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

Mark2spark

fubar4164 wrote: »

Hi.

Delayed by 7 hrs on mon 5765 sharm el sheik to gatwick on 8 july 2010.

After asking several times, they've finally denied my claim due to a throttle jam meaning the cable needed replacing.

Any ideas whether this is a common problem, or where I go from here. Prepared to go to court if necessary but at the moment don't feel I have enough info.

The general consensus of opinion is that tech issues are not EC's.

I've updated the OP to include your flight no.

Mark2spark

trello wrote: »

MON303 15/6/2012 Manchester to Sanford - Claim denied:

Aircraft scheduled for flight developed a fault on number one management computer on 13/6/12. Engineer was called in to rectify and aircraft was declared serviceable to operate its next planned flight to Calgary.

Arrangements were made for the computer to be replaced on the morning of the 14th following its return to the UK. Following replacement of the part the aircraft was then scheduled to operate back to Calgary. However this flight was delayed as a result of headwinds.

Consequently the departure of your own flight was unavoidably delayed as a result.

Is this classed as "extraordinary circumstances"? Thanks

The reasoning is becoming more and more detached from reality. So a problem on a flight two days before yours was the cause of the EC? Jesus....
IMO it's just ridiculous. Of course this isn't an EC that relates to the flight concerned, ie your flight.

I've updated the OP to include your flight no.

blondmark

Reading through the posts there seems to be a strange and popular myth (that the airlines are probably keen to encourage) that you must jump through extraordinary hoops before going to court, e.g. 4 page questionnaires must be completed, passports and original boarding cards produced, several months wait between each communication, multiple chasing-up letters, etc. The myth continues that if you don't go through all this nonsense you will be judged to be unreasonable!

The truth is a lot simpler, and is covered in the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct issued by the Ministry of Justice.

Briefly this requires you to set out the basis of your claim clearly and concisely with sufficient information for the defendant to understand why you are making a claim. 14 days is the standard period for a response before suing, with a further 7-14 days if the defendant requests it in time because it is having trouble in laying its hands on the facts that relate to your claim, and when that expires you sue.

No judge will criticise you for adhering to the court's own protocol, and nobody but crooked airlines will thank you for playing their ridiculous games indefinitely.

If they send you a four page form, throw it away and set your claim out clearly in a letter instead. If they ask for a passport, a boarding card, a DNA sample or an affidavit from both your great grandparents, just tell them a defendant is not entitled to irrelevant material.

You were on their plane, your records are on their servers and their plane was late. Don't allow them to complicate matters, and sue them as soon as they try to.

Mark2spark

I'm going to be busy at work over the next few days so won't be contributing much as won't be near a PC. Cheers guys.

cart583

i have just looked on flightstats at my flight zb305 on 09/06/2012 manchester to sanford and it says delayed 9 minutes! we were actually delayed over 11 hours so why does it say that? looking at the flight event timeline it only starts late on the 9th and we were supposed to be departing at 09.15 that morning. eventually took off at around 8.17pm that night.

rp4727

Centipede100 wrote: »

What did any accompanying correspondence with the vouchers state? If you use these vouchers when the airline has already stated that they are your "compensation" then you might be deemed to have accepted them as such.

If however they have been described as a goodwill gesture then you can safely use the vouchers and start your claim. Make sure you have this description of "goodwill" tucked away safely for future reference.

Thanks - I will check but I am pretty sure it said goodwill gesture and not holding my breath at getting the compensation anyway!

Charlie1brown

ZB533 Palma to Manchester - 7th August 2012 - 9hr delay
Completed Monarch form and sent all relevant details mid of January - just recieved rely - NO Compensation, due to 'extrodinary circumstances' - problem with wheel bolt.
Flustrated about the compensation especially after the treatment we had in Palma airport, we had to 'frog march' a 'Service air' manager down to give us information, as after initial information, nothing further was given and there was nearly a riot:eek:. Boiling hot, minimal meal voucher, babies given no water, and when we got on the plane, the airconditioning didn't work, so extremly hot, no free drinks offered, and pilot told us, other airlines would have flown with the problem:(

Eve4ever

Hi everyone

I have just called Monarch to check my cheque isn't in the post(fat chance!) before going on line and starting a small claim. I was informed that Monarch intend to complete all outstanding claims by Thursday of next week!! I asked if this meant they would be either paying up or denying the claim and I was advised, yes, on a case by case basis.

I'm going to make a prediction here that we are all going to be told to whistle for our money. :mad:

Vauban

Eve4ever wrote: »

I was informed that Monarch intend to complete all outstanding claims by Thursday of next week!! I asked if this meant they would be either paying up or denying the claim and I was advised, yes, on a case by case basis. I'm going to make a prediction here that we are all going to be told to whistle for our money. :mad:

I don't think you need to be Mystic Meg to get this one right:D

Interesting though. If true, it would suggest that Monarch were not slowly moving through each flight but rather that they were holding off from telling people until they had decided on a strategy. And their strategy seems to be ...

DENY EVERYTHING!!!

I suspect they conclude that by saying no, 80% of folk will simply walk away. So that's a significant saving already. And they're probably right. But at what price to their corporate reputation?

Of the remaining 20%, they can either be pressured or settled before the matter comes to Court. Indeed, there is evidence on this forum of Monarch's lawyers phoning claimants directly to tell them the claimant has no case but that Monarch will refund the court fee if they drop the action.

It will be interesting to hear when the first of the court cases comes before a judge ...

LBD

Sorry you are going to be so busy Mark......had a look for Martin on FB, went back as fars as 1st of this month could not find him :) see you when you get back :)