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

JPears

derby4ever wrote: »

absolutely gutted as I lost my case today.Judge decided both knock on flights prior to mine were extraordinary including an hydraulic leak that monarch themselves in defence said were in top 3 issues that delay there flights.
Even all my arguments for reasonable measures were declined including lack of parts like the hydraulic pipe repair kit that was needed even though some parts took 6 hours in a taxi from Luton to Manchester.Judge said it was not possible for airlines to keep all spares at all airports.My argument for lack of re-routing and Monarch dry leasing was rejected saying Monarch were in height of holiday season and they could not be expected to offer this to a full plane of passengers.Very disappointed as my first Judge in original case seemed quite on side of the passenger and todays case had new Judge who,well we know the out come.
Want to say big thanks Vauban,Mark2spark and 111KAB all especially and everyone else who contributes to this forum.
I would still encourage people to take on the airlines and believe with my recent experiences we are starting to have an impact on making the airlines think twice before messing passengers about.
From my experience its all down to the Judge on the day with which direction they want to go and side they sway for.
NEBs was big part of there defence and engineers report.Judge said he would use NEBs but only as guidance after I had highlighted was not law and European court removal from website,etc.
Keep fighting everybody and don't be deterred by there objections the tide will turn in our favour especially when the NEBs guidance is readdressed.
Disappointed but content I took on Monarch

Commiserations mate, at least you had a go and can take some satisfaction in the costs they will have incurred.
My own view is that part of the problem with small claims is when judge sums up, you have no right or ability to question the conclusions the judge draws from the submissions made. So what if it was the height of the holiday season? Even more reason why an airline should ensure it has the capacity to cope with increased demand! They certainly have now problem with charging you extortionate fares during the peak holiday season!

klint

derby4ever wrote: »

absolutely gutted as I lost my case today.

Commiserations D4E, but a huge thanks for reporting this. It will be a great help to the rest of us, who are waiting for a court hearing. Knowing the thought processes of some of the judges who rule in the airlines' favour will help to make us more prepared to refute those arguments.

Brace_Yourself

Re: Flight ZB228 Gatwick to Palma 23rd August 2013

Have just had response from Monarch claiming extrodainary circumstances, claiming as follows:

"
Our records show that your flight was delayed as a result of a structural damage being found on the left wing upper surface panel shortly prior to you departure. Engineers contacted the manufacturer (Airbus) who advised the aircraft should be taken out of service until a full repair could be carried out. As a result our operations team made arrangements for a rescue aircraft operated by a third party carrier, to operate your flight on our behalf. Despite our best efforts this event led to an unavoidable delay to the departure of your flight."

Without knowing more about the damage itself it's difficult to judge, but I'm thinking of persuing with a NBA. Any thoughts or prior cases on structural damage as EC?

LBD

D4e sorry to hear that you were not successful in court, it is so very unfair, it really is down to individual judges on a particular day...

as klnt said at least whilst you did not get your compensation, but, you cost them a considerable financial dent.

klint

LBD wrote: »

as klnt said at least whilst you did not get your compensation, but, you cost them a considerable financial dent.

I think it was JPears that said that!

tall_paul68

Happy to report that I have now received compensation for the above named flight, was initially denied by Monarch claiming EC's, I didn't have the time or inclination to pursue it through the Courts, so employed Bott & Co who I have to say were very efficient and kept in contact throughout. Bott & Co threatened Court proceedings and Monarch have now paid up, I have recieved confirmation that the money is on its way to me and just awaiting it arriving in my bank account. Will be used to book next years holiday flights which won't be with Monarch!!

AUDLEY_RESIDENT

Hi all, any advice on my situation. Flight ZB655 from Malaga to Manchester, waited over 5 hours with our disabled son, who we had to end up lying on the Malaga window ledge, so he could get some rest out of his wheelchair. Offered nothing but a meal voucher. Took up the claim, but today received a mail saying that:
Our records show that the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight was forced to divert en route to Manchester due to a medical emergency with a passenger who had suffered a heart attack. Despite our best efforts we were unable to transfer passengers to an alternate aircraft from within our fleet. As a result these events led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight -
I have a house insurance policy with Privilege which has legal aid, should I therefore pursue it with my insurance to take them to task? I only have their word it was a medical issue and will this stand up in court? Any advice accepted.

AUDLEY_RESIDENT

should have said the date of our holiday was 14-21st July 2012

David_e

AUDLEY_RESIDENT wrote: »

the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight was forced to divert en route to Manchester due to a medical emergency with a passenger who had suffered a heart attack. Despite our best efforts we were unable to transfer passengers to an alternate aircraft from within our fleet.

The emergency is beyond the airline's control so I suspect that the court would be receptive to an Extraordinary Circumstances argument. [If that is the explanation they have given, they would need to prove it in court but do you have any reason to doubt what they have said?]

Assuming there are EC's, the question is then how they dealt with the sitiuation to mitigate your delay. They refer to their "best efforts" but in the context of finding a solution from within their fleet. That is different from what the Wallentin ruling says the airline's obligations are:

"Para 41. That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation [or delay] of the flight."

AUDLEY_RESIDENT wrote: »

I have a house insurance policy with Privilege which has legal aid, should I therefore pursue it with my insurance to take them to task?

I may be totally wrong but I would be surprised if your household insurance would fund the claim. Does anyone know if that is normal cover?

Passengers with restricted mobility are supposed to be given special consideration under the Reg 261/2004. I am not sure what, if any, penalty applies if you don't get that. Maybe it helps to show that they didn't "bust a gut" to get you and your family home (say on another airline's flight) notwithstanding what they could do for the other passengers

AUDLEY_RESIDENT

Hi David, thanks for your advice. I think Monarch are just fobbing me off and using the heart attack as a quick get out clause and hope I don't pursue it any further. I did speak to my insurance before I asked Monarch to supply further details and they said they would take the claim if they though it was 51% chance they would win. Monarch have a letter about my sons disability - brain bleed when he was 19 - and he has mobility problems and cannot walk unaided etc. It seems they didn't bother to make sure he was taken care of during this delay - if they knew a passenger had a heart attack and the plane had to be diverted, then surely they should have offered us or any of the passengers an alternative flight out of Malaga to Manchester. We were never told this plane was cancelled - the flight board just said delayed.