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

LBD

Bill my claim was submitted in October after the ruling, thjey then asked for a claim form to be submitted it was took from 02/11/2013 to 05/02/2013 for them to claim EC...

read my response above.........

Send them the LBA with a deadline and then submit court paperwork...

Monarch have a facebook page, post on there, they do not like it one little bit...

apparently a faulty fuel vale on the previous flight constitutes EC's !!!!!!

MontyWomble

111KAB wrote: »

Beg to differ - it is a common and frequent problem so much so that it is so standard a cracked screen is seldom reported or even mentioned up until now where it has suddenly become an extraordinary circumstance. The fact that the Aviation Herald even continues to report is unusual - PpruNe is probably a better place to ask your question.

Just to add to the cracked screen, in my reply from Monarch (if you go back a page or two), Monarch stated they only had 2 in the last year. I disbelieve this. BUT, regardless even two a year isn't extrordinary?!

My delay was 14 hours not the 24, but I felt this to be long enough.

Would like test case for Windscreens to be held to give me some confidence.

Also, as all cases are going to be subject to the opinion of the specific court on that day, what happens if a court in for example London rules to give compensation for another passenger on my flight, but my local court rules against? Is a mindfield!

Vauban

MontyWomble wrote: »

Would like test case for Windscreens to be held to give me some confidence.
Also, as all cases are going to be subject to the opinion of the specific court on that day, what happens if a court in for example London rules to give compensation for another passenger on my flight, but my local court rules against? Is a mindfield!

I think that's the point really - that there can be no "test case" because none of the judgements raise precedent. You are quite right, I believe, to say that different Courts could come to different conclusions about broadly the same circumstances.

So you can only assess your own case against the rulings of the ECJ and hope that a District Judge accepts your argumentation.

Reemas

Scottish_Princess wrote: »

Just got this email....not even a letter......from Monarch....More bad news I'm afraid......
Dear

Re: Flight ZB655 Malaga to Manchester on 4th November 2012

Thank you for taking the time to contact us in respect of your flight.

I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence. Providing our passengers with safe and efficient service is our first priority. I would like to reassure you that every effort is made to ensure the flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so, we aim to get you to your destination at the earliest opportunity. That said, our ability to keep disruption to a minimum is always dependant on the resources available to us on the day.

In some circumstances, passengers may be entitled to compensation under European Union laws.
However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. 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. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary. In addition, the CAA has provided some guidance on its views of “extraordinary circumstances” (please see the guidance notes accompanying the 261 compensation claim form).

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed a nose landing gear fault upon arrival in London Gatwick from a previous flight, which rendered the aircraft inoperable. The aircraft was required to return to the hangar at Luton for engineering work and was unable to complete the remaining flights that it was scheduled to operate on that day. As a consequence and in order to reduce the length of your delay, your flight was transferred to the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch. I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

Yours sincerely,


Not even signed from anybody! crap service! but would be interested what you think about this and what if anything I should do next!

Hi All
I have been meaning to write for a while and finally got round to it when I read the post.
I fly weekly from Gatwick to Malaga so have a lot of experience with Monarch, some even good!
Every Sunday I fly back to Gatwick and in Sept/Oct last year I had 4 delays between 4 and 8 hours in a 6 week period. When I complained at the time I got an email reply apologising and detailing how their fleet was overstretched due to the lack of new aircraft and new routes. This showed how busy their schedule is which means little time for routine maintenance and any delay having a knock-on effect to the next flight.
I sent my claims in November and have had 3 rejections, to which I sent replies with a 2 week response time limit. I heard nothing from my first reply so have now sent the 'letter before claim' again with a 14 day limit, after which I will start court proceedings. I asked for an acknowledgement of receipt which I have not got after a week, so just waiting till the deadline.
Anyway after all that waffle, what has made me finally write is the 'extraordinary circumstance' reason given in the quoted post - nose landing gear fault. My flight on 28th October from Malaga to Gatwick developed the same fault before the flight to Malaga. How often do these sort of fault occur, twice in 2 weeks??
I agree with a number of posts that we need to try and pool our information on claim decisions.
Will keep you all posted.

Ich_2

Beg to differ - it is a common and frequent problem so much so that it is so standard a cracked screen is seldom reported or even mentioned up until now where it has suddenly become an extraordinary circumstance. The fact that the Aviation Herald even continues to report is unusual - PpruNe is probably a better place to ask your question.

I agree regarding Av herald and was surprised at the lack of incidents reported (but I do know they don't report everything)
PpruNe would be interesting and I can picture the arguments that would start if I asked the question.
Out of interest I have asked for some more information about it and may get a decent answer to the original question.

johnnycomelately

Just catching up with this thread. Can I say firstly: grateful thanks to Mark, Centipede, Vauban and others for your learned counsel.

Just received by email - 16 weeks after sending in the claim form - rejection of my claim on grounds of - yes, you've guessed, 'extraordinary circumstance'. Same b******t wording as others with key para quoted below:

"Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the wiring in the nose wheel and for safety reasons the aircraft was declared unserviceable. It was unfortunate that in spite of exploring all conceivable options, there was no availability within our own fleet to transfer your flight to another Monarch aircraft, or indeed to transfer passengers to an aircraft chartered from a third party operator. As a consequence, the flight departed as soon as the aircraft was declared serviceable."

Now considering my options. Have to say, in different circs I'd be inclined to leave it that; our delay was tiresome rather than the hellish experience many have suffered - just over 4 hours delayed, Corfu to Gatwick Sept 2010. But I am resolved to pursue this to the max simply because Monarch need to be punished for their cynical and disgraceful treatment of customers trying to assert their legal rights. Protracted delaying tactics, lame attempt to wriggle out of their obligations - all pathetic.

I'm posting this to share experience. Sorry I can't add to the 'successful' count, Mark's is still the only one, it seems.

Next stop, LBA, I guess.

Vauban

johnnycomelately wrote: »

Just catching up with this thread. Can I say firstly: grateful thanks to Mark, Centipede, Vauban and others for your learned counsel.

I regret there is nothing learned about my counsel. But I am learning a lot.

I share your view entirely Johnny: my resolve has been utterly reinforced by Monarch's weasel performance. I hope they are spanked by as many people as possible, but fear most will be deterred from taking their claim to court.

Mark2spark

There is another guy on facebook, Malcolm Hillier, that has posted on Monarchs wall that he has received compensation. I've messaged him to ask for his flight details, but he hasn't responded, so I can't add it to the list.

Emma_1979

I flew back from Sharm with monarch an we were delayed 9 hrs apparently it was a bird strike which comes under extrodanary event so no claim- wonder how true that is ???

Mark2spark

Bird strike = Not EC
write back LBA