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

klint

111KAB wrote: »

Issuma - off to court I'm afraid - as Monarch say these are EU 'guidelines' - not law. The law is Wallentin which is on your side.

And as you'll note from the Monarch Complaints page on Facebook, the EU are concerned that some airlines appear to be applying these "guidelines" incorrectly and has referred them to the Directorate General.

rocketman80

Hi guys, after a little advice on claiming.

Sent off the standard letter claiming for the long delay my flight had (Flight number ZB568 Manchester to Tenerife 23rd July 2013)

Got the standard letter back today with this added in:

Our records show that your flight was delayed due to the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffering impact damage prior to its arrival in Manchester, the aircraft was hit by a highloader and incurred damage to the forward cargo door. As a result and in order to minimise the disruption to your flight, our operations team arranged for your flight to be transferred to the first available aircraft within the Monarch Airlines fleer

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.

Can I still pursue this? Or is it extraordinary circumstances?

Any advice greatly received!

Stunty

Vauban

Stunty:http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58530703&postcount=4

rocketman80

Thanks Vauban, so... from what I can see, they're trying to make me go away??

Still a bit confused by all that legal/technical stuff lol

Dr_Watson

Vauban wrote: »

It's definitely my favourite thread of the lot: and I look forward to writing the next exciting installment next Tuesday, as my own case finally comes to a head.

As the continuity announcer might say, "Will it be Vauban Vanquished or Vauban Victorious? Tune in next week ..."

Best of luck....
Pity the poor person who'll be rocking up for the rumble with yourself come Tuesday.....
In fact no I don't ....not at all...

Enjoy..

Vauban

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Best of luck....
Pity the poor person who'll be rocking up for the rumble with yourself come Tuesday.....
In fact no I don't ....not at all...

Enjoy..

Actually, it looks like they're fielding a London-based barrister with extensive experience of aviation law. The skelton argument (received today) is a very well written - if fundamentally flawed - document. I think this is going to be a most interesting dance ...

Dr_Watson

Vauban wrote: »

Actually, it looks like they're fielding a London-based barrister with extensive experience of aviation law. The skelton argument (received today) is a very well written - if fundamentally flawed - document. I think this is going to be a most interesting dance ...

Hmm,
Well written but fundamentally flawed.
Sounds like par for the course regarding the majority of skeleton arguments.
Fundamentally flawed....Enjoy!
Interesting dance? Like a dance with the devil in the pale moonlight...back to the smoke with you ....

BubbaUK

Hi, Sorry guys, Forum Newbie Alert

My family and I flew out to Rhodes on May 9th 2012 from Gatwick (Flight number MON7014). Our flight was delayed for a little over 8 hours. After reading this forum, and Martin's emails I put in a 4 person claim for compensation earlier this month.
Monarch replied after 22 days (which judging by some of the posts in this thread is a fast reply!), rejecting my claim, citing the reason as :

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a partial instrument failure while en route to Palma on its previous flight. This prevented the aircraft from returning to London Gatwick as there was low visibility at the airport. The flight was diverted to Manchester where the instrument was replaced. Having completed repairs, the flight continued to London Gatwick and thus incurred the delay to the scheduled time of departure of your flight. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers to an alternative aircraft from within our fleet.
Having considered the factual background of this case, 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.

My question is "what's my next step" ?
Can I take this to the CAA, or should I go down the "14 days notice of Court Action" route?


Any advice (good or bad) gratefully received


...Bubba...

Mark2spark

Bubba.
NBA, and then court.
They've gotta be kidding! Not even the flight before yours, but the flight before that? Jeez....

rocketman80

Right so, I need to send a second letter to them with a time limit and then start court proceedings? Is that right?