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

legal_magpie

Well done. Your perseverance is an example to others to follow

franquette

My Court Case is this Friday. Monarch are claiming that the throttle jam constitutes extraordinary circumstances. They have already lost at least twice on this same issue but looks like they are still going ahead. Wish me luck!

JPears

batman44 wrote: »

Well I can finally say my case with monarch has been settled in full. They offered settlement + Interest 1 day before papers were due to be handed over. This was for a flat tyre on previous flight, they pushed me all the way even wanted me to go down to Luton.
I think as soon as they found out that I had paid the hearing fee they offered settlement.
My cases are now over for the time being and thanks to all the advice and help on here from Vauban, Legal Magpie, 111KAB, JPears, Tyzap, and all the other chaps I have not mentioned as I cannot think this time of the morning, but you know how you are!
I will still be around and checking everyday to see if I can help in some way:T:T:T:D

Well done batman. Glad all the Robins were of some help.
Silly Monarch.

Tyzap

franquette wrote: »

My Court Case is this Friday. Monarch are claiming that the throttle jam constitutes extraordinary circumstances. They have already lost at least twice on this same issue but looks like they are still going ahead. Wish me luck!

As with batman44 above, they will probably settle prior to court.

It is a technical fault with the aircraft and it has already been established by the Supreme Court that it is not an EC.

It's not a winnable case for them and they would be stupid to enter any court given the history of technical faults through the courts.

So, no luck needed imho.

Please keep us updated on developments.

franquette

I'm not so sure. They fought on the same basis 3 weeks ago at Luton so I suspect that they just keep trying anyway. I'm delighted to say though that they are having to travel to Aldershot rather than it being on their doorstep at Luton -shame I don't live in the north of Scotland!

Nikki_Gilbert

Lost our case at Court today. To add insult to injury it took 5 hours and the judge refused leave to appeal the judgement . This was despite the fact that Monarch have lost 2 cases at Luton County Court with the same defence only 3 weeks ago. The only difference was that, at that case, one of the claimants had a barrister acting for her. The judge refused to take those cases into account as I did not have a transcript of the Luton cases.
The judge found in Monarch's favour because :
- Airbus had held a forum 2 months before our flight delay about throttle jam so they had accepted that there was a manufacturing defect
- The issue did impinge upon flight safety
- It was a hidden defect in that it could not be seen during regular maintenance
- Monarch had 'taken all reasonable measures' but could do not fix the issue as Airbus had not, at that time, issued no official guidance about how to fix the fault.
Monarch sent their barrister + and engineer + an operations manager.
Of course I would like to appeal to the Circuit Judge but we can't really afford to spend more money on this. Any thoughts/ideas?

legal_magpie

You can ask the Circuit Judge for permission to appeal but you will only get it if you can show at least a prima facie case that your Judge erred in law. One way would be to show that there are conflicting decisions at DJ level. But to succeed you will have to get the transcripts or at least the judgments of the earlier cases.

brianposter

onejontwo wrote: »

Advice please on a 12 hour 50 minutes delayed flight from Almeria Spain to Manchester on 4th October 2015. I have used resolver for my case but have had a response from Monarch into my wifes private e-mail address (although I don't know how they got this) in which they say that there is no compensation as it was "extraordinary circumstances"
In a nutshell the incoming plane landing at Almeria airport hit a bird on its landing approach which apparently knocked out one of it's landing lights. We were advised that it would be ok to fly with a damaged light if this was not fixed but because it was a bird strike an engineer would have to inspect the plane before clearing it to fly.
Now we accepted this but the problem was that because it was due to depart at 21.45 and the airport closed at 22.45 it was not possible to have an engineer look at it as the nearest engineer was 2 hours away. Therefore we were put up in a hotel about 10 km away with food and drink and returned to the airport the next day, so we eventually arrived in Manchester around 12 hours 50 minutes later than scheduled.
I have escalated my case through resolver but I'd like your views on my chances.

Seems to me that Monarch are correct and that you should not be claiming. Accidents happen and safety was clearly the prime consideration.

111KAB

brianposter wrote: »

Seems to me that Monarch are correct and that you should not be claiming. Accidents happen and safety was clearly the prime consideration.

Monarch are not correct. This was not an extraordinary circumstance (which Monarch are claiming) .... note Monarch did not say it was an accident by the way.


Yes safety should always be a priority but so should punctuality. Airlines can be both safe and punctual however in this case it would appear punctuality was not the case.

onejontwo

Just to clarify this case, we accepted that a bird strike was beyond their control but having an engineer on standby or one less than two hours away was not beyond their control. Or maybe keep the airport open longer to allow for an inspection which would mean the engineer was not "out of reach" Also if they had given us the option of transferring to another airport would have lessened the delay by a good few hours. One last point, although this is probably irrelevant , was that if we had been transferred to a local hotel and had an extra night at the hotel with a good meal and drinks then we probably wouldn't have been so peeved.
But as it happens we stood around for ages waiting for three coaches to arrive then after queuing for 40 mins to check in we were provided with a meal around 23.30 and finally got to bed around 01.00. As we had to return to the airport at 07.00 an alarm call was arranged for 0600. therefore, all in all, of the five hours sleep that was available barely two or three were actually taken.
When we finally arrived home the worse for wear I had to book a days holiday off work to cover it.
Thanks for the replies by the way, and I really appreciate the comments and guidance but I wouldn't want to pursue something that I have very little chance of winning, so every comment is taken on board.