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

glentoran99

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Good result, I'm surprised you personally went down the NWNF route, you know the regs better than me!

Pleased you got Monarch to pay though, they're not one of the quickest payers.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

The fact i live in NI and would possibly have had to go to england for court put me off, As well as not really having the confidence to go to court myself even if it was in NI and the up front fees would have been money I really couldnt afford with a toddler and a new baby, wee bit annoying having to pay out but they seem to have got interest as well so im not really that worse off that what i would have expected doing it myself as you arent guaranteed interest

111KAB

Once again it looks like Monarch have conned one of their claimants .....


https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints/posts/378412155653507

NoviceAngel

111KAB wrote: »

Once again it looks like Monarch have conned one of their claimants .....


https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints/posts/378412155653507

Well I know you've posted about this on here, and on FB what more can you do ?!?!

111KAB

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Well I know you've posted about this on here, and on FB what more can you do ?!?!

Just don't fall for the line from Monarch that they are looking into your claim particularly if you are in the 5th year .... they will let it drag on and suddenly you will get the reply that you are out of time. As far as I know there is absolutely zilch you can then do ... unless anyone knows anything different??

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Just don't fall for the line from Monarch that they are looking into your claim particularly if you are in the 5th year .... they will let it drag on and suddenly you will get the reply that you are out of time. As far as I know there is absolutely zilch you can then do ... unless anyone knows anything different??

There is a provision I think about deception and the limitation period but I don't think it would apply here. And in fairness to Monarch, they do flag up the six year point in their otherwise threatening letter they send out to claimants.

Ultimately people have to take responsibility for this themselves - learn the law and your rights, or get turned over: it's a tough world out there!

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

There is a provision I think about deception and the limitation period but I don't think it would apply here. And in fairness to Monarch, they do flag up the six year point in their otherwise threatening letter they send out to claimants.

Ultimately people have to take responsibility for this themselves - learn the law and your rights, or get turned over: it's a tough world out there!

Agree, there's also a common law duty of care, not to mislead to the detriment of others, type legislation.. But if they are pointing out the six year limit themselves in their letters, this is very unlikely to succeed, there's nothing to stop a LiP from starting legal action on a case that is over six years, the airlines defence would be obvious but if the Judge feels Monarch have behaved in such a way to deliberately delay the case, it might have a slim chance, I doubt very much if a NWNF would touch it, but it would be an interesting case to follow.

Ultimately I think six years is ample time, I agree with you both and I'd just say buyer beware!!

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

glentoran99

I'm not sure they are pointing out put as such, and it's only mentioned in their letters post supreme court ruling, a lot of people seem to have been caught out by their putting cases on hold waiting on it. I can understand that though as it wasn't what way it was going to go.

legal_magpie

I have been asked to comment on the limitation point on this thread (not one I usually follow).
It is often said that limitation is a shield not a sword. It is a defence but has to be expressly pleaded in the defence. So if you issue proceedings more than 6 years (5 in Scotland, so I'm told) after the delayed flight, those proceedings are perfectly valid and if the airline doesn't defend the claim you can enter judgment.
Similarly, if the airline does defend the claim on its merits and does not raise the limitation point, you can proceed with the claim and you might win.
Also remember:

(a) that the relevant date is the date that you commence proceedings not the date on which you notify the airline of a claim;

(b) that the airline is under no obligation to warn you that the limitation period is running out.

So even if you are out of time, you can still pursue your claim in correspondence but if the airline raises the limitation point in response my advice would be to forget it and move on.

glentoran99

legal_magpie wrote: »

I have been asked to comment on the limitation point on this thread (not one I usually follow).
It is often said that limitation is a shield not a sword. It is a defence but has to be expressly pleaded in the defence. So if you issue proceedings more than 6 years (5 in Scotland, so I'm told) after the delayed flight, those proceedings are perfectly valid and if the airline doesn't defend the claim you can enter judgment.
Similarly, if the airline does defend the claim on its merits and does not raise the limitation point, you can proceed with the claim and you might win.
Also remember:

(a) that the relevant date is the date that you commence proceedings not the date on which you notify the airline of a claim;

(b) that the airline is under no obligation to warn you that the limitation period is running out.

So even if you are out of time, you can still pursue your claim in correspondence but if the airline raises the limitation point in response my advice would be to forget it and move on.

If the airline has disregarded your claim on the basis of the six years though I think it's a given they would use it in a defence

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie wrote: »

..........

(b) that the airline is under no obligation to warn you that the limitation period is running out...........

thanks for the clarification JJ I would have hoped that there would be some requirement for them to play fair in law, but obviously not