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

Vauban

melbell wrote: »

Oh well, choke on your compo

As other's point out, delays and safety are entirely separate issues. The law expects airlines to fly their passengers both safely and on time. Most airlines are able to do this, except in extraodinary circumstances, for which they are not liable to compensate the unlucky passengers.

Monarch have no issues with saftety. Like other UK based airlines, their safety standards are high. But unfortunately they run an old fleet, and seem to be struggling to maintain it without incident. This is why their punctuality record is to much worse than the industry standard.

I find Melbell's comment, "choke on your compo", to be aggressive and unpleasant. But looking at a selection of her other posts, she clearly has issues.

glentoran99

Vauban wrote: »

As other's point out, delays and safety are entirely separate issues. The law expects airlines to fly their passengers both safely and on time. Most airlines are able to do this, except in extraodinary circumstances, for which they are not liable to compensate the unlucky passengers.

Monarch have no issues with saftety. Like other UK based airlines, their safety standards are high. But unfortunately they run an old fleet, and seem to be struggling to maintain it without incident. This is why their punctuality record is to much worse than the industry standard.

I find Melbell's comment, "choke on your compo", to be aggressive and unpleasant. But looking at a selection of her other posts, she clearly has issues.

Perhaps she is Monarchs financial secretary :j

111KAB

glentoran99 wrote: »

Perhaps she is Monarchs financial secretary :j

May well be as their losses over the past two years seem to indicate the Company has problems.

urban469

What do you think of my NBA. Anything factually incorrect or missed out?


To whom it may concern,

I note with disappointment that Monarch has failed to pay the €250 compensation owed, as prescribed by Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.

You claim the defence of Extraordinary Circumstances, but the Sturgeon judgement established that an Extraordinary Circumstance is something not inherent in the normal operation of an aircraft. To succeed in court, Monarch would need to establish that it did everything possible to avoid the engine failure that you cite as the reason for the delay.

Furthermore, it was not the particular aircraft that I was due to fly on that suffered engine failure. In your rejection of my claim, you refer to problems within your fleet on the day in question:

“Our records show that your flight was delayed due to technical problems within the fleet. An aircraft had developed a fault in the number one engine that required engineering work in order to be safe to fly. Despite Monarch's best efforts, this meant that there were insufficient aircraft available to operate your flight at the scheduled departure time.”

Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) ruled out knock-on effects as a defence. Problems within your fleet, and faults in another aircraft would not be accepted by a judge as Extraordinary Circumstances.

I am confident that, were this matter to go to court, I would win. And so I am offering Monarch the opportunity to settle before proceedings are initiated. My payment terms are as follows: I must receive full and final payment of €250 by 18 March 2013 (14 days of the date of this letter). I will accept that payment as full and final settlement of this matter without prejudice.

In calculating the exchange rate, I will accept an amount equal to the value based on the Reuters exchange rate (at http://uk.reuters.com/business/currencies).

If this matter goes to court and I win, Monarch will be liable for the full compensation, plus interest at 8% and court fees.

Vauban

urban469 wrote: »

What do you think of my NBA. Anything factually incorrect or missed out?

I would cut most of this out, and keep your legal arguments dry for your Court submission. This is just a formality - Monarch wont take you seriously until you file that application anyway.

To whom it may concern,

I note with disappointment that Monarch has failed to pay the €250 compensation owed, as prescribed by Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.

You claim the defence of Extraordinary Circumstances, but the Sturgeon judgement is clear that this does not apply in the circumstances of my claim.

Unless you are prepared to settle this matter, with the payment of the compensation which is due to me by law, within the next 14 days that I reserve the right to commence legal action without further delay, for full compensation owed, plus court fees and interest.

Yours etc

I had no response from Monarch before sending them my NBA, so sent a slightly longer version to elicit information. Of course they didn't respond, so I initiated proceedings. I subsequently got a thin refusal several days later.

This is what I wrote for my own NBA:

Dear Sir/Madam,

NOTICE BEFORE ACTION

Delayed Flight Compensation
Flight number: ZB249
Date of flight: 8/4/12
Booking Ref:! xxxxxxx
Passenger names: xxxxxx
Amount claimed: 600 euros per passenger

Further to my emails of the 12th May, 27th October and 5th November, I am writing to express my disappointment at Monarch's failure to offer a substantive response to my request for compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004.

To recap, our flight (detailed above) was delayed!leaving Sharm el Sheikh and we arrived in Gatwick some 24 hours after the scheduled arrival time. We were informed that the flight was delayed due to a 'technical problem with the operating aircraft'.! I understand from correspondence with other passengers that the issue was with a preceding flight that was unable to leave Gatwick, due to the discovery of a crack in the airplane's windscreen.

Technical problems have been ruled by the ECJ to be unlikely to be held as a valid defence of extraordinary circumstances to a compensation claim.! If, despite this, you propose to cite such a defence, I should be grateful for:

a)!full details of the alleged technical fault, including when it was discovered;
b) why you believe this alleged technical fault was not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of your airline;
c) why such an alleged fault was beyond Monarch's control to rectify in a timely manner;
d)!and why it was impossible for you to dispatch another plane to Sharm for 24 hours.

I am confident that, as!the case of Friederike Wallentin-Hermann V Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane Spa is the recognised legal authority for what constitutes "Extraordinary Circumstances", a UK Court would determine that Monarch!has no justification for citing extraordinary circumstances in this instance.!

As Monarch Airlines have had three months to consider my claim,!!I must now insist that you settle it in full within 14 days or - if you intend to claim the defence of "Extraordinary Circumstances" - provide the details requested above.! Unless I hear from you to my satisfaction by the 11th February 2013!I shall with regret have no option but to issue legal proceedings without further notice, with intent to recover the compensation due, with interest.

Yours faithfully,

Vauban

Hope this is of some use! Good luck.

suelees1

While we're on the subject of safety

ZB958 flight on 24 July 2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19262807

Wonder if they've put it down as an EC :think:

Hestar

Hi OP - you can add this flight to the list of Known flights that Monarch have agreed compensation on:

Flight Details: ZB718 Gatwick to Larnaca 02/05/2012 - total delay of 3 hours and 37 minutes (due compensation of 400 euros per passenger)

Although as other posters have experienced they are trying to only pay 50% of the compensation so I have sent a follow up email and will ring their claims department tomorrow.

suelees1

melbell wrote: »

So you would rather get on a dangerous plane and have no delays? Delays for my safety are welcome, But if you want to squeeze the airline for compo then go for it, but remember when Martin "lets screw every company on the planet" Lewis is done, YOU will be paying for your compo. As they will pass the increased costs to YOU. Remember it could be YOUR job at risk next because of this compo culture.

Oh well, choke on your compo

May I ask if you have an interest in this at all other than to vent your spleen?

Sillychuckie

If you take the NBA and MCOL route and you go on to lose, cant the airline have the court charge you for their costs?
In fact, couldn't they counter sue with their own case (after yours is thrown out), for any and all associated costs?
No doubt their lawyers are pricy.

Isn't this quite a high risk strategy?

Mark2spark

LBD wrote: »

Mark2spark wrote: »

Ok Sue I've added yours. But I'm really confused now, as there clearly is another flight, same flight number, same date, same destinations.......I know the feeling Mark, in the OP the flight after yours is same number as mine, different date, been paid!!!! but have tried to contact them but no joy, so I don't know what the reason is... am guessing the original excuse was TF....

Any ideas on how I could find it out? as mine seems the only Fuel Valve listed lol, would be good if there was another :beer:

Am I missing something? There wont be a 'reason' - I assume you mean EC - if there is a payout agreed to?