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

CobyBenson

Tomkat wrote: »

Are Flightmole correct in that I cannot take this to court until the CAA have finished a review? CAA told me in June that this could take months

Absolute nonsense.

Don't wait around for the CAA, they won't help.

Tomkat

CobyBenson wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Don't wait around for the CAA, they won't help.

Thanks CB. I wasn't expecting anything from CAA but the more people bombard them with complaints the more likely they may decide to take action against those companies making the industry they represent look so bad.

Tomkat

Tomkat wrote: »

Thanks CB. I wasn't expecting anything from CAA but the more people bombard them with complaints the more likely they may decide to take action against those companies making the industry they represent look so bad.

Flightmole most definitelyremoved from my Christmas Card list along with Monarch
:xmassmile

tightrs

zb569 Tenerife to Manchester on the 27th august 2013 was delayed about 4.5 hours anyone else contacted monarch regarding this flight and/or the previous flight zb568 man to tenerife as to why they were delayed and if we were entitled to compensation.

111KAB

tightrs wrote: »

zb569 Tenerife to Manchester on the 27th august 2013 was delayed about 4.5 hours anyone else contacted monarch regarding this flight and/or the previous flight zb568 man to tenerife as to why they were delayed and if we were entitled to compensation.

Might be worth you posting on the Monarch Complaints Facebook Page as well.

Sherratthead

klint wrote: »

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-203_en.htm

I think a key sentence is:

"A threshold of three hours is in most cases too short for spare parts or replacement aircraft to be flown in, especially for technical failures at an airport away from a carrier's bases."

This implies that technical failures are never extraordinary circumstances, since, if they were, there would be no compensation anyway.

I've just received this email from Monarch... Saying that the delays we had (5.5 hours & 22 hours) WERE caused by extraordinary circumstances! From the quote above re someone else's claim, I'd say they're wrong...

They talk only about the departure from Manchester (5.5 hours), and a replacement crew etc... Nothing about the 22 hour delay coming back, due to the new part having to be flown over to Skiathos (where the plane had finally given up the ghost)...

And what about the last bit - are they trying to scare me!

"Please note that the contents of this letter and the circumstances surrounding your delay are strictly confidential".

Can anyone advise me on the next step? Obviously I'm going to go back to them, but is there any template letter or specific way of doing this?

Thanks, Jayne


Dear Mr Bailey,

Re: MON1874 Manchester to Mytilene 20th July 2013

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that the aircraft operating your flight suffered a power failure to the fuelling panel on the aircraft. Engineers attended the aircraft and started remedial works as soon as possible, however, due to the length of time taken to rectify the fault the original crew would have exceeded their maximum duty time and as such a replacement crew were called in to operate your flight. Despite our best efforts this led to an unavoidable delay to the departure of your flight.

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.

All flight delays are fully documented in accordance with the requirements of our regulator and the relevant legislation in place. Please note that this documentation cannot be disclosed to passengers nonetheless we actively supply this to the Civil Aviation Authority and National Enforcement Bodies upon request.

Please note that the contents of this letter and the circumstances surrounding your delay are strictly confidential.


Yours sincerely




EU Claims Team
Monarch Airlines

Mark2spark

Sorry Sherratthead (Jayne?) just to clarify, have you two claims against Monarch, for the outbound at 5.5 hours, and the return (a week later?) at 22 hours? Or are you just the return sector of the 5.5 hour delay?

Issuma

Sherratthead and I were involved in the same delay, Jayne was delayed on her outbound (5.5 hours) journey and then her return journey - which was my outbound journey I was delayed in Manchester for 23 hours and Jayne was delayed in Mytilene for the same amount of time as she was waiting to come home, in the letter she has received they seem to have totally overlooked her second delay could they be being dealt with as seperate issues or is this just standard delaying tac tics ???

My complaint is only for the one delay on flight MON 1874 for 23 hours but as yet we haven't heard anything !!!

klint

Sherratthead wrote: »

I've just received this email from Monarch... Saying that the delays we had (5.5 hours & 22 hours) WERE caused by extraordinary circumstances! From the quote above re someone else's claim, I'd say they're wrong...

They talk only about the departure from Manchester (5.5 hours), and a replacement crew etc... Nothing about the 22 hour delay coming back, due to the new part having to be flown over to Skiathos (where the plane had finally given up the ghost)...

The cause appears to be a technical fault that was probably caused during the normal operation of the airline, so the airline needs to compensate you for this, unless they can prove that it was an extraordinary circumstance for some other reason (which they haven't told you about in their letter).

You have two separate claims, and you should expect another letter from Monarch about the return flight. I am not sure if you can take them to a single court hearing for both claims. I don't see why not. But from what I see on this forum, Monarch's claim team seems to be geared to deal with only one claim at a time.

For template letters etc. see all the other posts in this forum, in particular the FAQ near the start. Your next step is a Notice Before Action, though in this case I'm not sure if you should wait for Monarch's rejection of your second claim and issue a single NBA for both claims.

(btw I'm still learning about legal procedures, so excuse me for being vague)

Aedus

Please note that the contents of this letter and the circumstances surrounding your delay are strictly confidential.

:rotfl: Every damn time.