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

JPears

:T:j:beer::j:T

Adie_Cartwright

Please add ZB535 (PMI - MAN 7/10/2012) to your list of successful claims. Unfortunately I'm still having to drag Monarch through the courts for ZB534 (MAN - PMI 30/09/2012) which I expected would be the most likely success of my two claims.

lw7876

Another success - I have today received a cheque for £1,556 in full settlement of our claim for the above flight. My initial post on this forum with full details of the delay is number 760, but in short, we were delayed by 7 hours, and our initial claim was rejected for ec's due to a technical fault on a flight the previous day.

We had to go all the way to a small claims court hearing. We were instructed to submit papers 14 days prior to the hearing; we submitted our pack via recorded delivery 16 days prior; and received Monarch's 7 days prior.

On the day of the hearing, my husband said that on his train from London there was a smartly dressed man who said to someone he knew, "I've had one of these delayed flight cases thrown at me today, I'm not a happy bunny" - so it was Monarch's barrister.

Our hearing was at 2pm but we'd arrived very early (1:15pm), as had Monarch's barrister. When we were waiting outside the district judges room, he came over to introduce himself and gave us printouts of a couple of judgements that had not been previously submitted - I asked if he had submitted these to the court too and he said "I am allowed to give materials at this stage". ????

The usher called us in and the barrister chose that moment (2pm) to say to the usher "I just need the loo, is that ok?" - the usher was not happy but let him go, and he went off to the loo, taking his mobile with him, obviously making a call.

Finally got into judges room about 2:05pm. No sooner had we sat down, the judge asked him if he had defended Monarch in a claim brought by Mr and Mrs X in another court three weeks prior, for the EXACT same flight. The barrister said he wasn't aware of this; the judge then told him that he should be aware of it, because the judge in that case, who is a QC and the most senior judge in our region, had decided in favour of the claimant, and so as the circumstances were identical, he was going to rule in our favour.

The barrister asked what that case had been decided on - judge read out the judgement and said it was decided firstly on late submission of documents "which also applies in this case today", but that the judge had read through the submitted evidence and still found in favour of the claimant.

The judge asked the barrister if he was aware of an appeal having been lodged against the prior judgement, in which case we could delay our case. The barrister had no idea, and the judge again said well you should have an idea! He allowed a short recess to let the barrister make a phone call to determine what was going on.

When we went back into the judges room the barrister said that as far as he was aware there had been no appeal made, and that "appealing is not always economically viable". The judge was not happy with this comment and said "That is not my problem! If you do not appeal, for whatever reason, you have accepted the decision of the judge and therefore you cannot ask me to make an opposing judgement for the exact same circumstances".

The barrister then tried another tack and said "but sir, county court does not set precedent" and the judge said, "no it does not, but the judge in the prior case is the most senior judge on the circuit and I will not disagree with his verdict. I therefore find in favour of the claimants".

The barrister asked for permission to appeal, which was denied. He said "If you wish to take it to a higher level then that is your prerogative but I would caution you against questioning a senior opinion such as that of Judge xxx".

The barrister tried to say this case was not being decided on merits of evidence and the judge said that even without the preceiding case, he had reviewed our submitted materials and was satisfied that ruling in our favour was the correct course of action.

We received the judgement order instructing Monarch to pay us by 14th August; needless to say we only received the cheque today (31st).

I apologise for the length of this post but hope that it gives those still pursuing their cases some encouragement! I don't think I said more than 10 words for the whole hearing but it was very satisfying to see that justice was done in such a fashion! I cannot thank the regular posters on here enough, the helpful links and strategy pointers have been invaluable.

Good luck!

Perrywin19

Any one on the flight from sharm to Gatwick 25th July 2013 that was delayed 34 hours ( flight ZB249) due to fuel leaking out on runway as we were boarding?

I ve submitted claim forms will await response, no doubt be "extra ordinary circumstances "

JPears

lw7876 wrote: »

Another success - I have today received a cheque for £1,556 in full settlement of our claim for the above flight. My initial post on this forum with full details of the delay is number 760, but in short, we were delayed by 7 hours, and our initial claim was rejected for ec's due to a technical fault on a flight the previous day.


I apologise for the length of this post but hope that it gives those still pursuing their cases some encouragement! I don't think I said more than 10 words for the whole hearing but it was very satisfying to see that justice was done in such a fashion! I cannot thank the regular posters on here enough, the helpful links and strategy pointers have been invaluable.

Good luck!

Shocking legal team for defendant, sweeping generalisation but barristers seem to be under the impression that their mere presence in a small claims court ensures success for their client. That's going to have cost Monarch a great deal of money and serves them right.
Good to see a judge with common sense approach.

lw7876

JPears wrote: »

Shocking legal team for defendant, sweeping generalisation but barristers seem to be under the impression that their mere presence in a small claims court ensures success for their client. That's going to have cost Monarch a great deal of money and serves them right.
Good to see a judge with common sense approach.

