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

Vauban

No need for a hard hat - we're all friends here. But I don't think you're right. - at least if you've written to Monarch before. This is because:

a) claimants have been waiting for many months, which gives Monarch plenty of time to establish the circumstances of your claim;
b) Monarch haven't given a reasonable indication of when your complaint will be addressed - it could be many months and you are not required to wait that long;
c) if your delay was caused by a normal technical failure, Monarch have no defence. So the only people at risk of being deemed by a judge to be behaving unreasonably in these circumstances are they.

The language of bluster and threat further reinforces my sense that these warnings lack merit.

batman44

For those getting emails and letters worded-

[FONT=&quot]We are aware that you will be keen for your claim to be finalised and understand that you may feel this process is taking longer than anticipated. Please rest assured, we will respond to you as quickly as possible and appreciate your patience whilst our team works through all outstanding claims. In the event that we have not yet reached a decision on your claim and we are approaching 6 weeks from the date of this letter, we will send you a further update. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please note that this is an acknowledgement and should be treated as such. We would like to make any customers aware who may consider issuing legal proceedings for reasons other than their claim becoming time barred under the Limitation Act, that if proceedings are issued we will have no hesitation in bringing this correspondence to the attention of a Judge as it reflects our efforts to communicate with customers proactively whilst working through the high volume of claims requiring action. If proceedings are issued following this acknowledgement, but prior to our full response being provided to you, please be aware that by reason of our commitment to communicate with you we will seek to recoup our legal costs which we will incur from defending such claims. [/FONT]

My opinion for what it's worth-

1. 6 weeks from the date of the letter they will fully respond with an update, it would be reasonable that if no full response is sent after this update then send them a NBA therefore they will have had 10 weeks, more than enough time. No judge will say different concidering the case in question as this has be through the legal process and cases stayed and the airlines lost, they have had over 2 years to settle but continued to deny legitimate claims and I think the courts would concider the defendant as acting unreasonable. imo

This is a legalese threat that legal teams use to scare you from putting pressure on them, the CPR rules are clear over time limits of acting reasonably.

JPears

Personally, I wouldn't even give them 6 weeks, if your claim has been with them sometime already ie more than a few months. They must have had a contingency in place which ever way both SC decisions ended up going. If they didn't, more fool them and typical of the airlines' shoddy practcie.

dxc_chappie

Vauban wrote: »

No need for a hard hat - we're all friends here. But I don't think you're right. - at least if you've written to Monarch before. This is because:

a) claimants have been waiting for many months, which gives Monarch plenty of time to establish the circumstances of your claim;
b) Monarch haven't given a reasonable indication of when your complaint will be addressed - it could be many months and you are not required to wait that long;
c) if your delay was caused by a normal technical failure, Monarch have no defence. So the only people at risk of being deemed by a judge to be behaving unreasonably in these circumstances are they.

The language of bluster and threat further reinforces my sense that these warnings lack merit.

Yes for existing claims which have already been investigated and stayed pending SC decision I would agree. But for new claims given the circumstances I would say Monarch's acknowledgement would be seen by the court as reasonable. However, after the 6 weeks is up start proceedings!

dxc_chappie

batman44 wrote: »

This is a legalese threat that legal teams use to scare you from putting pressure on them, the CPR rules are clear over time limits of acting reasonably.

It maybe legalese. But I disagree the CPR rules on time limits are clear.

What is clear is the NBA must give a minimum of 14 days. But the Defendant is not required to give a full response in that time if they can explain why and indicate when a full response will be given. In this case an acknowledgement is all that is required. Which is why if I was starting a claim now I would be wary of ignoring their acknowledgement by proceeding to court.

Maybe someone in the legal profession can comment?

Vauban

dxc_chappie wrote: »

It maybe legalese. But I disagree the CPR rules on time limits are clear.

What is clear is the NBA must give a minimum of 14 days. But the Defendant is not required to give a full response in that time if they can explain why and indicate when a full response will be given. In this case an acknowledgement is all that is required. Which is why if I was starting a claim now I would be wary of ignoring their acknowledgement by proceeding to court.

Maybe someone in the legal profession can comment?

It would be good to get other views I agree.

I understand that this letter has been sent to those who had previously written to Monarch, but had their cases "stayed" by the company. I was commenting on that basis.

And, as I said in an earlier post, Monarch haven't actually committed to any indication of when the claim will be assessed - merely that they will write to the claimant in six weeks if there has been no development. I don't think this is acceptable, or that a passenger seeking a resolution more speedily - given the time already elapsed and the clarity of the law - is behaving unreasonably.

My broader point is that, in the context of having initially delayed the passenger and then failed to deal with the claim, to write a letter of this nature making legal threats towards those considering court action is pretty illuminating, in my view.

tgon

My court action against Monarch was made before the design to overrule the jet2 appeal. They acknowledged within 14 days and then contested my case which gives them a further 28 days to cobble a defence together. Unless I've messed up my case on a technical point, I expect they with withdraw and settle out if court at their own time, if I let them. I'm not a legalise guy at all so feeling quite out my depth but something about common decency and basic rights keeps it going.

Mark2spark

My tuppence worth, FWIW...

Anyone worried about complying with CPR guidelines and giving notices and such, worry no more.
Please be assured that the airline that you are taking to court will, without fail, not adhere to any other court guidelines regarding exchanging information at the correct time, lodging paperwork with the court at the correct time, turning up on time, will request adjournments for no good reason, and will general scoff at the law, and *nothing* will be done by the courts by way of censuring them for their failures.

Mark2spark

As if to back up my post above...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64756269&postcount=414

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

As if to back up my post above...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64756269&postcount=414

And as we are talking about judicial verdicts on the way Monarch conducts itself in Court, let me remind folk what my own judge said - just before awarding me my compensation:

I have to deal with this case in proportion to the resources available to the parties and the sum that is at stake. [Vauban] has put many litigants to shame, professional litigants, by the way in which he has prepared his own bundles and met the arguments of the defendants. The defendants have simply ignored my order of 17th December. They have also ignored the Notice of Hearing, and have failed to attend today. The net result is that they can hardly complain that I now enter judgment against them to strike out their defence, because they have failed to comply with that order and they have also failed to attend today, and send a letter as confused as it was about why they are not here, simply will not do. Those who live by the sword, it seems to me must die by the sword. They have caused this and they will pay the costs of the claimant, as I have said.

No one should be intimidated by this shower - just get your claim in and trust to the law and its processes.