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

richardw

Issuma wrote: »

…. good job I was prepared for this to be a long job !!

Anybody who starts a claims has to be patient.

The_Wingco

Issuma wrote: »

The airline has previously denied any liability to compensate the passengers on this flight. We are not yet in a position to issue court proceedings on this claim, however we will continue to review the matter every 28 days. We will continue to update you as and when further developments occur.

Not really sure what that means ??

I've had exactly the same worded letter from my own NWNF company recently in relation to a different flight, and agree with other comments that they're making sure the ducks are all lined up . . .

leespot

Bott & Co have confirmed that they are happy to take on this case, will update when I have further progress to report for anyone following this flight number.

leespot

Issuma wrote: »

First Update this year for flight MON1874
Our claim is with a NWNF company I received an e mail from them on the 31/12/13 informing me that Monarch had failed to respond to them within the 14 day time period (no surprise there !!) the second 14 day period has now passed and I've received this e mail from the NWNF company today:

The airline has previously denied any liability to compensate the passengers on this flight. We are not yet in a position to issue court proceedings on this claim, however we will continue to review the matter every 28 days. We will continue to update you as and when further developments occur.

Not really sure what that means ??

I'd take it to mean that the NWNF company are waiting for a successful outcome of a case(s) for this flight number before investing their time and money in pursuing it any further.

I think this compensation situation could end up similar to the bank reclaims - lots of people got paid out very quickly, then it slowed up, then lots of small claims got stayed / declined on various grounds. Then after that happened lots of people came out of the woodwork and complained that they knew nothing about it etc. Missed the 6 year limits and so on.

It does seem to be a bit of a lottery but the way I see it is I'll be no worse off if my case is lost than I was when I started. The only investment on my part at the moment has been time researching and a few emails, which is no big deal compared to the possible outcome.

Vauban

leespot wrote: »

I'd take it to mean that the NWNF company are waiting for a successful outcome of a case(s) for this flight number before investing their time and money in pursuing it any further.

No - I don't think so. County Court judgements set no precedent - it would be legitimate for one court to award compensation and another to refuse it for the same flight.

The hold up is because there are two specific cases going to the Court of Appeal, which will set a precedent for all the others (Dawson and Huzar). Until these are settled, most judges are choosing to stay the claims. So most folk are having to wait.

UKnomad

After several emails back and forth I have been notiied that Moanrch will in fact pay compensation BUT have reduced it by 50%:-
It is, of course, noted that on plain reading of paragraph 63 of the Sturgeon judgment, the ability to reduce compensation by 50% appears to only be applicable to those flights falling under Article 7(2)(c), being those with a distance over 3500km. Aside from the general aim of increasing protection for air travellers, another objective of the Regulation is to reduce the trouble and inconvenience caused by cancelled (and now delayed) flights. It can be said that one of the aims of the Regulation is to minimise passenger disruption and inconvenience by incentivising carriers to take prompt and affirmative action. It then follows that if the ability to reduce compensation by 50% is confined to only one category of flight, the incentive to act expeditiously is eradicated and such an interpretation would therefore be contrary to the objectives of the Regulation. It is upon this basis, therefore, that Monarch will adopt a 50% reduction in payments for flights which are delayed in excess of three hours but less than four on arrival.

Anyone else had similar? If so - thoughts on proceeding? They also mentioned NEB should I wish to take this further?

Vauban

UKNomad: the CAA have said that they disagree with Monarch's "interpretation" of the 50% rule, and that your description of the Regulation is correct. I am aware that, when this has been previously challenged in court by Monarch passengers, Monarch don't even offer a defence. So write to them to give them 14 days to pay up, or you will start proceedings (they will need to pay for your court fees too).

Others can decide whether Monarch are confused over the law, or whether they are trying to act unlawfully. Neither reflects well on the company.

Silverfox3180

I have just received a letter from Monarch again today rejecting my claim for the 7hours 30 minute delay the flight incurred.
CAA had returned my complaint/claim to them asking them to reconsider their previous decision.
I am now awaiting a response from the CAA.
Was anyone else on this flight apart from "Klint" ?

UKnomad

Vauban, many thanks for that - will write as suggested !

Mumbojumbo

HELP!!!!
Unsure if i can claim for delay on 12th May 2013,
Scheduled to leave at 22:25 left at 12:40 !
Scheduled landing time 23:55 however landed at 02:22!
Flight stats sight states 287 min delay which 4hrs 47 mins delay!!
Confused.com????
Anyone else questioned this delay, due to technical issues???