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

loxleybottom

Flight Details: ZB547 MAN – GIB 29/09/2013

I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence. Providing our customers with a 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 can confirm that your claim for compensation has now been assessed and you are entitled to compensation in accordance with EU Regulation EC261/2004 due to your delay.

In line with the above a cheque to the value of £289.72 (the Sterling equivalent of €400.00 based on today’s Reuters exchange rate) will be forwarded to each claimant within twenty eight days. Please be aware that payments for children will be incorporated in the total value of the cheque forwarded to the adult who submitted the claim on their behalf.

If you have contacted the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regarding your claim, or the National Enforcement Body (AESA in Spain) responsible for the country you departed from. We would kindly request that you instruct the relevant authority that your claim has been resolved in order to close your case.

For your reference if you have another claim for an alternative delayed flight to the above this will be responded to separately.

Best regards

Jordan Fender
Customer Service Centre Advisor
Monarch Airlines
0333 003 0105
[

This was achieved with 1 phone call after unanswered email and written correspondence dating from 14 December 2014

Yorkie_Red

Hi all, just wanted to let you know where I stand (after a good deal of e-mail tennis it must be said).

I initially made 3 claims to Monarch:-

ZB535 PMI-MAN 7/10/2012 (Which they paid up on without question)
ZB534 MAN-PMI 30/09/2012 - Denied due to EC (Right hand wing flap detector panel detatched at hinge line on earlier flight from Sharm el Sheikh)
ZB580 MAN-FAO 13/09/2010 - Denied due to EC (Only information given is a very vague description of "damage to the aircraft", despite repeated requests they refuse to elaborate on the nature of this).

Since the Supreme Court denied appeal in the Huzar case, Monarch have chosen not to reply to any communication from me (aside from the auto reply) and I have therefore decided to take the plunge and undertake court action myself. I am now eagerly awating Monarch filing their defence in these cases.

I wnated to post as I have lurked these forums from time to time throughout this process & it has been a truly valuable resource. Without your wonderful advice I probably would have given up by now & certainly wouldn't have the confidence to take action through the courts on my own. Vauban's guide in particular has been a tremendous help. I will keep you informed & thanks once again to all contributors for your input.

Tyzap

Yorkie_Red wrote: »

Hi all, just wanted to let you know where I stand (after a good deal of e-mail tennis it must be said).

I initially made 3 claims to Monarch:-

ZB535 PMI-MAN 7/10/2012 (Which they paid up on without question)
ZB534 MAN-PMI 30/09/2012 - Denied due to EC (Right hand wing flap detector panel detatched at hinge line on earlier flight from Sharm el Sheikh)
ZB580 MAN-FAO 13/09/2010 - Denied due to EC (Only information given is a very vague description of "damage to the aircraft", despite repeated requests they refuse to elaborate on the nature of this).

Since the Supreme Court denied appeal in the Huzar case, Monarch have chosen not to reply to any communication from me (aside from the auto reply) and I have therefore decided to take the plunge and undertake court action myself. I am now eagerly awating Monarch filing their defence in these cases.

I wnated to post as I have lurked these forums from time to time throughout this process & it has been a truly valuable resource. Without your wonderful advice I probably would have given up by now & certainly wouldn't have the confidence to take action through the courts on my own. Vauban's guide in particular has been a tremendous help. I will keep you informed & thanks once again to all contributors for your input.

Hi, you're right to give it a shot yourself, it's well worth the effort.

If you get a bit stuck there are plenty of willing helpers here with loads of experience who will be willing to assist.

Good luck.

westkirby

anybody any luck with zb533 palma to Manchester 29/9/14 flight , landing gear fault , refused once in October thanks mark

batman44

Tillybird wrote: »

Hi,

My claim was refused as below:

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was discovered to have sustained damage prior to departure of a previous flight sector. In particular, during the walk-around inspection of the aircraft the flight crew reported a screw was embedded in the Number 3 wheel of the aircraft. It was essential that the screw was removed from the Wheel and the Foreign Object Debris (“FOD”) was inspected. A locally contracted engineer investigated and confirmed that the wheel required replacement due to the FOD. We can confirm that damage caused by FOD can occur at any time and cannot be predicted or avoided and therefore the main wheel damage was completely beyond our control.

Having considered the factual background of this case in accordance with the published guidelines and applicable case law, 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.

I believe this reply is purposefully confusing especially when referring to "damage prior to departure of a previous flight sector". I am not sure whether my claim fits in the extraordinary circumstances bracket or not, I don't have time to waste so would rather get a bit of advice as to whether I should pursue or not please? Anyone have any ideas please?

