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

433Barbara

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

You may have read it, but it's not true. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything, the emphasis is all on the claimant.

To clarify, it is up to the claimant to prove 'on the balance of probabilities' that they WERE on the flight. The defendant cannot prove you weren't - it is impossible to prove a negative, hence the expression 'proof positive'.

A DPA SAR of the Passenger Name Record for the flight in question will do nicely in that regard though.

Thanks for clarifying friendofbillw2 :T

klint

I haven't bothered issuing a SAR because I've already got credit card bills from local shops before and after the flight to prove that we had indeed travelled, and photographs of us at the airport, and the letter from Monarch apologising for the delay which they presumably wouldn't have bothered sending if we weren't on the flight. Also, I understand Monarch is entitled to charge £10 for a SAR (which would, of course, be added to the amount claimed). Has anyone been charged that?

David_e

Centipede100 wrote: »

Or even Wallentin...don't think she was canonised either!

Should be in my view! We could also have a special day for flight delay compensation - St Wallinten's Day.

The_Wingco

klint wrote: »

Also, I understand Monarch is entitled to charge £10 for a SAR (which would, of course, be added to the amount claimed). Has anyone been charged that?

In my case, nothing charged. They just replied that lack of proof of boarding would not be used against me in any action taken.

LBD

Centipede100 wrote: »

Or even Wallentin...don't think she was canonised either!

Sorry I am always transposing tha e and the i lol:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

friendofbillw2

I lost my case today.

The judge held that the technical defect affecting the aircraft scheduled to operate my flight on its final sector the previous day did amount to extraordinary circumstances, and that there is no 'all measures short of intolerable sacrifices' for the airline to comply with once those circumstances have arisen.

In short there was nothing they could have done about the original technical problem, and faced with it, they did what they could.

One thing the judge did say though was that she was disappointed Monarch's witness (Technical Support Manager) did not attend the hearing. Monarch emailed me last night saying :

"due to the financial cost to the business and managerial position of our witness, he will be unable to attend tomorrow’s hearing. We would also like to submit to you that our witness works and lives in the vicinity of Luton and as such it is wholly unreasonable for him to travel to [my local court] as it would be entirely disproportionate to the amount being claimed.

We trust you will find this in order."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I trust you WON’T find this to be in order. Feel free to exercise your right to have the witness there for you and the judge to cross examine him. It is ‘wholly unreasonable’ for him NOT to be there.

If you want to put Monarch to the maximum discomfort – win or lose – ask for an immediate adjournment if anyone providing a witness statement does not actually attend the hearing.

Evalina1

Mark2spark wrote: »

As I said, the details are in the O.P.? Why can't you see that? It's the first line??

You probably didn't look :undecided So, no, it was 07/10/12.

Sorry - I was getting confused about the date arrangement and thought you were referring to July when in fact you were referring to October. Very sorry and I have read the first page - honest! I'm finding it all a bit daunting tbh.

sheffowl65

i am in the process of claiming through the small claims court may be we can exchange evidence and information thanks sheffowl.

PeteG1 wrote: »

I've previously claimed with Monarch for flight MON3506, Manchester to Dalaman, 18/09/2010 09:00 from MAN. I used the standard letter that was on this forum at the time, pointing out all the judjements that had gone against the airlines, and asking them to advance any evidence to support their denial of a claim.

The flight was delayed due to technical issues with previous flight.
We were told when we attempted to check in told we could either wait at the airport or return home (we live just 5 miles from the airport), so we chose to return home. We were told to return to MAN at 20:00, for an alternative plane to carry us at 22:00. When were returned at 20:00 the replacement flight was expected to leave at 22:00.
At 00:30 we were told replacement crew had run out of hours, and flight would not leave till 09:00 on 19/10. We returned home and came back again next morning.
We ended up travelling on the original plane that we should have flown on, which arrived at MAN 25 hours late.

Our arrival delay therefore was 26 hours (or 13 hours from the time of the replacement flight).

