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

glentoran99

monarch really seem to be a shambles

klint

I've just received a letter from the court. It says "It is ordered that the stay be lifted". This part of the letter is the only part that I expected.

The other part says "The defendant has filed a defence, a̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶e̶n̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶. An allocation questionnaire is also enclosed"

This surprised me because I had already filled in an allocation questionnaire when I first started the claim, more than a year ago. Does this mean that we are now back to square one?

I'm also puzzled by the first sentence. "The defendant has filed a defence" with the words "a copy of which is enclosed with this notice" crossed out by hand. Which defence are they talking about? The original defence which the court already knows I already know about? Or has Monarch in their infinite wisdom filed a new defence? And why am I not getting a copy of it?

Has anyone else received any correspondence from the court now that the stay has been lifted? Would you care to share your thoughts?

NoviceAngel

klint wrote: »

I've just received a letter from the court. It says "It is ordered that the stay be lifted". This part of the letter is the only part that I expected.

The other part says "The defendant has filed a defence, a̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶e̶n̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶. An allocation questionnaire is also enclosed"

This surprised me because I had already filled in an allocation questionnaire when I first started the claim, more than a year ago. Does this mean that we are now back to square one?

I'm also puzzled by the first sentence. "The defendant has filed a defence" with the words "a copy of which is enclosed with this notice" crossed out by hand. Which defence are they talking about? The original defence which the court already knows I already know about? Or has Monarch in their infinite wisdom filed a new defence? And why am I not getting a copy of it?

Has anyone else received any correspondence from the court now that the stay has been lifted? Would you care to share your thoughts?

This to me is all good news on your part, THE STAY HAS BEEN LIFTED Yipeeee !


The defence is no doubt the original defence which you received before your case was 'stayed' in the court system. So all systems are go........

Don't worry finally allow the Court procedure to take over.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

molliesauntie

Hello, I have recently taken Monarch on AND WON, over flight ZB684 on May 12 2012. So, good news if you were on that flight!

However, back in 2010, we were delayed about 30 hours coming from Sanford, Orlando to Manchester. We were given hotel accomodation. The flightw were booked through Cosmos but the flight was operated by Monarch.

Monarch are saying that this flight was delayed due to EC's, but I cannot find out what these were. We were told at the time that a wing flap was the problem and that the damage had occurred as a result of a bird strike on the incoming flight, however, there were rumours circulating amongst passengers that our plane had actually been used to get an earlier delayed flight off into London Gatwick.

How do I find out?

Thank you in advance.

NoviceAngel

molliesauntie wrote: »

How do I find out?

Thank you in advance.

Hi molliesauntie, congats on your success :T

You may struggle a little on the other delay through. You cannot claim IF the delay was caused by a bird strike..

Bott wrote:

Scenarios Classed As Extraordinary Circumstances (Can’t Claim)

Acts of terrorism or sabotage
Industrial action (strikes unrelated to airline such as baggage handlers, or air traffic control)
Political or civil unrest
Security risks
Extreme weather conditions
Hidden manufacturing defects
Bird strikes

You could argue that the damage was caused to an earlier flight and not yours, but that's a tricky one, did the airline do everything in its power to minimize the delay, try to source an alternate aircraft?

To answer your question directly, the only time you will find the ACTUAL reason for your delay is if you start court action, then reading the airlines defence, you could start proceedings then IF the damage was by a bird strike you could withdraw from proceedings...

There is always the NWNF route, as the solicitiors might be dealing with other cases on that same flight, and the true cause of the delay would probably be known to them.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

steventa

Hi, I've just had my claim rejected by Monarch for a 21hour flight delay. I'd appreciate any views/advice please?

The reason to reject is 'aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a technical fault immediately prior to its previous flight rotation'

They then go on to say that a part had failed that was only 5 months old, so they deem it as a manufacturing defect and therefore could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch.

I can't help but feel that my claim is valid and they are just trying to fob me off.

razorsedge

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Hi molliesauntie, congats on your success :T

You may struggle a little on the other delay through. You cannot claim IF the delay was caused by a bird strike..


You could argue that the damage was caused to an earlier flight and not yours, but that's a tricky one, did the airline do everything in its power to minimize the delay, try to source an alternate aircraft?

To answer your question directly, the only time you will find the ACTUAL reason for your delay is if you start court action, then reading the airlines defence, you could start proceedings then IF the damage was by a bird strike you could withdraw from proceedings...

There is always the NWNF route, as the solicitiors might be dealing with other cases on that same flight, and the true cause of the delay would probably be known to them.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Completely disagree with you on the bird strike issue (and Bott - what do they know?;);)).

Birds share the same domain as aircraft and bird strikes are inherent in the operation of flights.

If the bird strike was on a previous flight then you don't even need to argue that. Once the bird strike has happened then essentially the repair becomes a technical issue and that was covered by the Huzar case (Bott & Co - perhaps they do know something!;))

razorsedge

steventa wrote: »

Hi, I've just had my claim rejected by Monarch for a 21hour flight delay. I'd appreciate any views/advice please?

The reason to reject is 'aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a technical fault immediately prior to its previous flight rotation'

They then go on to say that a part had failed that was only 5 months old, so they deem it as a manufacturing defect and therefore could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch.

I can't but feel that my claim is valid and they are just trying to fob me off.

Your claim would appear to be valid and yes they are trying to fob you off.

NoviceAngel

razorsedge wrote: »

Completely disagree with you on the bird strike issue (and Bott - what do they know?;);)).

Birds share the same domain as aircraft and bird strikes are inherent in the operation of flights.

Yes I do see your point, but how far do you take the argument isn't bad weather to be expected and inherent in the airlines business, you could use the same argument about all the reasons of an EC.

It's how you interpret the actual EC261 regs, and the basic generally accepted understanding of them, it would be interesting to know if anybody has successfully received compensation due to a delay caused by a bird strike, I don't recall reading of any on here.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

delboy3101

Has anyone had a successful claim against Monarch.
Departed 10th June 2012 from Manchester airport to share el sheik .
6 hours delay.