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

friendofbillw2

statictom wrote: »

I would like to have a copy for when i go to court, just in case

I would suggest everyone has a FULL COPY of this document, including page 1 (given the airlines' penchant for a selective quote or two) with them when they go to court.

statictom

Vauban;62722670]It there literally in red caps locks, at the top of the document. Not sure how you'd miss it ...

SORRY, got it now. Got mixed up with the Air Passengers Rights REvision - Frequently asked questions on Memo/13/203.

Much obliged.

Vauban

statictom wrote: »

SORRY, got it now. Got mixed up with the Air Passengers Rights REvision - Frequently asked questions on Memo/13/203.

Much obliged.

I have this afternoon written to the European Commission to enquire about both the provenance and the status of this odd document. I will let you know what they say ...

LBD

[QUOTE=NSKT;62714267]Hi All

Monarch defence received today -

1) The defendant was at all material times acting in the capacity of an airline carrier for the purpose of these proceedings.STANDARD APPEARS IN JUST ABOUT ALL DEFENCES

2) The claimant is put to proof as to whether she was actually on the said flight..SAME AS ABOVE...SAR THEM FOR ALL THE DETAILS THEY HOLD ON YOU...

3) Subject to paragaraph 2,the defendnat admits that the claimants flight was delayed AGAIN STANDARD... ALL THIS WAS IN MINE...

4) The Defendant denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all and intends to rely upon the defence of extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004.

5) The aircraft scheduled to operate the claimant's flight suffered a power surge when the Ground Power unit (GPU) was fit which caused damage to the aircraft prior to the claimant's flight.The GPU powers the
aircraft when on stand when the aircraft is not being powered by the engines or Auxiliary Power Unit.

6) The Defendanat submits that upon start-up of the aircraft there was a power surge which was caused by the GPU.Consequently this surge damaged computers on-board the aircraft and the BPCU (Bus power control Unit) which controls the GPU power to the aircraft buses.The buses distribute the power around the aircarft electrical systems.
As such the aircraft was decalred unserviceable and required immediate engineering rectification.The Defendant submits that this unexpected flight safety shortcoming is an extraordinary circumstance.

7) The defendant submits that it has a full defence to the claimant's claim under Article 5 (3) of Regulation 261/2004 which states 'an operating carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with
Article 7,if it can prove that the cancellation (delay) is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken'.

8) The Defendant intends to rely upon the decison in Walletin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v.Alitalia) where the
court held that "technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extenet that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control". Moreover the court held 'the resoultion of a technical problem caused by the failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity'.The Defendant submits that the power surge was clearly not as a result of a failure to maintain the aircraft.On the contrary the
damage was caused by a 3rd party,therefore such a fault is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraorinary and clealrly unpredictable.

9) Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the test of Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia).Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal,it would not have been able... to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted',from leading the delay.The Defendant submits it has deployed all its resources and fianancial means at its disposal to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay.

10) The Defendant also intends to rely upon the decision of Eglitis v. Latvijas Republikas ministrija at para 35 where the ECJ held that the Regulations cannot result in airlines beingled to make intolerable sacrifices.

11) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

12) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.

13) The Defendant admits that the Claimant have an inherent right to interest subject to liability being established.

Any thoughts on how this would stand up in court and feedback will be most welcome.[/QUOTE]

ALL THEIR USUAL ANSWERS.....

DOWN LOAD WALLENTIN AND ALL YOUR ANSWERS ARE IN THAT.....

LBD

:

WHY ARE JUDGES LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS,? :mad:

Because they are human, and are interpreting things as they see them, it is up to YOU the claimant to take them by the hand and lead them to the correct evidence...

To all new claimants, when you are in court make reference to the NEW CPR rules of June this year...........which instructs the courts to treat all parties equally........

It means that if ordered to submit by a due date then both parties must abide, not just one. and late evidence from either party cannot be allowed......

Sadly there are a couple of cases that should not have failed and did because of the judge.......might I suggest going back to the CAA and contacting your MP.....

Hell even write to the circut judge and point out the errors that occurred........

Vauban

LBD wrote: »

:

WHY ARE JUDGES LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS,? :mad:

Because they are human, and are interpreting things as they see them, it is up to YOU the claimant to take them by the hand and lead them to the correct evidence...

To all new claimants, when you are in court make reference to the NEW CPR rules of June this year...........which instructs the courts to treat all parties equally........

It means that if ordered to submit by a due date then both parties must abide, not just one. and late evidence from either party cannot be allowed......

Sadly there are a couple of cases that should not have failed and did because of the judge.......might I suggest going back to the CAA and contacting your MP.....

Hell even write to the circut judge and point out the errors that occurred........

I wish you were my Chief Prosecutor, LBD!!:D

433Barbara

LBD wrote: »

:

WHY ARE JUDGES LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS,? :mad:

Because they are human, and are interpreting things as they see them, it is up to YOU the claimant to take them by the hand and lead them to the correct evidence...

To all new claimants, when you are in court make reference to the NEW CPR rules of June this year...........which instructs the courts to treat all parties equally........

It means that if ordered to submit by a due date then both parties must abide, not just one. and late evidence from either party cannot be allowed......


Thanks for this but .. I still don't understand......if both parties must abide by due dates then why is that Monarch submit late evidence etc it is allowed...... as in the last few threads

Again, I'm only guessing but if I had to take for instance a garage to small claims because they didn't repair my turbo engine correctly..... would I be expected to know the in's and out's of a turbo engine and be cross referenced etc.......

No disrespect to anyone but I thought the whole idea of taking someone to the small claims court (if we thought/had a right/valid claim) was one that we were wronged and that we didn't/shouldn't have to justify or account for ourselves............... I think the fact that we possibly have to know the in's and out's of very judgment etc is ludicrous... but perhaps its just me )

angie_muscio

Hi All
Having read the article in a newspaper some months ago regarding the possibility of flight compensation, we wrote to Monarch regarding a flight from Alicante to London Gatwick nearly two years ago. We were delayed many hours. Monarch replied and sent us forms to complete. The reply thereafter was,


Our records show that due to wheel damage rendering an aircraft unserviceable andunsafe to fly, there were insufficient aircraft within the fleet to enable usto operate your flight on time. Engineers attended the aircraft andestablished that the number one wheel balance weight had come adrift on landingcausing damage to the wheel heat shield, brake unit and pressure hose. As aconsequence, your departure from Alicante was unavoidably delayed. However, inorder to reduce the delay and minimise disruption, we transferred passengersfrom your flight on to the first available aircraft from within our fleet. Yourflight then departed at the earliest opportunity once the replacement aircrafthad completed its previous flying commitments.



Having considered the factual backgroundof this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by anextraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented byMonarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim forcompensation for the reasons given.

We wrote again ,basically saying this was rubbish .The next reply stated that the current legal interpretation of the Eu regulation means that there are various causes of delay which can be considered extraordinary .The letter then states we may choose to consider further action - but what ??
Any suggestion son where to go next gratefully received.
Thanks
Angie

111KAB

angie_muscio wrote: »

Any suggestion son where to go next gratefully received.

Double post - have replied here > https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62729786#Comment_62729786

but you are now on the correct thread so go back to page one and start from there

David_e

433Barbara wrote: »

To all new claimants, when you are in court make reference to the NEW CPR rules of June this year...........which instructs the courts to treat all parties equally........

I fond this:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil

but on a quick look couldn't see the bit you refer to. Have you got a link please?