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

Mark987123

I have had my claim for the six hour delay on Monarch's ZB5477 Bordeaux to Birmingham on 27th July 2013 turned down. The reason given is:

[FONT=&quot]We can confirm that an aircraft from our fleet suffered a technical issue with the refuelling system on arrival at Sharm el Sheik when operating a previous flight rotation. The crew reported on arrival that fuel was venting from the right hand surge tank when the centre fuel pumps were running and a leak was subsequently located from the right hand vent surge valve. As a result of this leak the aircraft was declared unserviceable for safety reasons and we could not operate using this until the relevant rectification work was undertaken to the aircraft. The rectification work involved sourcing spare components which, along with adequate engineering resource, were transported by a hired light aircraft to rectify the fault. Due to the length of time involved to undertake the requisite rectification work the aircraft was unavoidably out of service for a lengthy period of time which then caused the unexpected delay of your own flight departure. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For your reference the fault which occurred was not caused by a failure to maintain the aircraft. The component which failed is considered ‘on condition’ which refers to parts which should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service. When parts such as this fail during normal operation when maintained in accordance with the relevant maintenance programme this is an unpredictable event. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Our operations team worked extremely hard to source an alternative Monarch or third party carrier’s aircraft to operate your flight however during this peak summer flying period there was no availability which would minimise the unavoidable disruption you suffered. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Having considered the factual background of this case in accordance with the published guidelines, 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].

Is this worth pursuing or not? What's my next move? Any help really appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark

111KAB

Mark987123 wrote: »

Is this worth pursuing or not? What's my next move? Any help really appreciated.

Mark being blunt - please do not put up with this (constant) rubbish from Monarch ... just read through this thread, take them to Court (as they won't help at any stage) and win. Add on all your costs and hopefully Monarch will understand that their paying clients will not be treated like idiots.

Vauban

I have to agree with 111KAB here: indeed this is possibly the worst defence I have ever seen Mobarch produce.

Let us charitably set aside the fact that if the technical failure is unpredictable, or if the part has been subject to routine maintenance, that this is irrelevant for determining by law whether it is extraordinary (cf Wallentin). But Lord God Almighty this fault occurred when?! A long time before your flight, I'll wager. And the fact that Monarch's operating schedule turns to poo the moment it loses a plane to a complex tech fault is not your fault: it reflects the lack of decent contingency planning. They owe you big time. As well as an apology for offering such an execrable defence.

JPears

Like he said.....:D

bazaar_2

Vauban wrote: »

I have to agree with 111KAB here: indeed this is possibly the worst defence I have ever seen Mobarch produce.

Let us charitably set aside the fact that if the technical failure is unpredictable, or if the part has been subject to routine maintenance, that this is irrelevant for determining by law whether it is extraordinary (cf Wallentin). But Lord God Almighty this fault occurred when?! A long time before your flight, I'll wager. And the fact that Monarch's operating schedule turns to poo the moment it loses a plane to a complex tech fault is not your fault: it reflects the lack of decent contingency planning. They owe you big time. As well as an apology for offering such an execrable defence.

totally agree, also, might be wrth checking with OP if their claim has been allocated to track yet, ( Yep, they folded, ive posted on the success thread)

MontyWomble

klint wrote: »

Thanks JP, this is interesting. It's a pity it's only a proposal. If it had already been made into a regulation, our lives would have been so much easier.

Some more background data about this proposal can be found here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013PC0130:EN:NOT

I think this proposal can be referred to as "COD 2013/0072". It was created on 13/3/2013.

If Monarch starts mentioning the NEBs' document in court, I think that instead of countering with a mention of the EU proposal, it would be better to just point out that the NEBs' document has no legal significance and should therefore be ignored. The judge would probably thank you for not wasting their time.

Sorry, what is an NEB?

My synopsis of this of this is that its only a proposal and not law and therefore can not be replied upon in court- this sound correct?

Vauban

MontyWomble wrote: »

Sorry, what is an NEB?

My synopsis of this of this is that its only a proposal and not law and therefore can not be replied upon in court- this sound correct?

I agree.

NEB is "National Enforcement Body"

111KAB

Mark - if this does go to Court then you should (amongst other matters) question their statements ....

Mark987123 wrote: »

[FONT=&quot] The component which failed is considered ‘on condition’ which refers to parts which should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service. When parts such as this fail during normal operation when maintained in accordance with the relevant maintenance programme this is an unpredictable event.

[/FONT]

Monarch mention an 'on condition' aspect which presumes there is written evidence to this effect ie a manual confirming same. You should request that they present evidence to this effect and it is just not something either they/their engineer has dreamt about.

Mark987123 wrote: »

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Our operations team worked extremely hard to source an alternative Monarch or third party carrier’s aircraft to operate your flight however during this peak summer flying period there was no availability which would minimise the unavoidable disruption you suffered. [/FONT]

Ask them to present written documentary evidence that they endeavoured to source a plane from a third party. Also ask them to provide evidence that their stand-by aircraft was being used elsewhere - or maybe they don't have a stand-by!

MontyWomble

Great, thank you!

toptree

Hi
Today I received a cheque for £1,707 for an eight hour delay on ZB743 (Gatwick - Malaga) on 7/10/12 and I am very grateful to the many people on this forum who helped me to get it.

My initial claim many months ago was rejected on the grounds of EC. I did not contact Monarch again but kept a very regular eye on this forum to keep up to date with how things were playing out. About six weeks ago I saw a postings from camelfish (2519) who had just received compensation on his flight which was the return flight from Malaga to Gatwick on 7/10 which was also delayed 8 hours. I sent an e- to Monarch, pointed out that compensation had been paid out to a passenger on the return leg of my flight & asked then to re-consider my case.

2 weeks ago i had a phone call & an e-mail to say a cheque would be issued & this has now been received.

In addition to Camelfish, my special thanks go to the regulars on this forum such as Mark2sparks, Centipede100 & Vauban who must have spent an unbelievable amount of time on this forum helping anonymous strangers such as myself with their claims. I am very grateful to you all.