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

batman44

prawnsalad wrote: »

Hi

I have had a claim rejected by Monarch and have sent them an informal letter suggesting they make might make an alternative offer as per Vauban's guide but again they have declined.
Does anyone have any personal experience with No Win no Fee companies as I would be grateful for any recommendations.

Thanks

You could do it yourself or a NWNF but they take a cut. I have heard somewhere that a company called Bott&Co have a good reputation but I have not used them, google flight delays maybe see what comes out. You could search the Jet2 forum and see what you find:)

batman44

Now chaps, had Monarch's defence and they want mediation and for me to go down to Luton from Manchester, not sent my directions off yet, what you think?

Also take a look see what the defence is and what you think. Mr Vauban has suggested a couple of things. This bolt was discovered in Parma and the flights were- Parma-Man - Man-Sharm - then us Sharm-Man. knock on.

[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that the aircraft scheduled to operate the Claimants' flight, aircraft XXXX, was discovered to be suffering with a technical fault immediately prior to departure of the flight sector, namely Palma to Manchester, prior to the Claimants' flight rotation. In particular, during the walk-around inspection of the aircraft prior to departure the flight crew reported a bolt was embedded in the Number 5 main wheel of the aircraft.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] The Defendant submits that it was essential that the bolt was removed from the Main Wheel and the Foreign Object Damage ("FOD") was inspected in accordance with the Aircraft Maintenance Manual ("AMM') to ensure any damage caused was within operational limits and therefore not impinging on flight safety. The Defendant submits that locally contracted engineering support attended the aircraft and advised that once the bolt had been removed the main wheel was subject to deflation and therefore determined that the damage caused by the Foreign Object was beyond operational limits. The Defendant submits that the FOD would have occurred in Palma on the runway. The Defendant submits that it has no control over the surface of the runway. Airport Authorities do take measures to avoid FOD however it can occur at any time and cannot be predicated or avoided. Accordingly, FOD is external to the Defendant and completely beyond its control.

[FONT=&quot]7) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that although the fault occurred on a previous sector, as stated in Paragraph 15 of the Preamble under the Regulation, in the context of a delay or cancellation, extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where an event gives rise to the delay or cancellation 'of one or more flights by an aircraft' even though all reasonable measures had been taken to avoid the delay or cancellation. In context therefore, the Preamble to the Regulation clearly contemplates the possibility that reactionary delays and/or cancellations can be covered by the defence of extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, the Defendant submits that all aircraft fly in flight rotations, consequently if an extraordinary circumstance event causing a delay occurs on one rotation then this will inevitably impact the subsequent flight rotation scheduled to be operated on that aircraft.

[FONT=&quot]8) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that as the fault was caused by FOD requiring immediate assessment and rectification it is considered an unpredictable and unexpected event which is deemed as extraordinary in accordance with point 20 of the Guidance on Extraordinary Circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the European Commission and the amended version released by the CAA in April 2015.

[FONT=&quot]9) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that it has a full defence to the Claimants' claim under Article 5 (3) of Regulation 261/2004 which states 'an operating carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation (delay) is [FONT=&quot][/FONT]caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.'

[FONT=&quot]10) [/FONT]The Defendant intends to rely upon the decision in Huzar ( [2014] EWCA Civ 791 Jet2.com Limited v. Ronald Huzar) where the Court of Appeal upheld HHJ Platts' reasoning that The contrast... is between problems which are internal or those which are extraneous to the carrier's operations. Typically the latter are beyond the carrier's control'. The Defendant submits that the requirement to replace the main wheel did not occur as a result of a failure to maintain the aircraft. On the contrary, the Defendant submits that the cause of the delay was FOD, namely a bolt becoming embedded in the crown of the main wheel. Accordingly, this fault is clearly external to the Defendant. The Defendant submits therefore that as the Claimants' flight delay was caused by FOD, such a fault is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraordinary and was a defect that could have an impinged on flight safety.