Thanks!

Ha Ha, I cannot or perhaps I can believe what they are giving as excuses now! Hold on this is this same as my flight in Sept 14 from Sharm this "FOD" so another one here or two? So now we have got the same bolts stuck in the same wheels and repaired by the same men, at different airports? wow!
So now I can say this is a total load of tosh then? or perhaps you have got my letter? This just goes to show how regular this must happen.


Anyway I served legal papers on Monarch last week!

Tillybird

Well Batman44 this proves that FOD's in wheels are not freak occurrences and they should therefore be prepared for them much like a car is prepared for a punctured tyre. I've made this point in my letter to them today, lets see them wriggle out of this one!!!! By all accounts if I manage to get a payout then by default you should too (or vice versa) so I will keep you posted if you keep me posted.

Vauban

Tillybird wrote: »

Well Batman44 this proves that FOD's in wheels are not freak occurrences and they should therefore be prepared for them much like a car is prepared for a punctured tyre. I've made this point in my letter to them today, lets see them wriggle out of this one!!!! By all accounts if I manage to get a payout then by default you should too (or vice versa) so I will keep you posted if you keep me posted.

You'd think so, but this isn't necessarily true in law. The Wallentin Hermann judgement (the key European case law on technical problems) looked at this and concluded:

35 In the light of all the questions referred, it must be considered that, by this question, the referring court is essentially asking whether the frequency alone of the technical problems precludes them from being covered by ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 where air carriers cite those problems as a reason for flight cancellations with above average frequency.

36 As was stated at paragraph 27 of this judgment, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the technical problems cited by the air carrier in question in the main proceedings stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of its activity and are beyond its actual control. It is apparent from this that the frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

37 In view of the foregoing, the answer to the second question referred must be that the frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

You'd think so, but this isn't necessarily true in law. The Wallentin Hermann judgement (the key European case law on technical problems) looked at this and concluded:

Also Vauban bud, in Wallentin


The resolution of a technical problem which comes to light during aircraft maintenance or is caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity and cannot therefore constitute as such an “extraordinary circumstance” within
the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation.

Also confirmed in Huzar V Jet2com, a particular technical problem may be unforeseeable does not mean that it is unexpected. Problems of this nature frequently arise.(para 42, Huzar v Jet2.com High/Supreme Court appeals)


In relation to,


In particular, during the walk-around inspection of the aircraft the flight crew reported a screw was embedded in the Number 3 wheel of the aircraft. It was essential that the screw was removed from the Wheel and the Foreign Object Debris (“FOD”) was inspected.


So yes I would say a flat tyre is inherent, just the same a in a car. They are really blaming a screw on the runway for this? come on! Everyone could do the same about a flat tyre in a car but the responsibilities is with me to fix it whatever caused it, it is in the nature of driving a four wheeled car with rubber tyres.

Vauban

Batman,

You are absolutely right. But the point, as you say, is that the test is "inherence" rather than "frequency". Of course, if something happens often then it's difficult to think how the risk of it happening wouldn't also be inherent in the activity - but it's worth everyone being clear on what the legal test is. And anyone who says to a lawyer in court that it can't be extraordinary because it's happened before is likely to have paras 35-37 quoted back at them!

V

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

Batman,

You are absolutely right. But the point, as you say, is that the test is "inherence" rather than "frequency". Of course, if something happens often then it's difficult to think how the risk of it happening wouldn't also be inherent in the activity - but it's worth everyone being clear on what the legal test is. And anyone who says to a lawyer in court that it can't be extraordinary because it's happened before is likely to have paras 35-37 quoted back at them!

V

Hi Vauban Bud,


I understand what you are saying, it could mean that we are going back to Huzar and the inherent test all again when this has been tested, the quote below was only a part of the overall reasonings the appeal judge and now UK case law has said...


"A particular technical problem may be unforeseeable does not mean that it is unexpected. Problems of this nature frequently arise."


This was the decision of the 3 appeal judges in the appeal so I would have thought this would override what is quoted in Wallentin here in the UK?


For instance if I have a wheel with rubber rims filled with air at some point it is likely that will burst or puncture due to the fact this is in the nature of the materials it is made of and the way it is constructed is inherent in the operation of the wheel, that could not be said for a wheel made of stone or wood? I would find it hard for a judge to say a puncture whatever the cause is not inherent with everyday activity of and airline due to the fact the main and essential component of an aircraft are wheels and the number of times the stress and strain of take-off and landing has on them sooner or later will take its toll on the materials used, wear and tear or unexpected debris on the landing runway and is expected so therefore inherent in the running of and airline.


Just thinking