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

urban469

111KAB wrote: »

Think if it were me I would wait until you are back (some cases may have gone through court by then as well) and send a 14 day NBA letter with proof of posting. Others may say you have already done this but I can see no problem with a duplication being as you cannot really act on the NBA until you have time/return.

I didn't get proof of posting. How important will this be if I have to pursue the case through MCOL?

Is it worth re-sending with proof of posting?

Quinty_2

Our Ref / **** Dear Mr ****, Re: MON369 Gatwick to Tobago on 22nd August 2012 Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case. Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity. As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary. Our records show that the aircraft that operated this flight had previously developed a hydraulic leak from the right hand main landing gear bay which rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate. Spare parts required for rectification had to be sourced and brought in from France. Despite Monarch’s best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers on to another aircraft from within our fleet or indeed to an aircraft chartered from a third party operator. As a consequence, your flight was unavoidably delayed and departed at the earliest opportunity once the aircraft was declared serviceable. Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further assistance or information. Yours sincerely, EU Claims AdvisorMonarch AirlinesTel: +44 (0) 1582 531712Email:

Vauban

Quinty wrote: »

Our Ref / **** Dear Mr ****, Re: MON369 Gatwick to Tobago on 22nd August 2012 Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case. Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity. As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary. Our records show that the aircraft that operated this flight had previously developed a hydraulic leak from the right hand main landing gear bay which rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate. Spare parts required for rectification had to be sourced and brought in from France. Despite Monarch’s best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers on to another aircraft from within our fleet or indeed to an aircraft chartered from a third party operator. As a consequence, your flight was unavoidably delayed and departed at the earliest opportunity once the aircraft was declared serviceable. Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further assistance or information. Yours sincerely, EU Claims AdvisorMonarch AirlinesTel: +44 (0) 1582 531712Email:

My advice?

1) Read the FAQs

2) Read this by the ever helpful centipede: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4474255

3) learn to love paragraphs

111KAB

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.

Thanks Mark. If you can be bothered I think continuing the list would help future 'worried' claimants at least until such time as a few have gone through the Courts plus it can only be a matter of time before Monarch pay out one claimant and deny another on the same flight!

Mark2spark

111KAB wrote: »

Thanks Mark. If you can be bothered I think continuing the list would help future 'worried' claimants at least until such time as a few have gone through the Courts plus it can only be a matter of time before Monarch pay out one claimant and deny another on the same flight!

It's already happened on another thread! Thomson or Thomas Cook from memory :rotfl:

111KAB

urban469 wrote: »

I didn't get proof of posting. How important will this be if I have to pursue the case through MCOL?

Is it worth re-sending with proof of posting?

Presume you have a copy of your NBA letter - the copy should suffice (if required) when you submit MCOL.

4poc

Mark2spark wrote: »

Guy's, tell me that there's a good reason to keep extending the list?
IMO the purpose has now been served.
Tell me.

Thanks indeed for your hard work!
I intend to print a copy of the list & show the court that this long list of mechanical breakdowns clearly paints a picture of Monarch's ageing fleet & that Monarch still do nothing to have reserve planes to fulfill their obligation to their passengers. The judge will be amazed at such worrying variety of mechanical problems this company has.
Hope this is a good reason to carry on, plz Mark (u have done the hardest bit..)
Hopefully the next additions to the list will be which flights have gone through court n won.

GothicMaiden

Mark2spark wrote: »

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.

Thanks for all your work, Mark2spark. You have been the wind beneath my wings.

I'm happy that our flight has made it on to the OP and even more pleased that your claim was met. No one is more deserving. You and Centipede100 have been with us all the way. Cheers, guys. :beer:

I wonder how we will get on with our claim for faulty crew. At least we have novelty value.

Mark2spark

Ok we are up to date at this point.
I don't see that there will be many more additions to the list from now anyway. Most of the regulars that are following this thread have collectively, with me, been on a journey together that over the last 8 weeks has gone from hopping mad at Monarch to have not yet received a reply, to the slow revelation of ridiculous claims of EC's, some even going back two or three flights from the one concerned, coupled with the odd success story (lucky me ).
A good few have now filed MCOL, so it's now a question of waiting for either court dates and a ruling, or the out of court settlement the day before a hearing.
I suspect the latter in many cases.

Mark2spark

Who was the poster that had a letter from Monarch saying that there has only been two cases of cracked windscreens recorded last year?
In the OP listed flights, there are SEVEN (7) recorded flights affected by cracked screens during 2012!
I suspect that a few will be the same cracked screen and knock on effects, but there are three dates, in April, May & July.