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

111KAB

leeds34 wrote: »

Hi Im looking to take small planet airlines to small claims court for a 10 hour flight delay in Sept 2012 Im looking to speak to anyone else who has pursued through the small claims court and won ?? Thanks

Doubt you will find any Small Planet claim success - was the flight a Monarch prefix flight number or an LLP?

peejay57

Hi Guys,

Finally given up hope with Monarch. NBA being sent tomorrow as below any advice as to add or subtract would be very helpful.

Monarch Airlines

DearMr. Marray,



Re: Compensation claim for delayed flight zb534

Booking reference: Avro wx30843

Customer relations ref ******



I am writing regarding flight ZB534 on 08/09/12 from ManchesterAirport to Palma de Mallorca withthe scheduled departure time of 16; 35. This flight arrived 7 hours late at Palma.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Tui& others v CAA confirmed the applicability of compensation for delay asset out in the Sturgeon case. As such, I am seeking compensation under ECRegulation 261/2004 for this delayed flight.

The passengers in the party were P. ******* and M *****.



During the delay the passengers in my party were provided withone meal but no other refreshments (e.g. tea coffee or water) were offered, andconsidering this was a 7 hour delay I think this was poor customer care. I havesince found out that some people on the flight were offered alternativeflights, but we were not offered this again poor customer care.

Due to the delay I experienced I also had to pay a 25 europremium for picking up my car rental due to the arrival being outside of hours.

I paid for 7 days car hire while I only had the car for 6 days

As I arrived at my accommodation a day late I have paid for 1 extra days holiday thatI have not had as I booked the flat privately and only spent 6 nights insteadof 7 nights,

Flight delay 800 euros

Refreshments 15 euros

Car out of hour’s premium25 euros

1 day less car hire 15euros

1 day less apartment hire75 euros

The total compensationsought is 930euros



Ilook forward to a full response to this letter within 14 days. If I do notreceive a satisfactory response I intend to pursue my complaint further, whichcould mean taking it to court.



Yours faithfully,


Any advice much appreciated

Thanks

Billt

Monarch have agreed compensation on Flight 4279 from Sharm el Sheikh to LGW. I had a phone call and a email confirming my claim.

Mark2spark

Billt wrote: »

Monarch have agreed compensation on Flight 4279 from Sharm el Sheikh to LGW. I had a phone call and a email confirming my claim.

Congrats Billt!
Dates please so i can add to OP.

Mark2spark

I must be mad but I have trawled through this thread and have added the post numbers against the EC excuse listed :undecided

There's a few missing, - not many - and i have to assume that I've picked up these from the original really long thread. So if anyone is trawling and comes across a listed EC if they could link it to me/this thread please so I can add to the OP.

There's a good few extra flights that I've found that previously were not listed, have also unearthed some same flights but different EC's claimed so worth a look again guys.

suelees1

Mark2spark wrote: »

I must be mad......

Yeah but we love you for it

Mark2spark

Merv007 wrote: »

I've just had a rejected letter for Flight ZB743 Malaga to Gatwick - 14th July quoting "Cracked Windscreen" and extraordinary circumstances.
However, I clearly recall the pilot on the flight giving an in-depth explanation on how it was related to something to do with a steering issue on the front wheel.
I guess it could have been classified as nose landing gear as quoted in Mark2spark list above, but it definitely wasn't a cracked windscreen.
I guess it doesn't make a lot of difference as they classify both as extraordinary circumstances.

Thoughts/comments anyone?

Well there's two listed reasons on the OP for the same flight now Merv.
But you are correct, neither are EC's so the course of action is the same, NBA and court.

Mark2spark

suelees1 wrote: »

Yeah but we love you for it

Yours was the main one I was trying to find!! as it appears there's two different EC's been offered for the same flight :undecided

Mark2spark

Guy's, tell me that there's a good reason to keep extending the list?
IMO the purpose has now been served. Monarch are denying 95% of flights for EC's that aren't, the other 5 % is about evenly split between accepted claims and correctly denied claims for being valid EC's.
If you were on a flight that is a valid EC, like snow, ice, heart attack during flight of a passenger, then you would know.
For the others, the course of action is indeed clear now that Monarchs strategy has been revealed, ie to deny all flights after a lengthy wait and then wait for court action. So IMO people might just as well file a MCOL after 14 days rather than wait for Monarch to offer an excuse, as it's a 95% chance that that's what will be offered.
Tell me.

urban469

Mark2spark wrote: »

Guy's, tell me that there's a good reason to keep extending the list?
IMO the purpose has now been served. Monarch are denying 95% of flights for EC's that aren't, the other 5 % is about evenly split between accepted claims and correctly denied claims for being valid EC's.
If you were on a flight that is a valid EC, like snow, ice, heart attack during flight of a passenger, then you would know.
For the others, the course of action is indeed clear now that Monarchs strategy has been revealed, ie to deny all flights after a lengthy wait and then wait for court action. So IMO people might just as well file a MCOL after 14 days rather than wait for Monarch to offer an excuse, as it's a 95% chance that that's what will be offered.
Tell me.

If that was the purpose of compiling the list, then I'd say job done. And very well done to you my friend. You've helped persuade dozens of us (if not more!) that the claim is worth pursuing, and that Monarch are a bunch of chancers.