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

David_e

glentoran99 wrote: »

Is it just me or have monarch dropped themselves in it here basically the say the fault was during normal operation, yet the law says that it's only where faults are not in the normal Operation?

Well the whole response is just nonsense, isn't it? Funny that they choose to quote non-binding guidance to support their case rather than the law which doesn't. It demonstrates a complete contempt for passengers!

glentoran99 wrote: »

We can assure you that your claim was thoroughly investigated in line with the applicable legalisation.

Well if it was a "thorough" investigation it was a wholly incompetent one as "the applicable legislation" doesn't support their conclusion. It might have been an idea fro them to involve an objective lawyer in their investigation - but then that wouldn't have given them the answer they wanted.

glentoran99

David_e wrote: »

Well the whole response is just nonsense, isn't it? Funny that they choose to quote non-binding guidance to support their case rather than the law which doesn't. It demonstrates a complete contempt for passengers! Well if it was a "thorough" investigation it was a wholly incompetent one as "the applicable legislation" doesn't support their conclusion. It might have been an idea fro them to involve an objective lawyer in their investigation - but then that wouldn't have given them the answer they wanted.

Surely it borders on fraud to state this is European Commission guidance when it clearly isn't and clearly states on the document that it isn't endorsed by them?

111KAB

glentoran99 wrote: »

Surely it borders on fraud to state this is European Commission guidance when it clearly isn't and clearly states on the document that it isn't endorsed by them?

Agreed and currently subject to EU Ombudsman enquiry which has now been lodged for over 2 months.
Link is here > http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/caseopened.faces/en/51767/html.bookmark

Perhaps the fact that there are only 21 Facebook Likes for this action indicates that people may not be too bothered about the NEB list!

David_e

glentoran99 wrote: »

Surely it borders on fraud to state this is European Commission guidance when it clearly isn't and clearly states on the document that it isn't endorsed by them?

I certainly agree with you and 111KAB in principle. Of course, they can quote the "guidance" at you and hope you don't know any better. They make authoritative statements that have no bearing whtsoever on the legal position, such as: "When parts such as this fail during normal operation when maintained in accordance with the relevant maintenance programme this is an unpredictable event."

The response is perhaps deliberately vaguely worded. The nearest you get to the real issue is when they say "We can assure you that your claim was thoroughly investigated in line with the applicable legalisation", but again it gives them room to argue that they weren't telling lies.

Whatever it is, it certainly stinks and the fact that the CAA are sitting on their hands does them no credit whatsoever.

Issuma

Hi Kevin
Thanks for your reply, the flight was MON1874 which was schedule to depart from Manchester at 06.40am Saturday 27th July we were delayed for 23 hours (departed 05.45am Sunday 28th July) as the plane we should have been on had broken down in Skiathos therefore could not return to Manchester, the part and engineer were flown out to Skiathos on the Gatwick flight whose departure time was an hour earlier that the Manchester flight, apparently the wrong part was dispatched therefore
prolonging the delay.
It just astounds me that whether 'extraordinary circumstances' or not we lost a full day of our holiday (we paid for 14 days not 13) and expect to be compensated, the same plane broke down the previous Saturday with the same fault so some unfortunate passengers who were only going away for a week were delayed for 5 hours on the way out and 23 hours on the way back !!
It beggars belief that the airlines are allowed to get away with this.

sooperb

After several outright refusals, following the February court ruling in favour of the claimant against Monarch, we tried one last email saying it was their last chance before we took court action and that it would be a cheaper option for them to settle, Monarch have agreed our claim :T

After 4 weeks, the cheques in compensation for a delayed flight from Spain have arrived. Keep at it folks, it can be done.

111KAB

sooperb wrote: »

...... following the February court ruling in favour of the claimant against Monarch..........

Grateful if you could advise please.

motherduck_2

ZB873 Palma to Luton 09/07/2010 Monarch have paid compensation for 10 hr delay.:)

motherduck_2

ZB870 Luton to Palma 25/08/2012 Monarch have refused claim due to 'extraordinary circumstances' Is it worth contacting CAA?

111KAB

motherduck wrote: »

ZB870 Luton to Palma 25/08/2012 Monarch have refused claim due to 'extraordinary circumstances' Is it worth contacting CAA?

Not worth time and effort in contacting CAA - will probably require court application but may also be worth posting on Monarch Complaints Facebook Page.