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

111KAB

walrusoflove wrote: »

4poc wrote: »

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.

anyone thought of posting the list on Monarch's FB page? Might give potential passengers cause to think twice about the safety of booking!:eek:

It seems to appear there on a regular basis (ie when updated by Mark) but Monarch seem to be ignoring - whether their clients are ~ who knows?

abbie_c

I have just spoken to CAA regarding my claim (27 hours delay) against Monarch being rejected for EC. After several weeks, they have just told me that because my return flight (the delayed one) was from Lesbos (MON1875) they couldn't help me and I'd have to write to their version in Greece! I'm going to follow it through before I try the small claims court. Has anybody actaully had any success with taking Monarch to the Small Claims Court?

urban469

I've had a look through the threads, and there's something that's confusing me. I seem to find contradictory evidence about whether an engine fault is an EC or not. Monarch is claiming it was a safety issue. So what's the deal, is the Regulation and Sturgeon ambiguous over engine faults and safety?

I'm asking because I'm deciding whether it's worth risking a MCOL.

Thanks everyone!

rp4727

Just to add to the list of denied claims - we have had a letter from Monarch denying our claim for flight ZB634 Manchester - Paphos on 18 Jul 2012. They said it was an engine fault and that it was an extraordinary circumstance (no surprise there), although we were told by the flight attendant that it was the air conditioning that was faulty because it hadn't been serviced properly!!!:mad:

urban469

Centipede100 wrote: »

The only ambiguity is introduced by the airline, the Sturgeon and Wallentin-Hermann judgments provide no ambiguity on the subject.

Thanks for the info. I think it's the issue of 'out of the airline's control' that's throwing me. Surely they could claim an engine failure is out of their control and therefore an EC?

Vauban

urban469 wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I think it's the issue of 'out of the airline's control' that's throwing me. Surely they could claim an engine failure is out of their control and therefore an EC?

Urban,

You really need to read the judgements. They are not that long, and they are not inpenetrable. You can even read just the most important bits, which are linked from the FAQ. The court is pretty clear about the question you are raising - indeed that was the very raison d'etre of one of the cases.

Martin85

Re my post number 875. I have written to Monarch yesterday informing them that a reduction of my claim by 50%, as the delay on my flight was between 3 and 4 hours is unacceptable I have quoted as suggested the section from the relevant section on the CAA website saying only flights within the longest flight distance have any case to reduced by this amount. I have demanded the full sum claims or details of where in the legal documents it says my flight could be subject to a 50% in my claim so I can then take the matter up with the CAA.I have given them 14 days to respond.I have sent a copy of all this correspondence to the CAA under the reference number that have already given me for this claim. If Monarch refuse to pay up in full and cannot prove without doubt that somewhere there is clause in legal process that permits then to reduce my claim, then in view the fact that Monarch are in breach of the law should mean the CAA taking the matter up as serious misconduct. We will now wait and see. I know from this Forum that I am not alone in Monarch trying to reduce claims by 50% for delays between 3 and 4 hours.

Shameonthem

Centipede100 wrote: »

You do it per family and you use form N1 from your local county court, don't attempt to use MCOL for multi-claimants.

Many thanks Centi your advice is invaluble.

Shameonthem

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:

Hi, this looks like it maybe a knock on from several days before, because it's the same fault as flight mon326 Sandford to Gatwick on the 21/08/12. We were told at the time they had to get spares in from France even though they never mentioned it on the letter they sent us. Was your plane one of their Airbuses by any chance?

worldwize

Another EC to add to the list ZB853 26/06/2012 Larnaca to Luton 10hr delay. Must be the quickest response ever sent the claim in Feb 20th acknowledged receipt on Mon 25th got my refusal to day. My original post is no 624 Monarch,s reply to my claim is on the aircraft,s previous flight the 1st officer became incapacitated and another 1st officer had to be flown to Gibraltar to fly the plane back to Luton but fog held it up even longer. He then had to fly the plane to Larnaca.I believe this is a knock on effect and therefore not an EC also the fog is incidental as we would have been over 4hrs delayed anyway. Has anyone any other thoughts on this your thoughts would be welcome