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

David_e

Manosteel wrote: »

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)."

I'm not sure you can if it describes your circumstances but then again, it has no force of law and is, in fact, inconsistent with the law (which I attempted to summarise in the link in my previous post).

Manosteel wrote: »

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.

I'm a bit confused. What was the basis on which the CAA opined in your favour? Presumably not the Para 24 you quote.

111KAB suggested keeping the CAA opinion and the NEB guidelines apart and that seems like good advice.

Just make sure you understand what the law says. The judcial process isn't foolproof but you should be able to rely on the law and the NEB guidelines are not the law.

Manosteel

The CAA email issued post guidelines read in part as follows:

It appears from the information provided that the airline cannot rely on the “extraordinary circumstances” exception from the Regulation to refuse to pay compensation. It is our considered view that the airline has not demonstrated that this disruption was beyond their control. As such, in our opinion, the disruption to your flight is of a type which means that the airline should pay compensation.

We have given our view to the airline and have asked them to pay compensation to you as required in EC Regulation 261/2004. Our view on this case is based on the information provided to us, is not legally binding and only relates to the flight concerned

They don't give any reasoning or detail for their opinion, it is a bald yes or no. So there is it, seems to me, a built in quandary. The part that went down during our flight was, they claim, a monitored not a maintained one. Simply, if the guidelines hold up, that part of our case becomes weak. If they are not held to be legally binding then it is just another tech problem and can be discounted.

David_e

Manosteel wrote: »

They don't give any reasoning or detail for their opinion, it is a bald yes or no. So there is it, seems to me, a built in quandary. The part that went down during our flight was, they claim, a monitored not a maintained one. Simply, if the guidelines hold up, that part of our case becomes weak. If they are not held to be legally binding then it is just another tech problem and can be discounted.

If the CAA don't mention the NEB guidance, that should mean you can confidently dismiss it in your claim as being guidance with no legal standing. The CAA letter can then stand alone as some (modest) 'evidence' in support of your claim. What you might also want to do is to point out the inconsistency of the guidance (para 24) with the law on a line by line basis. In other words, make it clear that (a) it has no legal standing but (b) it also is wrong!

Manosteel

Thanks David and 111. The Facebook page is a very meaty resource. The only problem is that I have had to sign up to FB, something I have always avoided. You have to make sacrifices to win.

Vauban

Manosteel wrote: »

Thanks David and 111. The Facebook page is a very meaty resource. The only problem is that I have had to sign up to FB, something I have always avoided. You have to make sacrifices to win.

It is true about sacrifices: my tangle with Monarch turned me into a weird 261/04 anorak - surely I am owed further compensation for that alone?

dxc_chappie

Vauban wrote: »

It is true about sacrifices: my tangle with Monarch turned me into a weird 261/04 anorak - surely I am owed further compensation for that alone?

What, an honorary professorship isn't enough? Ok, how about a new hat then?

Manosteel

Respect Vauban, i've read your stuff.

Mark2spark

Yes Vauban, to still be going strong is commendable :beer: :T

Lorenzoh

I recently sent a claim to Monarch for a flight that was delayed just over 3 hours. Monarch promptly emailed me back with an EU claim form that they say I need to complete.

While reading the guideline notes I noticed it says
"Should your flight have arrived more than 3 hours after its scheduled time of arrival, but less than 4
hours, then any compensation you would be entitled to will be reduced by 50%."

Can anyone confirm this is correct as to me, it does not make sense having a set compensation amount and then a rule saying you will only receive half of this amount.

The flight was PMI to LGW and was 3 hours 15 mins late upon arrival.

Vauban

Lorenzoh wrote: »

Can anyone confirm this is correct as to me, it does not make sense having a set compensation amount and then a rule saying you will only receive half of this amount.

The flight was PMI to LGW and was 3 hours 15 mins late upon arrival.

The law is explicit on this point: compensation can be reduced by 50% only on journeys over 3500km that are between 3-4 hours delayed (ie 600e reduced to 300e).

Your claim is not affected by, and your entitlement is 250e per person, given the distance is just under 1500km.