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

razorsedge

Conway147 wrote: »

Hi was looking for some advice, since sending my first letter to Monarch beginning of February and no reply I sent second letter 14 days later and still no reply, I then tried contacting them and waited for ever on phone, and gave up I decided to fill in CAA form back in march, i got a reply from them the other day stating they found the airline at fault and to pay compensation, I then contacted monarch and after another long call I persisted and got through to let them know to send correspondence to my new address, i was then informed I have no claim as need to fill in claims forms for all passengers which to what I was fuming, they emailed them over to me and I filled in and sent back with all other correspondence I have ever sent them including copy of CAA letter, I sent back last Thursday and received email today stating the usual thing extraordinary circumstances due to engine computer fault and they tried to accommodate us on the next available flight within there monarch fleet and we are not entitled to compensation, we were on flight ZB684 03/06/2012 originally due to fly at 10am and flight was changed couple weeks before to 13:55, then arrived at airport and didn't leave until 20:31 there was 4 adults 4 children 2 being infants, was just wondering if someone advise me of next option would it be to rewrite to airline or to go with court action or nwnf company not clued up on all this but don't want to just give up as I presume that's what the airlines expect. thanks any help would be great.

If you are going to do this yourself (court action that is), then breaking things down into short, succinct sentences will help.

Indy_Biker600

Hi all

Newbie here- I've been reading through this forum and seen some great positive outcomes for people.

Need some advice....I went through all the hoops with Monarch; EU claim form, got the EC email from them regarding a fault with a blue hydraulic pump. Then went to CAA and got a response a year later saying yes they agree I have a valid claim and have asked monarch to pay which monarch agreed to according to CAA letter. I didn't hear anything for 2 months so chased Monarch and they said they're still satisfied its EC and CAA cannot enforce.

So feeling gutsy I raised an MCOL and just waiting to hear from my legal cover to check if they'll help with this. I don't know how confident I am at going all the way with this by myself, it worries my when I think about the whole court thing. I'm in two minds about withdrawing the claim or carrying on and seeing what happens as they replied and said they intend to defend the claim. Last thing I want is a counterclaim for costs.

Any advice what you all think? Thanks in advanced......

111KAB

Indy_Biker600 wrote: »

Hi all

Newbie here- I've been reading through this forum and seen some great positive outcomes for people.

Need some advice....I went through all the hoops with Monarch; EU claim form, got the EC email from them regarding a fault with a blue hydraulic pump. Then went to CAA and got a response a year later saying yes they agree I have a valid claim and have asked monarch to pay which monarch agreed to according to CAA letter. I didn't hear anything for 2 months so chased Monarch and they said they're still satisfied its EC and CAA cannot enforce.

So feeling gutsy I raised an MCOL and just waiting to hear from my legal cover to check if they'll help with this. I don't know how confident I am at going all the way with this by myself, it worries my when I think about the whole court thing. I'm in two minds about withdrawing the claim or carrying on and seeing what happens as they replied and said they intend to defend the claim. Last thing I want is a counterclaim for costs.

Any advice what you all think? Thanks in advanced......

My claim (which I won in Court) was due to an Airbus hydraulic failure. You have a valid claim so do not walk away however whether you decide to DIY or use a NWNF only you can decide by reading through this thread.

Vauban

Indy_Biker600 wrote: »

So feeling gutsy I raised an MCOL and just waiting to hear from my legal cover to check if they'll help with this. I don't know how confident I am at going all the way with this by myself, it worries my when I think about the whole court thing. I'm in two minds about withdrawing the claim or carrying on and seeing what happens as they replied and said they intend to defend the claim. Last thing I want is a counterclaim for costs.

Generally, it's better to think this through before you start a claim ...;)

But don't worry about counter-claims for costs - that doesn't really happen with these cases, which are heard on the small claims track. But you do need to get your act together if you are going to take this on.

See my write up of my own case (in the court success thread). That gives you everything you need to do it yourself really - if you put the time in to understand the law.

Derbyman

Could somebody please point me towards the FAQs regarding going to small claims court. I think I'm looking in the wrong place. Is it contained within the last 200 pages? Many thanks

Issuma

MON1874

Well its taken a lot of time and a lot of patience but Monarch have finally paid the compensation for our 23 hour delay last July, Manchester to Mytilene.

This has been achieved with the help of Bott & Co who I can't praise highly enough.

To everyone who is going through this process please do not give up, if you get to the end of the road in trying to deal with this yourself as I did, please use a NWNF company, 73% of something is better than 100% of nothing.........we must not let the airlines get away with the exceptional circumstances excuse anymore !!!!!!

Manosteel

I am wrestling with a couple of aspects of my case:

1. I want to rely in court on the CAA's opinion that Monarch are at fault. I also want to deny the legal status of the NEB Guidance document to which the CAA is a subscriber. Does this seem like a fatal conflict?

2. Monarch are claiming the technical difficulty was to a "condition monitored" part not subject to maintenance and that it is impossible to predict failure. Thus any failure is an EC. Comments?

I think that q1. should be arguable in my favouring that the CAA ruled after the guidance was published. It still feels like trying to have it both ways.

q2 is more difficult in that Monarch can't be accused of maintenance failure. The fact that a special tool had to be flown out however suggests that the fault is a known one and therefore predictable and not extraordinary. It turns out that the special tool was the size of a tuppence, cheap and light-weight. I think it could be carried as part of the aircraft kit.

Any comments would be welcomed

111KAB

Manosteel wrote: »

1. I want to rely in court on the CAA's opinion that Monarch are at fault. I also want to deny the legal status of the NEB Guidance document to which the CAA is a subscriber. Does this seem like a fatal conflict?

If you have a CAA letter stating Monarch should be paying you compensation then include it in your bundle. The legal status of the NEB 'guidance' should be questioned as a separate issue but if Monarch have raised then you should challenge it.

Manosteel wrote: »

2. Monarch are claiming the technical difficulty was to a "condition monitored" part not subject to maintenance and that it is impossible to predict failure. Thus any failure is an EC.

A technical problem is not an extraordinary circumstance it is an ordinary happening. This condition monitoring aspect is just a red herring.

David_e

Manosteel wrote: »

2. Monarch are claiming the technical difficulty was to a "condition monitored" part not subject to maintenance and that it is impossible to predict failure. Thus any failure is an EC. Comments?

They (in common wth most airlies) are misrepresenting the definition of EC. They also like to wrap it up with technical jargon like "condition monitored". The predictability or otherwise of failure is irrelevant for the purposes of the law.

These are my thoughts:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...postcount=4238

Manosteel

111KAB, David_e, thanks for your help. In order to blow the “condition monitored” aspect out of the water, I have to overcome the guideline as follows:

"Para 24 Unexpected flight safety shortcomings

Failure of on-condition/condition monitored parts i.e. parts which should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service (for example propeller oil-temperature gauges. The premature failure of these parts during normal operational service when maintained in accordance with the maintenance programme is unpredictable)."

This means I have to wholeheartedly accept the CAA decision as to Monarch’s duty to pay compensation but argue that their guidelines are irrelevant, not having the force of law. They are explicitly quoting that para so it has to be addressed.