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

diggerb

I have posted earlier regarding my case against monarch which was won and has been paid,the judge would not include my wifes claim on the same case and ruled she would have to fill out a separate claim which we have done.This week i have had notification from the court that monarch are defending the claim which obviously identical to mine,their previous defence was absolutely laughable with their own evidence turning out to be the most compelling part of our argument.
The fact that they are prepared to go through the whole expensive(for them)process again makes no sense whatever and it would seem that the company from top to bottom is run by a bunch of out of their depth amateurs !
I will report back with all the details after the second court date.
Meanwhile a word of encouragement to others do not be frightened by their arrogance and belligerence there is absolutely no substance behind it.

dxc_chappie

statictom wrote: »

Just wondering if there is a set format for court statements.

Some examples here:
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-precedents/small-claims-court.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?57385-Examples-of-Witness-Statements-Disclosure-by-List-Draft-Directions-Case-Summary

http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/witness-statements-small-claims-court.html

Caveat Emptor!

statictom

Many thanks for the advise everyone, much appreciated.

suelees1

ZB532 Manchester - Palma 09/04/11 Rudder defect

I eventully decided to instruct Bott and Co and just had an email to confirm Monarch have agreed to settle the above claim - please note it's one of the flights on page 1

Issuma

I'm confused, I have been posting regarding flight MON1874, Manchester to Mytilene on the 27/07/13, there are also people trying to claim compensation for flight MON1875 (Mytilene to Manchester) on the same date these two flights were delayed for the same reason, one set of people were trying to come home from holiday and the other set were trying to go on holiday, I have been in touch with Bott & Co who have refused to take my case yet I am now in touch with people trying to claim for the MON1875 flight and Bott & Co have taken this on for them, how can that be when both flights are linked by the same incident ??

111KAB

Issuma wrote: »

I'm confused, I have been posting regarding flight MON1874, Manchester to Mytilene on the 27/07/13, there are also people trying to claim compensation for flight MON1875 (Mytilene to Manchester) on the same date these two flights were delayed for the same reason, one set of people were trying to come home from holiday and the other set were trying to go on holiday, I have been in touch with Bott & Co who have refused to take my case yet I am now in touch with people trying to claim for the MON1875 flight and Bott & Co have taken this on for them, how can that be when both flights are linked by the same incident ??

Ask Bott & Co or post on here


https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints


and someone may answer.

Issuma

111KAB, many thanks for your reply, I have posted on the facebook Monarch site, that's where this was brought to my attention, I will be ringing Bott & Co this morning, I'm not sure if I'm not thinking along the right lines with this so this morning I have gone on to the Bott & Co site again to check both flights MON1874 & 1875, 1874 comes back as no claim but 1875 comes back as yes there is a claim, to my way of thinking we are talking about the same aircraft and the same incident that caused both flights to be delayed so I am linking both together...........is this correct or am i missing something obvious here that separates the two ???

diggerb

Could it be that the software that scores the response from Bott and co, has the first flight an e.c.possible defence,but not the second flight as the original problem occurred on a previous flight and so appears more winnable.

111KAB

Issuma wrote: »

111KAB, many thanks for your reply, I have posted on the facebook Monarch site, that's where this was brought to my attention, I will be ringing Bott & Co this morning, ......

Glad to hear it was sorted.

Adie_Cartwright

I turned up at court last friday armed with all my evidence, questions for Monarch and details of other successes etc. only for Monarch to fail to turn up. At this point I expected the judge to award in my favour.
However, the judge said that he was 'Staying' the case for a number of reasons;
1) Monarch had not submitted any witness statements such as engineer reports on the technical fault (ZB534 Man - Pmi 30/09/2012) and so he said he couldn't award in anyone's favour without first reading all the evidence, despite the fact that nowhere in the judges directions were either party asked to submit anything other than a claim and a response (I had submitted a witness statement anyway).

2) The judge said he wished to see the outcome of the Huzar v Jet2 appeal before making a decision.

3) The judge said he wanted to find out from Monarch whether there had been any other cases brought to court regarding this flight, and the outcome of those cases before making a decision.

I asked the judge to reconsider as Monarch had proved they had no intention of actively defending this case (They had previously failed to submit the directions questionnaire also), and that a decision should be made based on how the law perceived rule 5(3) at present, when the case was brought, rather than after future hearings.
I also tried to explain that any EC claims from Monarch should be dismissed as I had proof that the aircraft had flown three scheduled medium haul sectors without incident since the technical fault Monarch were claiming from 30 hours previous.
I suggested the stay was weighted unfairly in Monarch's favour as they were likely to be witholding their witness statements purposely to see the outcome of the Jet2 appeal, but he was having none of it.
Whilst keeping my composure in the courtroom, I was fuming once outside. It seems that Monarch can mess folk around at considerable expense to the claimant, not bother to turn up, not follow procedure nor have a case to answer, yet a judge can still bottle it and give them a further 21 days to submit statements rather than risk being cited as the judge who has made a decision that could affect several other cases involving this delay claim.
I really have no faith in our justice system now.
If anyone else has any info on the flight mentioned above, or flight ZB685 SSH - MAN 29/09/2012 which was where the knock-on fault occurred initially I'd really appreciate it, as I'm determined to be armed with as much detail as possible when the case is finally heard.

More importantly, I am struggling to work out exactly where the aircraft (G-MONR) went to between arriving in Manchester from Sharm at 10.35am and its revised boarding time of approx 10pm on 30/09/2012. A Monarch employee let slip that it had flown to the Greek Islands but I can't find any detail.
Any info would be a big help.