I wrote to monarch when we returned from holiday, and claimed the 600 euro per passenger plus £208.86 in taxis, meals and drinks, which were incurred solely as a result of the delay.

Monarch replied at the time...

"As you may be already aware, the delay was due to technical problems with the aircarft that was scheduled to operate your flight and we therefore had to re-arrange our flying program in order to arrange for an alternative aircraft to operate your flight."
.......
"Unfortunately, sometime later we then experienced crewing problems and at this point we had to further delay the departure of the flight until the following day."
........
"However, I can see that from your correspondance, you returned home and we are happy to cover the costs incurred. We therefore are sending you a check for £143 to cover the taxi fares and £80 for meals."
........
"I'm afraid that carriers are not required to pay compensation under this regulation, nor are we required to refund any additional costs incurred by passengers."

I wrote back to them last month pointing out that the law had been clarified, and that they were liable for compensation, and that they owed us the amount claimed for compensation, plus the missing £65 of expenses that failed to pay, plus interest since the date of the original claim.

I have just received a reply from them, saying under certain circumatances that may be liable to pay compensation and they included 4 claim forms which they say now have to be filled in, and proof needs to be enclosed with each form.

So I have a few questions I'd like the forum's opinion on.

1) Do I have to complete the forms?, given that they've already accepted the flight was delayed and payed out some of our expenses. If I take it to court could not completing the form go against us?

2) Is there any reason why I should have to submit 4 separate claims, or should I just proceed with the existing claim?

3) Given that they "may" attempt to claim extraordinary circumstances due to a technical fault with the original inbound plane, would the fact that they then arranged an alternative flight, and then had the crew run out of hours, leading to a further 13 hour delay, mean that the could no longer claim EC? as crew running out of hours is definately not considered EC, even by monarchs rules.

4) Would a court be likely to uphold a claim for interest, given that the airline have be using delaying tactics to avoid paying out?

5) Is anyone else claiming against monarch for this flight?

Cheers
Pete

sharronn23

I have just spoken to Monarch about compensation for my infant daughter and have been told that the infant charge is an administrative charge and does not relate to the flight. Apart from this the claim has been straightforward, we sent the forms etc to Monarch who then agreed to pay compensation and sent the cheques out. Does anyone have any advice on whether I should pursue the infant compensation?

I checked the list of successful claims but cannot see my flight so details are below, hope this helps someone.

Flight Details:MON1828, 13/06/2011, Manchester to Corfu.

grazzzz

Centipede100 wrote: »

Disappointing for you I am certain but your closing paragraph is excellent advice. Whilst barristers and solicitors may be comfortable appearing at a court hearing, I am certain that airline staff will not usually be at ease and therefore the advice must be to demand that they appear if they have submitted a witness statement in the court bundle.

This should put them on the spot and ought to make it a little easier to convince the judge of one's case if there are any irregularities in the statement.

This will not only cause the airline some operational issues (and why not since they have originally caused the claimant upwards of 3 hours inconvenience in the first place) but may be a useful tactic to coax the airline into settling before a hearing since this costs them the employees' time and travel to various courts as well as that of their legal representatives.

There's an answer for and also against as at my court date the judge was quite cross that TC had decided not to have there witness attend so he could cross examine him (TC had notified the court 2 weeks before and had asked for an adjournment as the witness was on annual leave. TC barrister was confident that the hearing would be adjourned as soon as the hearing began however the judge was quite scathing in TC's preparation (defence was 3 weeks late and no witness statements submitted) and then they allowed the witness to be on holiday knowing months in advance the court date as they had no witness statements or witness the judge determined it could have been extraordinary circumstances however it might not be and wasn't prepared to waste the courts time or mine as in his mind the money I was claiming (€800 euros ) in the scheme of things didn't warrant the adjournment and ruled in my favour as TC couldn't confirm what the actual problem was without the said witness whom they had decided didn't have to attend.