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

Skid_Marks

Interesting in the judges findings he states: "The defence running contrary to the findings in Huzar -v- Jet 2.Com".

That really is interesting, especially now that many of these cases are being referred to Liverpool because of the 'expertise' at that Court.

SW8Bloke

111KAB wrote: »

No point Monarch are correct.

If Monarch are correct then why does Martins team say as point 2. on claiming compensation for flight delays:

"cut-off is 2005, but it's harder for flights before 2007

You can apply for compensation for any past delays, stretching back as far as February 2005."

My flight delay was 15th September 2007 so it falls under after 2007.

Please can you tell me who is correct, because they both cannot be. If Martins information is incorrect then why is it still posted as point number 2?
If Martins team are correct, which I think they probably are, then please can I refer back to my original question?

If Monarch are correct, then thank you for your help, pity I missed out after such a long delay and please can Martins point number 2 be amended as soon as possible so others don't get too excited about being able to claim?

111KAB

SW8Bloke wrote: »

Please can you tell me who is correct, because they both cannot be. If Martins information is incorrect then why is it still posted as point number 2?
If Martins team are correct, which I think they probably are, then please can I refer back to my original question?

Many on here have tried to get the Admin team to change the wording and indeed if you look back at Martin's TV programme where he featured this (think there is a link on https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints) you will see he admitted court claims can go only go back 6 years (England) - of course you can claim back for a delayed flight 10 years ago but Monarch will reject your claim as they know there is a 6 year limit.
If you are so convinced "If Martins team are correct, which I think they probably are" then go ahead and claim and when rejected you can tell the Judge/Monarch that you read it on the Martin Lewis website therefore it must be law/correct.

SW8Bloke wrote: »

My flight delay was 15th September 2007 so it falls under after 2007.

The article was written in 2013 when this would have been relevant under the 6 year threshold.

JPears

Alas Martin's site (not actually owned by him now?) takes the sensationalism approach whereas this forum deals in hard facts that are up to date

lancia

I've won!!! ZB684 Manchester to Sharm el sheik 29/06/2013

Was refused by airline, then went to CAA, it came back the same refusal. I've just asked CAA to reopen case yesterday and yesterday I got an email agreeing with me and Monarch has agreed to pay!

Also yesterday I had sent all my information over to the nice lady at pickwicks solicitors (who seem cheaper than most) who was really helpful. She was going to deal with my case, obviously not needed now.

RESULT!
People don't give up or give in!

Mark2spark

lancia wrote: »

I've won!!! ZB684 Manchester to Sharm el sheik 29/06/2013

Was refused by airline, then went to CAA, it came back the same refusal.

Well done :T

You're now the third poster with success on this flight :T

strandty

My family and I travelled to Sharm on August 26th 2013 flight number ZB684, and we experienced a 10 hour delay, originally planning to leave at 10am, leaving later that evening at approx 8pm. We all filled out a form and sent it to the company as instructed and we all received the reply of:


Our Ref EU/P26441

Dear Mr Strandt

Re: Flight ZB684 Manchester to Sharm El Sheikh 26th August 2013


Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We are sorry for the delay you experienced that has led to your claim for compensation. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. The European Commission have published guidelines regarding what can and cannot be considered as extraordinary circumstances and we base our decision on these guidelines.

Our records show that your flight was delayed due to the aircraft suffering a fault with the number two engine control system. Our engineers advised the part would require replacing before the aircraft could operate your flight. As a result and in order to minimise the disruption to your flight, our operations team transferred your flight to the first available aircraft within the fleet. Despite our best efforts this led to an unavoidable delay to the departure of your flight.

Having considered the factual background of this case in accordance with the published guidelines, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

All flight delays are fully documented in accordance with the requirements of our regulator and the relevant legislation in place. Please note that this documentation cannot be disclosed to passengers nonetheless we actively supply this to the Civil Aviation Authority and National Enforcement Bodies upon request.

Please note that the contents of this letter and the circumstances surrounding your delay are strictly confidential.

Yours sincerely


Luke Allen
EU Claims Customer Advisor
Monarch Airlines



My mother is very stubborn and is unwilling to take this any further however, I am less willing to let it go. The staff at the airport themselves said that we will be able to claim and reclaim some of our money and actually encouraged us to claim. I am just wondering what step to take now? Does an engine control system fit into the extraordinary catagory?
Thanks

111KAB

Your mother is 100% correct (now noticed your mis-type so unsure who out of the two of you wants to 'push it) - This was not an extraordinary circumstance - in fact it was very ordinary for Monarch. Only action with Monarch is to take court action - DIY for 100% return or NWNF for 70+% return.


Help also here > https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints


Your letter looks very similar to this one >


http://www.scribd.com/doc/181949416/Rebuttal-to-Monarch-letter

strandty

111KAB wrote: »

Your mother is 100% correct. This was not an extraordinary circumstance - in fact it was very ordinary for Monarch. Only action with Monarch is to take court action - DIY for 100% return or NWNF for 70+% return.

Thanks for the quick reply. It is actually myself that is unwilling to let it go, whereas she is unwilling too ha!

Is there any forms I need to fill in from this point? And what is the best way of going about DIY? Sorry, I am quite new to this and only filled in the form on request. I am just starting to pick up the pieces for myself.

Yes it does look very similar doesn't it?

111KAB

strandty wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply. It is actually myself that is unwilling to let it go, whereas she is unwilling too ha!

Is there any forms I need to fill in from this point?

You need to contact EU Claims at Monarch for their forms > [EMAIL="euclaim@monarch.co.uk"]euclaim@monarch.co.uk[/EMAIL]