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

greylib

Flight ZB978 Birmingham - Malaga 15th October 2012

We arrived a couple of hours before the flight was due to leave at 15:05. The flight board showed it as "on time". By the time we'd checked in, it was showing an hour's delay. Then 90 minutes. Then two and a half hours. We finally took off (and arrived) just over four hours late. A £5 voucher each, which arrived too late to be put towards the meal we'd just had (we bought a couple of desserts and still had to pay extra on top). No explanations, no apologies.

Until I found this site, we'd been seething about it for most of a year. I spent a couple of instructive days(!) reading this entire thread - I'm a lot less patient with stupid questions than the experts on here, so decided not to post until I had something to say.

I adapted the template complaint letter and posted it on Friday 2nd August. Standard email reply on Wednesday 7th, asking us to fill in a form. Two forms, one for each of us. The letter was fairly pointless - everything in it had to be repeated on the form. With hindsight, I could have saved a couple of days and a stamp by emailing the complaint to euclaim-at-monarch.co.uk.

I emailed the form, plus passport & booking confirmation, on the Wednesday evening, and waited. They'd asked for 28 days, but (after a small kick) replied on September 5 - 27 days:

---USUAL BLAH SNIPPED---

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was delayed in returning to Birmingham from Rome, the previous destination, due to an original error made in the seating arrangements for passengers requiring wheelchairs on the flight; incorrect and unsuitable seats were allocated by the handling agents at check-in. The time taken to seat passengers correctly and safely meant that the Captain was required to uplift additional fuel to the aircraft. Roman airport authorities required that passengers disembark before re-fuelling could commence. Once complete, passengers were able to re-board in order for the flight to depart.

Upon ‘push-back’, however, the aircraft was required to return to the stand due to a nose wheel steering fault. Monarch engineers inspected the damage and in addition local authorities carried out a routine ‘Safety Audit of Foreign Aircraft’, or ‘SAFA’. Engineers were able to rectify the fault and attend to the minor issues revealed by the audit in order for the flight to depart, albeit with a delay. However, unfortunately this meant that the aircraft was not in position in Birmingham in time for your flight, leading to a delay in the scheduled departure time.

It was also unfortunate that despite Monarch’s best efforts there was no availability to transfer passengers on your flight to the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet. In addition the timescales involved in chartering an aircraft from a third party operator would have only served to increase the length of your delay. As a consequence, your flight departed at the earliest opportunity on the original aircraft.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably prevented by Monarch and as a consequence I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

I replied that I was not satisfied with their explanation, whereupon they sent this:

We do understand your disappointment by the outcome of your claim. We can assure you that your claim was thoroughly investigated in line with the applicable legalisation. However, as the European Commission’s (EC) have now issued guidelines regarding extraordinary circumstances we have reviewed your claim again in line with these.

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.

In direct reference to the recently released EC guidelines regarding extraordinary circumstances you will note that failure of on-condition monitored parts when they have been correctly maintained in addition to any technical defect which becomes apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight are considered an extraordinary circumstance.

Following this review we are satisfied that our initial assessment of your claim was correct and delay compensation will not be paid.

For your information please find attached the link for the EC guidelines we have referred to.
[LINK REMOVED AS I'M A FIRST-TIME POSTER]

Back to the trusty FAQs again, to compose this ...

Delayed Flight Compensation - NOTICE BEFORE ACTION
Re : ZB978 Birmingham - Malaga 15th October 2012
Flight delay: 241 minutes
Your reference xxxxxx
Amount claimed: €400 per passenger

The Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia judgment of 22nd December 2008 states, briefly, that:

The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

Likewise, Christopher Sturgeon & others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH of 19th November 2009 says:

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

In an appeal from the above Sturgeon case, the ECJ Grand Chamber ruled on 23rd October 2012:

Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are entitled to compensation under that regulation where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.

We will be basing our case on the above rulings. The original error was by your own handling agents, which cannot be considered a circumstance beyond your control. The problem did not even occur on our flight, but on a previously-timetabled flight – EC regulation 261/2004 specifically refers to problems with “the flight concerned”, implicitly ruling out such knock-on events.

In general, these and other rulings say that airlines must be prepared for such events, as being a normal part of the business. Your business model involves keeping your aircraft in the sky for as many hours as possible – short turn-around times and no reserves. The Flightstats website [LINK REMOVED etc.] shows that our flight ZB978 scores 0.8 out of a possible 5, with an average delay of 88 minutes. On that basis, a four-hour delay doesn’t sound like an “extraordinary circumstance”, does it?

If you have any further comments, please let us know within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Should you neither settle our claim in full nor provide a full defence to the claim within the above timescale, we reserve the right to issue legal proceedings without giving you further notice in writing. Please bear in mind that as soon as the courts are involved, the costs to yourselves increase - court filing fees, expenses, interest claimed - plus, of course, your own costs in preparing for the case and defending it.

That was a week ago. Any bets on whether I'll hear anything from them in the fortnight I specified?

Vauban

I think you are unlikely to reason the airline into submission - and I don't sense that you have any illusions on that score either!

The guidelines are of course hokum: as I've posted elsewhere, they are draft, not agreed by all the NEBs, and run counter both to law and to the views of the European Parliament and the Commission.

111KAB

Vauban wrote: »

I think you are unlikely to reason the airline into submission - and I don't sense that you have any illusions on that score either!

The guidelines are of course hokum: as I've posted elsewhere, they are draft, not agreed by all the NEBs, and run counter both to law and to the views of the European Parliament and the Commission.

