quote the civil jurisdiction and judgements act.
Any help greatly appreciated as I'm confused:-(

jtotheb

I was on the following flight last weekend....

20th Jul 2013 | MON328 | Orlando Sanford Intl (SFB) to London Gatwick (LGW) | 16:05 - 05:25 (+1 day)

...when about an hour into the flight, the plane had to return to Sanford due to (as the pilot put it) "mechanical issues preventing us from continuing with the journey".

We were left on the plane for about 2 hours whilst they sorted out whether the plane could depart again. Eventually they decided to off board us all and put us up in a hotel for the night as "the cabin crew would have exceeded their flying hours".

Eventually, the plane left the following morning at about 09:30 but my wife and I (plus our 2 children) decided not to fly with them as we were not convinced that they would have been able to adequately test / repair the fault in that time period (no further explanation was given as to the exact detail of what the fault was). My wife is a nervous flyer.

As such, we re-booked for the Sunday evening on a Virgin flight out of MCO at our own expense.

Whilst I appreciate the fact that it was our decision not to fly back on the Monarch flight, what chances if any do I have of them reimbursing me for the cost of those flights plus the incidentals we incurred during the extra day we were in Orlando (breakfast / lunch / dinner etc.) I certainly don't feel that we were given sufficient information about the incident to give us confidence in wanting to return with them in the morning.

Thanks for any advice.