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

legal_magpie

"Send this guy the bug letter" (Explanation can be provided to those who don't know the story)

NoviceAngel

legal_magpie wrote: »

"Send this guy the bug letter" (Explanation can be provided to those who don't know the story)

I googled it, http://kevinrobson.org.uk/?p=435

That's typically very true of the airlines.

jammermac

I have started court proceedings against Monarch re a delayed flight to gran canaria from Jul 13
They have sent me their defence basically that a part on the plane failed early, blah blah this part should have lasted x months and failed well before that, it was the high season and they did everything they could etc etc. the failure appeared on the preceding flight.
They have also requested the hearing for Luton as their expert defence witnesses reside in that area.
My questions are: what court if any is best for these hearings? I live in Central Scotland and will have to travel regardless �� but given the choice would rather somewhere North ie near border.
Also, is this defence something that has been tried before? I am using Vaubans guide and I'm fairly confident of arguing my case but I am open to suggestions or input from others who have been down this path.
Cheers in advance

Sedge123

It sounds very much like they are using a stock letter. Mine was very similar, almost word for word as yours flowerpot. They have also requested that the hearing is in Luton, I am going to write a covering letter today to request that due to work and family commitments the hearing is held in my local court as is normal practice.

Mark2spark

Batman, you're over 3500 km, and over 3 hours, but less than 4 hours, so it's 600 euros due, less 50%, so.... €300.

You won't find a reference in the EU261 regulation wording to the time scale (3 hours) because it's the later ruling of Sturgeon that has determined that delays of 3 hours or more are tantamount to a cancelled flight, so read the EU261 Reg as if you're flight was cancelled, in order to see the compensation levels due.


Edit: I mean you won't find a reference to the time scale in the same way as there is a reference to re-routing, as it's the Sturgeon ruling (that came later) that clarifies it.

Sometimes I find that re-reading things in plain text can send your head in a spin :think::silenced::doh:

Mark2spark

Vauban wrote: »

I agree with your assessment Sedge - I think this is very helpful indeed. The wording is not in fact ambiguous:



The CAA's view is that, for the technical failure to be considered a manufacturing defect, the airline will need to have been advised of this by the manufacturer. The airline will not be able to address this point, except to say they disagree with the CAA and their interpretation is not legally binding. I suspect most judges, when presented with this and a copy of the Huzar judgement, will not require much more persuading.

Well done for finding it, Sedge - I salute you!

Edit: In fact, the reference in Wallentin is also very clear - I had forgotten how ir clarifies a manufacturing defect:



In other words, it's about the grounding of aircraft fleets following a manufacturers advisory, affecting all relevant craft. Not just a part failing on a plane "prematurely".

I agree with this 100%, I think i've written about this before. A very useful document Sedge :T

Mark2spark

JPears wrote: »

mutatis mutandis?
In English?

https://www.translegal.com/legal-latin/mutatis-mutandis

In the context used in Sturgeon, it means that changes have been made, that do not effect the original scope of the regulation.

Further, to specifically mean that wording relating to re-routing or denied boarding also applies to delays.

jamiet_2

Hi Guys,

I'm looking for some advice and opinions on whether the below is worth progressing with the CAA or elsewhere, or not. Thanks in advance for any help.

ZB747 - 05/07/2013 - Funchal to Gatwick

We originally raised our claim in 2013 re the above flight and received the following response;

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws 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.

Our records show that the aircraft operating your flight suffered a fault with its alternate right hand brake system, the fault arose during the aircrafts approach to Gatwick, for safety reasons the aircraft was removed from service until engineers could complete their work. Given that this fault could not have been detected during maintenance it was therefore unforeseeable and led to an unavoidable delay to your flight. Despite our best efforts there was no availability with the Monarch fleet or a third party carrier to offload your flight.

Having considered the factual background of this case in accordance with the published guidelines, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

All flight delays are fully documented in accordance with the requirements of our regulator and the relevant legislation in place. Please note that this documentation cannot be disclosed to passengers nonetheless we actively supply this to the Civil Aviation Authority and National Enforcement Bodies upon request.

In light of the recent Supreme Court judgements last year, I decided to resubmit the claim in November 2014. Despite numerous e-mail chasers, I only received a response after I called their EU Claim support team a few days ago. A few hours later that day I received the following e-mail;

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 EU Regulation 261, however the Regulation states that compensation is only payable when a flight is delayed in excess of three hours after the scheduled time of arrival.

Our records show that the scheduled time of arrival of your flight was 20:10GMT and the actual time of arrival was 23:09GMT therefore your total delay on arrival was 2 Hours 59 Minutes consequently we are unable to accept your claim for compensation.

I am little confused re the 2 hours 59 mins comment, as we definitely arrived back in the UK a little over 3 hours late. This was validated with a flight stats at the time when I placed the original claim in 2013. Upon receiving the above outcome, I decided to check the same flight stats website and noticed the flight record had been amended that same day. Also I struggle to understand why the challenge re the length of the delay, was not mentioned in their original reply back in 2013.

I phoned Monarch two days later to raise my suspicion, and the gentlemen who I spoke to, informed me all decisions come from their legal team and are final, and should I wish to dispute it, I would have to contact the CAA.

I appreciate this is probably an unusual one, but keen to hear others thoughts and opinions before investing further time in progressing with the CAA or other bodies.

Many thanks guys!
Jamie

Vauban

Well Bott's flight database reckons this qualifies for compensation. And in any case, the clock stops only when the doors of the aircraft are open. This was confirmed by the European Court recently (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11076157/Flight-delay-compensation-boost-for-passengers.html).

jamiet_2

Thanks Vauban, hadn't checked Bott & Co's flight checker before. I appreciate you may not know the answer to this, but do you know how Monarch calculate their arrival time i.e. with taxi and doors opening or just runway touch down?