Succinct and accurate response from Vauban to your well worded post greylib - I just wish other first time posters would be as up to speed as you are. There is also a Facebook Complaints Page upon which your views/comments may well benefit others ~ see

https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints

Best wishes for a successful outcome. If you do proceed via the Court route please PM me as I probably have transcripts etc which may assist.

greeneyedlad

I feel sick to my stomach, Iv just had delivered 2 days before we go to court a recorded delivery letter stating that Thomson have sacked their first firm of lawyers & employed another to represent them & Monarch against me.
They have included their defence this time which they had not before (& they dont have 2 in Scotland for the first court date.)

I am so shocked to see their response to my particulars of claim where they have denied every point;

1) Denied we travelled on the flight.
Stated the flight was only 2hrs 53mins late.

2) Admitted that the OAC is responsible under the Regulation to make compensation where applicable - QUOAD ULTRA DENIED
3) Where I requested the court to order the defendant responsible for obstructing due process 2 pay any costs associated with verifying the identity of the OAC -QUOAD ULTRA DENIED
4) Denied we booked the holiday under our reference
5) Denied we checked onto flight.

Again state scheduled arrival 2020hrs. Actually landed 2309hrs & arrived at stand 2313hrs, so it was only 2hrs 53mins late.

6) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is referred to for its whole terms beyond which no admission is made. - QUOAD ULTRA DENIED
7) Denied Thomson blamed Monarch, & the Monarch blamed Thomson
8) Denied I warned them that proceedings would b issued against them jointly
9) Denied loss & damage suffered & it is the OAC's legal obligation under the regulation to compensate. - Reference is made to the averments in answers 1, 5 and 6.
10) Denied 8% interest

I cant believe this.
How can they say we never booked the holiday, we never checked onto, or travelled on the flight?
I have proof of most of the things they are denying, but how can I prove we checked in & actually was on the flight?

Also what really worries me is that on www.flightstats.co.uk it only says Scheduled departure 4.40pm. Actually departed 7.48pm. (Which is 3hrs 8mins late.)
Scheduled arrival 9.20pm. But does not give Actual arrival time.
To be honest the Scheduled arrival time is wrong on Flight Stats because Gran Canaria is the same time as the UK, not 1hr ahead as Spain mainland. (But 2120hrs is also the time given on my booking so im not too worried about this)
How can I prove the actual Arrival time if its not on Flight Stats? All its proving is that it was 3hrs & 8mins late in departing!
IS THIS ENOUGH? IS THIS ALL I HAVE TO PROVE, THAT I WAS DELAYED OVER 3 HOURS DEPARTING??


In Flight Stats General Flight Notes it says:

• We have one or more data sources for this flight, but we encountered a technical problem while trying determine the final status.

Should I b worried about this also, that their info might b incorrect??

Am I stuffed if I cant prove the actual arrival time?


I emailed Flight Stats & they emailed back;


Hi Martin,
Thank you for contacting FlightStats Help Desk.
Our terms and conditions prohibit the use of FlightStats Services or the FlightStats Data for any passenger rights claims actions, for example actions pursuant to EU Regulation 261/2004.
Please see:
http://www.flightstats.com/About/termsOfUse.do
Best regards and happy travels,
Jeff Moyer
FlightStats


Iv also emailed Edinburgh Airport, but no reply yet.
Im shaking like a leaf about going to court in 2 days now

111KAB

greeneyedlad - perhaps if you post more than once you may get a different answer - presume this is your tactic!

greeneyedlad

111KAB wrote: »

greeneyedlad - perhaps if you post more than once you may get a different answer - presume this is your tactic!

No I post in both Thomson AND Monarch because as Iv said before the holiday was booked with Thomson but at the last minute they drafted in a Monarch Aircraft, BUT the flight number was still TOM, not MON.
When I wrote to Thomson they said Monarch was responsible, & when I wrote to Monarch they said Thomson was responsible.
So Im taking them both to court for the judge to decide.

richardw

greeneyedlad wrote: »

..the holiday was booked with Thomson but at the last minute they drafted in a Monarch Aircraft, BUT the flight number was still TOM, not MON.
When I wrote to Thomson they said Monarch was responsible, & when I wrote to Monarch they said Thomson was responsible.
So Im taking them both to court for the judge to decide.

Would a Judge suggest that you should have read Recital 7

"(7) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis."

of http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML and have made some kind of decision on a way forward?

greylib

111KAB wrote: »

Succinct and accurate response from Vauban to your well worded post greylib - I just wish other first time posters would be as up to speed as you are. There is also a Facebook Complaints Page upon which your views/comments may well benefit others.

Best wishes for a successful outcome. If you do proceed via the Court route please PM me as I probably have transcripts etc which may assist.

Thank you for that. Still no word, so I'll probably be heading to court, in which case I'll be PMing you for help.

I don't use facebook at the moment, but your link might be the final push to get me to sign up - a lot of good stuff there!

Part of me hopes that they cave without me having to go to court. I have a lot of other things on the go, and I really don't want to spend too much time on this.

Mostly, though, I hope they carry on stonewalling. I was angry with them before, but after reading this entire thread and seeing how they treat their customers, I'm spoiling for a fight :mad:

Karb

I'm a little confused by the court costs.

I filled out the MCOL fee, and paid £70. I've now received the date for my hearing, along with a request for £110.

Can anyone advise please?

klint

Karb wrote: »

I'm a little confused by the court costs.

I filled out the MCOL fee, and paid £70. I've now received the date for my hearing, along with a request for £110.

Can anyone advise please?

There are several types of court fee and they're all listed in Form EX50. The £70 that you've already paid was for starting a claim online. Then there is a further fee of £110 for the hearing, which you wouldn't have to pay if the defendant had admitted your claim. The court fees are normally added to the final compensation if you win the case.