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

Betterthanpar

Gringo0151 wrote: »

Flight ZB1377 Vencie - Manchester 21/06/2013

Flight delayed by 8hrs, our flight was merged with Milan flight, so we had to drop off and pick up at Milan before flying to Manchester. They have rejected our claim as the aircraft due to operate our flight was declared unserviceable due to suffering an integrated drive generator leak that rendered it unsafe to fly and the same aircraft was was due to operate from Milan to Manchester on the same day. Ironically on the way out to Venice from Manchester we had to stop off at gatwick to pick up passengers seems Monarch are definitely merging flights when only half full.

So that makes 3 merged flights in 7 days on the new UK - Italy routes introduced by Monarch in summer 2012. Monarch seem to be have been very lucky in having "technical issues" conveniently associated with these flights which allowed them to operate 3 planes instead of 6!

LBD

HitAndMiss wrote: »

Yesterday I received an E Mail from Monarch Airlines informing me that my claim of 400 euros per person (2 people travelling) had been reduced to 200 Euros per person because the delay was between 3 and 4 hours....

Do you mind telling me what the delay was for?? my own claim was rejected because the fault was on the flight the night before mine.... am curious as to the circumstances of yours, as you are onyl the 3rd to be paid by monarch...

thanks very much :j

PaulPonting

I received an E Mail from Monarch airlines accepting my claim for a delayed flight from Fuerteventura to Gatwick in September 2011 but reducing it by 50% as the delay was between 3 and 4 hours in accordance the ruling in EC261/2004. They did say as I received a letter at the time of my original complaint, where the facts stated were incoorect following another investigation. They did say because I had received tis incorrect communication at the time of my complaint my claim would be met as an exceptional case. Thankfully I retained the original correspondence as I have no doubt that my claim would have been rejected now, if I had not got something in writing previously. I guess I should not "Winge" as I am one of the lucky ones getting something!! However I have looked at the CAA web site and it does not say anything about airlines being able to reduce claims by 50% for delays between 3 and 4 hours for flights in the distant band for the Canary Islands. It looks like Monarch's legal team has been searching for loopholes in the original document of EC261/2004. I cannot believe even Monarch would state something in writing that was not true. If proved wrong they it would leave themselves open to legal action for stating incorrect facts. I am going to wait until my cheque arrives before deciding whether to persue the matter further. Hopefully by that time some further information may be available on this specific issue. I have E Mailed the CAA today about the validity of reducing my claim by 50% but do not expect a a quick response.If anyone has any further to add about the validity of reducing claims by 50% please could you post them on this forum. It seems from earlier post I am not the only person to suffer this reduction.

Betterthanpar

Centipede100 wrote: »

Agree totally with your assertion that this seems to have been a problem with another aircraft rather than the one tasked with your flight. Absolutely not extraordinary circumstances in that case. So I would say good news for you rather than bad!

Would appear to be connected with Italy - UK delay issues mentioned in posts #786, 866, 870, and 908. Was this a merged flight also?

colswiz

Just recieved a letter - ZB736 Gatwick to Malaga 14th July 2012- denied compensation.......yes you guess it EC .....another Cracked Windscreen :mad:

blondmark

Mark2spark wrote: »

It will certainly be an interesting observation if Monarch start settling out of court at the last minute, rather than have a judge rule that their EC excuses are invalid.
A few defended cases, and rulings, are what we need though.

Although a selection of county court judgments on 261/2004 cases would be worth having, and considered persuasive in other county courts, those courts would require an official transcript of the cases cited in order to consider them, and unfortunately that's an expense that most successful litigants wouldn't bother with, having won.

111KAB

blondmark wrote: »

Although a selection of county court judgments on 261/2004 cases would be worth having, and considered persuasive in other county courts, those courts would require an official transcript of the cases cited in order to consider them, and unfortunately that's an expense that most successful litigants wouldn't bother with, having won.

Thanks for that comment blondmark - what sort of cost, do you know? I ask because it would seem there are likely to be quite a few Court cases and if people 'joined forces' this may dilute the cost however this then begs the question as to whether a transcript can be copied. Thanks for you input by the way ~ coupled with Mark's and Centipede I am sure this is helping many others. :T

blondmark

111KAB wrote: »

Thanks for that comment blondmark - what sort of cost, do you know? I ask because it would seem there are likely to be quite a few Court cases and if people 'joined forces' this may dilute the cost however this then begs the question as to whether a transcript can be copied. Thanks for you input by the way ~ coupled with Mark's and Centipede I am sure this is helping many others. :T

I think I paid about £50 to have a brief hearing transcribed by http://www.compril.co.uk/courttranscriptions.htm

blondmark

Centipede100 wrote: »

Don't know the cost of transcripts but be careful here since if you flourish a handful of claim successes the airline is equally likely to be able to do the same to back their stance.

Unless you have the transcript of a case involving the exact same flight then I would be tempted to subscribe to the notion that any other judgment in small claims sets no precedent and that I wish my case to be judged on its own facts and merits.

Well I think the airlines already do cite case law in those few instances that it's available (Monarch's in house counsel cited one of their successes to me), and this would equally be helpful to self-represented litigants. Cases need not be identical to be persuasive; merely analogous. Cases are rarely exactly the same.

Gringo0151

Mark2spark wrote: »

Please confirm this date as it hasn't happened yet!

Apologies it was 21-06-2012