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

Vauban

batman44 wrote: »

Wow this case sound really fantastic, I wonder if or friend Vauban know anything about this!:think:

I don't know - but I like the cut of that Longden's gib: he seems a cool cat to me

Poundzhound

Vauban wrote: »

Really? Tell us more!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

aerostar

Further to post 3871 here is another article on the success.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holidays/article-2567703/Man-won-3-200-flight-delay-compensation-Monatch-court-case.html

JPears

he hasn't twigged yet has he

Mark2spark

Vauban wrote: »

I don't know - but I like the cut of that Longden's gib: he seems a cool cat to me

I'll bet he has a nice hat too :rotfl:

molonyj

An update on my case..

Monarch have today agreed to pay out on flight MON1829 Corfu to Manchester 18th July 2011.

I started the claim myself and then passed it on to Bott & co. who issued court proceedings but Monarch decided to pay out before it went to court

SW8Bloke

Monarch Flight MON5306, Gatwick - Palma 15/09/2007 was delayed 12 hours and 12 minutes.
I put in my claim to Monarch and they have said that I am 5 months too late to claim. It has been 6 years and 5 months. They say they only pay out up to 6 years.

My question I'd like to ask is: Are they allowed to do this? Didn't Martin say that I could claim as far back as 2005?
Please can someone confirm this so I can go back to them and complain?

Thank you...

111KAB

SW8Bloke wrote: »

Please can someone confirm this so I can go back to them and complain?

No point Monarch are correct.

JPears

111KAB wrote: »

No point Monarch are correct.

In that they can legally ignore you.

statictom

Received my Form of Judgement from the Liverpool CC yesterday. Monarch had failed to file a defence, nor attend court for my case. Judge duly struck out their defence as they showed no reasonable ground for defending the claim. Also asks me to apply for judgement for an amount to be assessed by the court.
Interesting in the judges findings he states: "The defence running contrary to the findings in Huzar -v- Jet 2.Com".
Form duly completed and returned to court.