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

David_e

AUDLEY_RESIDENT wrote: »

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.

Well, as I say, if it comes to court, they will have to prove it - or rather someone will have to give that in evidence which they would be very foolish to do if it's not true.

Again, purely my opinion but I can see a court accepting a critically ill passenger as an EC but that doesn't excuse them if their efforts to then avoid the delay do not meet the high standard that I quoted from the Wallentin case. It would be a reasonable question to ask what steps they did take - apart from looking within their own fleet. As you will have gathered reading all the threads on the subject, once they have turned you down, however, it's highly unlikely that you will get anywhere without taking legal action.

AUDLEY_RESIDENT wrote: »

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.

That's good but who gives the opinon on the % chance of success? Have you asked what costs they cover? Does it, for example, cover the airlines costs if you were unsuccessful?

AUDLEY_RESIDENT wrote: »

Monarch have a letter about my sons disability - brain bleed when he was 19 - and he has mobility problems and cannot walk unaided etc.

I'm not 100% clear what the Article 11 of Regulation 261/2004 means.

Article 11

Persons with reduced mobility or special needs

1. Operating air carriers shall give priority to carrying persons with reduced mobility and any persons or certified service dogs accompanying them, as well as unaccompanied children.

2. In cases of denied boarding, cancellation and delays of any length, persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as unaccompanied children, shall have the right to care in accordance with Article 9 as soon as possible.

Article 9 is just the generally applicable "Right to care" provision


It would, in my view, be reasonable to say that they should have given your son priority to get home. It might, for example, have been possible to find alternative flights for your family (if they had tried hard enough) if not for all the passengers.

sheffowl65

if anyone travelled on this flight from manchester to dalaman please contact me to exchange information regarding monarchs failure to pay compensation.I will be proceeding to small claims court shortly.

klint

AUDLEY RESIDENT: Don't forget that the extraordinary circumstances were not related to your flight. It was the flight prior to yours. Please read the FAQ on page 1 of this thread, relating to knock-on effects. I think you will find you have a very good chance of winning this case.

(Whatever the law says, the moral argument here is that Monarch knew, right from the time the PREVIOUS flight chose to divert to Manchester, that YOUR flight was going to be delayed. They had MORE THAN ample time to find an alternative aircraft to avoid delay - in fact, they didn't even need to avoid delaying your flight, as long as the delay to your arrival at your final destination was less than 3 hours. That gives them LOADS of time! But they didn't choose to do that - obviously for financial reasons. Shame on them!)

AUDLEY_RESIDENT

Thanks for all your advice. I will now ask my Insurance legal team of points you have made and then decide whether to take them to a Small Claims Counts myself. I will quote the rulings and the comments made in this thread and see what outcome if any I can get from them (Monarch) before proceeding to a legal case. I will keep the forum posted.

MontyWomble

Hi all,

Just wanted to update that we have received payment for MON5028 Manchester to Zakynthos 31/05/12. This was settled out of court (1 day before!) and Monarch hadn't submitted any papers anyway (so doubt they were going to turn up).

As part of the agreement details of the settlement are to remain confidential... but we were very happy with the outcome which says enough.

I would like to thank those that have provided advice and encouragement on here as I seriously debated giving up several times! Also a special thank you to Lord Vauban.

For everyone who is still in this painfull process DO NOT GIVE UP!!!

I will stop now as this seems to be turning into an Oscars thank you!

medsec54

Evalina1 wrote: »

hey

I see someone (who?) has received compensation for this flight - anyone able to help? ive just been given the 'extraordinary circumstances' knock back and want to go back and reapply...

Same thing happened to me (different flight). I emailed them and asked them to re-look at my claim as I knew of somebody that had been paid out and if I didn't hear within 7 days i would be taking court action. I then received an email telling me my claim was successful after all and have now been paid out. :j Good luck

coffdrops

Flight ZB012 Luton to Malaga 29/07/11

I too would like to report that I have now received compensation for the above named flight, which was initially denied by Monarch claiming EC's. Just like tall_paul68, I didn't have the time or inclination to pursue it through the Courts, so employed Bott & Co. They were indeed very efficient and kept in contact throughout. Bott & Co threatened Court proceedings and Monarch have now paid up. We are now just under £1000 better off.

shazzap28

Sucess after taking Monarch to court after being ignored by both letter and email. :j

22-Jun-2008 22:35 MON1735 Paphos Airport to London Gatwick

shazzap28

Appreciate people think it is a long process with court proceedings.
If you use MCOL it is straight forward and you will get the court fee back and not have to pay someone else for it. Well done anyway

shazzap28

Appreciate people think it is a long process with court proceedings.
If you use MCOL it is straight forward and you will get the court fee back and not have to pay someone else for it. Well done anyway :j