[FONT=&quot]11) [/FONT]Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the test of using all reasonable measures to avoid the delay concerned, as set out in Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin!Hermann v. Alitalia). In particular 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would not have been able... to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted', from leading to the delay. The Defendant submits that it is a smaller airline and had only 42 aircraft within its fleet at the time and therefore did not have spare idle aircraft to cover any disruption to its programme when an aircraft was unexpectedly removed. The Defendant submits that the Court must take into account that the Claimants' flight took place during the peak flying season limiting the availability of spare aircraft within the Defendant's own fleet and from alternative air carriers. Accordingly there was no other replacement aircraft during this peak flying period to offload the Claimants' flight to within its own fleet or on the market.

[FONT=&quot]12) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that it deployed all its resources and financial means at its disposal to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]13) [/FONT]The Defendant further intends to rely upon the decision of Eglitis v. Latvijas Republikas ministrija at para 35 where the CJEU held that the Regulation cannot result in airlines being led to make intolerable sacrifices.'

[FONT=&quot]14) [/FONT]In addition to the case law, the Defendant intends to rely upon the Guidance on Extraordinary Circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the European Commission.

15)Furthermore, the Defendant submits that the CAA has published guidance as to what constitutes reasonable measures including that the airline's business model and size of fleet must be taken into account when considering what are reasonable measures. The Defendant intends to rely upon this guidance in support of its defence.

[FONT=&quot]16) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimants as alleged or at all.

[FONT=&quot]17) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimants for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.

[FONT=&quot]18) [/FONT]The Defendant admits that the Claimants have an inherent right to interest subject to liability being established.

Vauban

A pie and a pint for the person who identifies my two proposed principal planks for Batman's riposte. Monarch employees welcome to join in too!

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

A pie and a pint for the person who identifies my two proposed principal planks for Batman's riposte. Monarch employees welcome to join in too!

We shall keep it quite just for now, someone will spot them bud:D

Noticed first para "technical fault" admitted. NEB wishlist, also number 20 states in-flight FOD! even so we have bird strike now excluded from ec's- what case was that?

Huzar appeal, HHJ Platts reasoning? The appeal court did not agree with that!

batman44

Just spotted CAA reasonable measures bit, since when did the CAA have any legal standing?

Vauban

Lol! Knowing how easy is it to knock this down, I doubt Monarch would be daft enough to take it to Court - especially if they could see you aren't bamboozled by their tricks. Indeed, settling with you would offer a good opportunity to Monarch to show their are now abiding by their legal obligations? New leaf and all that?

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

Lol! Knowing how easy is it to knock this down, I doubt Monarch would be daft enough to take it to Court - especially if they could see you aren't bamboozled by their tricks. Indeed, settling with you would offer a good opportunity to Monarch to show their are now abiding by their legal obligations? New leaf and all that?

There is so much to pull apart bud, failing to maintain on the contray? Wallentin I think states it does not matter if the airlines failure to maintain or the fault was found by sheduled maintenance.

Tyzap

Vauban wrote: »

A pie and a pint for the person who identifies my two proposed principal planks for Batman's riposte. Monarch employees welcome to join in too!

Yes there are two major points that jump out and a number of minor points too.

One was resolved in my case (which Monarch are now twisting around) and the other is a knock on.

I wouldn't agree to going to Luton, let them do the travelling.

Batman44, you're on a winner here! Monarch would be silly to try to defend this in court.:rotfl:

batman44

Tyzap wrote: »

Yes there are two major points that jump out and a number of minor points too.

One was resolved in my case (which Monarch are now twisting around) and the other is a knock on.

I wouldn't agree to going to Luton, let them do the travelling.

Batman44, you're on a winner here! Monarch would be silly to try to defend this in court.:rotfl:

Knock on, I dont know what case that has been delt with in or is it in wallentin - A particular flight on a particular day etc?

In your case they are quoting something HHJ Platts said that was dismissed in the appeal - reasoning?

Our lord vauban has picked 2 out that are in there but don't jump out at you.

As a LIP I will request my choice of court Manchester.

I would of thought the judge will throw this out before that.

NoviceAngel

My golly gosh this thread has got busy, I'll have a proper read through it all in the morning but if PtLV has helped, then congratulations on your compensation Batman