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

cathy_86

Centipede100 wrote: »

Your experience echoes that of many passengers who waited months for Monarch to reimburse their expenses following the volcanic eruption and closure of airspace back in 2010!

If we are to split airline delay experiences and claims into different threads, then the one proviso I would stipulate is that any posts regarding any other airline in that thread should be ignored.

Contact
:T

cathy_86

Mark2spark wrote: »

As i've said before, the fact that Monarch are not exactly flush with money, - I think they recently published that they lost £500 mill last year - might be a factor. They might be waiting for the banks to come up with a new overdraft package.
Or a dozen other things really.
It certainly seems strange that they are taking so long to even begin denying claims on EC's, just for a start.
My fear is that they will go into administration and then any court costs i've incurred will be lost as well.

I wrote to the Oct 12 Nothing at all in the form of reply

cathy_86

lancs_ms wrote: »

I too have submitted a claim to Monarch, which included all the information they could reasonably require. I experienced the standard stalling tactic of asking me to resubmit on their forms separately. No doubt some folk give up at this point.

I sent them their forms back with every thing they wanted on the 10th November 2012, and have heard NOTHING from them since. I sent them a chase up email on the 3rd Jan, and again they have not replied.

This gets me thinking that:

1) They are overwhelmed and totally incompetent at handling the claims and I will get there eventually; or

2) They are stalling deliberately, to deter as many people as possible fromc laiming. Maybe they will force everyone to go to court on the basis that only10% may be determined to take things that far? This would be commercial suicide as their reputation is going down the pan. I will certainly never book with them again and I'm telling all my friends and colleagues to avoid them too; or

3) They know they are going to go bust and are just stringing this out for as long as possible.

Their approach is quite strange, and does not make good business sense to me.

Is there no one who is an insider working within Monarch who can tell us what is going on and what tactics they are employing?

#

I have also gone down the same route to no avail.
The next time you contact them it the Director of Monarch that you need Iain Rawlinson

Vauban

Cathy86, I'm not quite sure why you think that writing to the Director of Monarch is going to make any difference. As people who know what they're talking about have already advised, you'll be wasting a postage stamp. The only way that you will get any money is by taking Monarch to court.

ang216bc

All

Just an update

Received the following reply the other day:-

Re: Flight ZB685 Sharm El Sheikh to Manchester on 29th September 2012

Usual intro etc.

Our records show that on the day of your flight, the aircraft scheduled to operate your inbound flight landed in Sharm El Sheikh on schedule after having completed the outbound sector. Unfortunately, prior to its departure back to the UK, the crew reported that the right hand wing deflector panel had detached at hinge line. We arranged for an engineer to be flown out to Sharm El Sheikh to rectify the fault. Upon arrival, he established that the hinge pin had sheared during flap operation and he advised that this fault is not detectable until failure. It was unfortunate that as a result of the time required to investigate and resolve the problem, your flight was subject to an unavoidable overnight delay.

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,

EU Claims Advisor
Monarch Airlines
+44 (0) 8444 815 626
[EMAIL="customer.relations@monarch.co.uk"]customer.relations@monarch.co.uk[/EMAIL]

A fault "which is not detectable until failure" scares the life out of me. How many parts on an aircraft are classed as being of a similar nature? Surely components have a certain life span and should be changed before failure occurs.

This email followed a phone call from the Monarch legal team offering to reimburse our legal fee of £70 if we withdrew our claim as they were going to "throw money at the case".

It appears to me that if you want to invoke a reply from them then you must go down the Court route.

I will be respectfully declining the offer as I still believe I have a case.

Any comments from the Forum are always appreciated

Vauban

ang216bc wrote: »

This email followed a phone call from the Monarch legal team offering to reimburse our legal fee of £70 if we withdrew our claim as they were going to "throw money at the case"

That's very funny, really. I hoped you thanked them for their kind offer I don't think I'd award them very many marks of our ten for subtlety of approach. It's like Deal or No Deal, but where the Banker doesn't want to give you any money - and indeed seems reluctant to phone at all.

I'm hoping I get a call offering to refund my my £80 fee. I'll then advise them to write to me, before sending them with a set of forms which I will propose to ignore for three and a half months. Before then saying no.

As their new advertising slogan (doesn't quite) say "Monarch: Let's Make Suing Fun Again":rotfl:

cosmo21

Another flight to add to the list of denied claims... Looks like I'll be another one heading to court. Thanks for all the info on here so far, it's been most helpful.

Re: Flight ZB743 Malaga to London Gatwick on 15th July 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.

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 reasonable 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.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was declared inoperable prior to the outbound flight from London Gatwick due to an air leak from the pre-cooler in the number two engine. Engineers attended the aircraft and ascertained that a replacement component was required. This was transferred via taxi from the Monarch Engineering base in Luton to Gatwick for fitment. Further maintenance work revealed that seals were necessary which were only available at the manufacturer’s base in Hamburg. Monarch arranged for these to be flown to the UK where engineers worked as quickly as possible to complete the engineering work and declare the aircraft serviceable. The outbound flight to Malaga was then able to depart at the earliest opportunity, albeit with a delay. It was unfortunate that as a consequence of these events, your flight was also subject to a delay.

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. Therefore I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

Yours sincerely,

Monarch EU Claims Team
Monarch Airlines
Tel: +44 (0) 1582 531712

Mark2spark

ang216bc wrote: »

I will be respectfully declining the offer as I still believe I have a case.

Any comments from the Forum are always appreciated
[/FONT]

Perhaps we ought to start compiling a list of other aircraft parts that are quite serviceable until they fail :rotfl:

Alternator
Starter Motor
Air con unit
Battery/batteries
toilets


Off to court with you. They've already had one ruling that tech issues aren't EC's, perhaps the judge has to tell them again that they can't have a separate test case for every single part on an aircraft :undecided

Mark2spark

cosmo21 wrote: »

Re: Flight ZB743 Malaga to London Gatwick on 15th July 2012

The outbound flight to Malaga was then able to depart at the earliest opportunity, albeit with a delay. It was unfortunate that as a consequence of these events, your flight was also subject to a delay.

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. Therefore I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

Now now Monarch
You know full well that only EC's that relate *to the flight concerned* are valid.
14 days notice of court action LBA is the next step Cosmo.

Tia2013

I am also going down the legal action route.

Monarch received my claim 30/10/2013 and I have just received an email response the same as everyone else

Re: ZB564 Manchester to Tenerife 17th August 2010

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 reasonable 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.

Our records show that the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the number two battery, during pre-flight inspection the battery was found to be completely discharged and would need replacing. It was unfortunate that despite our best efforts we were unable to transfer passengers on your flight to an aircraft chartered from a third party carrier, or transfer passengers to an alternate aircraft from within our fleet, as would be our aim in circumstances such as this.

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,

Monarch EU Claims Team
Monarch Airlines


I don't know if it's a typo but my flight was actually August 2012 - so now I don't know if they have looked at the wrong flight or not - great back to square one!

How many technical issues do they have? - very worrying!