Agreed. It was intimidating for us to have to attend court with no legal knowledge or representation, and we felt there were a few tactics in play - e.g. handing us papers immediately prior to the hearing; going off to the loo at the last minute! His overheard comment on the train suggests he had only just found out he was defending the case anyway, which as JPears says suggests they assume they can just send a barrister in and win. I imagine a barrister will still get paid their retainer or fee regardless of the outcome, but thankfully, we had a great judge.

111KAB

lw7876 wrote: »

Agreed. It was intimidating for us to have to attend court with no legal knowledge or representation, and we felt there were a few tactics in play - e.g. handing us papers immediately prior to the hearing; going off to the loo at the last minute!. I imagine a barrister will still get paid their retainer or fee regardless of the outcome, but thankfully, we had a great judge.

Due to Monarch 'forgetting' to include relevant information in their first submission to the Court we had two hearings with different barristers. Both barristers confirmed that they had only received instructions from their chambers, by email, the night before the case. The first barrister did present his skeleton statement but I believe this was more as an aid to him as he was not up to speed with 261/2004. He said he had done around 2 hours research the night before and his journey to Court was an hour and a half each way - Leicester to Worcester. For the first Court hearing we were in Court for 3 hours so added to his journey/research time this makes 8 hours. Whilst we were in Court I quizzed him on his rates - he wouldn't tell me but said his chambers charged him out at somewhere between £75 and £300 per hour.
The second barrister came from Birmingham chambers and in total he spent 4 hours travelling and in Court and it was apparent from his presentation that he had spent zero hours researching as he didn't know the relevant law full stop!
So I had 12 hours of barristers/Monarch time plus all the background solicitor, engineer statements, correspondence rubbish when I would have readily settled for 400€. Critics of 261/2004 say it will push up prices - I think this waste of money shows what will push up prices.

lw7876

111KAB wrote: »

....So I had 12 hours of barristers/Monarch time plus all the background solicitor, engineer statements, correspondence rubbish when I would have readily settled for 400€. Critics of 261/2004 say it will push up prices - I think this waste of money shows what will push up prices.

My understanding of 261/2004 is to show airlines that they need to factor potential delays into their schedules - stop treating paying customers like cattle and if you can't deliver an on time flight, then at least show them respect and pay their legally due compensation without forcing them to jump through hoops and go through the courts.

If I could turn back time, I would much rather have had to pay an extra say £50 per person for our flights and be assured of a punctual departure, rather than sitting in Malaga airport on a 30C day for 7 hours, with €48 for refreshments for myself, my husband and two preschool children. Yes we've been succesful and won our compensation, but the issue still remains that the airlines are not being held accountable for the distress caused daily to thousands of passengers. Until that is sorted out, or until every single delayed passenger claims and wins their rightful compensation, then nothing will really change.

JPears

lw7876 wrote: »

My understanding of 261/2004 is to show airlines that they need to factor potential delays into their schedules - stop treating paying customers like cattle and if you can't deliver an on time flight, then at least show them respect and pay their legally due compensation without forcing them to jump through hoops and go through the courts.

If I could turn back time, I would much rather have had to pay an extra say £50 per person for our flights and be assured of a punctual departure, rather than sitting in Malaga airport on a 30C day for 7 hours, with €48 for refreshments for myself, my husband and two preschool children. Yes we've been succesful and won our compensation, but the issue still remains that the airlines are not being held accountable for the distress caused daily to thousands of passengers. Until that is sorted out, or until every single delayed passenger claims and wins their rightful compensation, then nothing will really change.

I have been saying this for the past 3 months.....
The EC made it law 8 years ago....

Aedus

lw7876 wrote: »

Yes we've been succesful and won our compensation, but the issue still remains that the airlines are not being held accountable for the distress caused daily to thousands of passengers. Until that is sorted out, or until every single delayed passenger claims and wins their rightful compensation, then nothing will really change.

I don't see what you want to happen, really.

I think the problem is people and the compensation culture, not airlines. The way the ruling is set up currently is ridiculous, can you really to fault airlines for not taking a sympathetic hand for every passenger? I'm sure lots of people were claiming they were distressed from being delayed 3 hours and 1 minute too, how does an airline differentiate between someone who had a 3 hour delay, who's just making a claim for free money, or someone who was delayed 7+ hours and it ruined a day of their holiday? They can't. Circumstances are different, but they will treat every case as the passenger trying to get money from them, sometimes they are getting back more than 10x the amount they paid for the flight in the first place, so how can you blame them?

At the end of the day airlines are a business and their goal is to make money, if every single person who was ever delayed was paid with no quibble from Airlines, many would go bust. What does that mean? The ones who do stay in business will just increase prices to make-up for the losses from the claims, and a large chunk of people won't even be able to afford to go on holiday anymore. Is that what you want to happen?