Flight Compensation Claim. what constitutes extraordinary circumstances

urban469

I've just received a letter from Monarch that reveals something very interesting, if you read between the lines. Here's an extract:

"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. Consequently, your flight departed at the earliest opportunity on the first available aircraft.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance..."

What do we think of their use of the phrase "an aircraft" and "technical problems within the fleet". This would imply to me that it wasn't my aircraft that had the problems, and therefore this ISN'T an extraordinary circumstance (according to BLONDMARK here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59259169&postcount=5).

What should I do next? Is it worth writing to Monarch to ask WHICH aircraft had the technical problems, or don't they keep records of which plane was due to fly which route, and so it is all deniable.

Vauban

urban469 wrote: »

I've just received a letter from Monarch that reveals something very interesting, if you read between the lines. Here's an extract: ...

What do we think of their use of the phrase "an aircraft" and "technical problems within the fleet". This would imply to me that it wasn't my aircraft that had the problems, and therefore this ISN'T an extraordinary circumstance

I agree with your interpretation - and think Monarch are being outrageous!! So a technical problem, somewhere sometime, in another bit of their fleet means you can be delayed without compensation ... That is monstrous! I'm going to sue them on your behalf, for personal injury: my sides are splitting as we speak!

Mark2spark

Time for a NBA to start the legal process urban :cool:

urban469

Vauban wrote: »

I agree with your interpretation - and think Monarch are being outrageous!! So a technical problem, somewhere sometime, in another bit of their fleet means you can be delayed without compensation ... That is monstrous! I'm going to sue them on your behalf, for personal injury: my sides are splitting as we speak!

Mark2spark wrote: »

Time for a NBA to start the legal process urban :cool:

Thanks for your support guys

I'm planning to send them this letter:

Could you please tell me what kind of fault developed in the number one engine of the aircraft concerned.

And could you also tell me which flight numbers the faulty aircraft was due to operate on 21 June 2012.

Is that risky? Can they just claim that the faulty aircraft WAS due to fly my route that day? Or is this something documented with the CAA or someone. My point is – should I just go for NBA now, or try getting this extra info out of them and risk putting them on alert as to what my legal claim is going to be?

Did that make any sense?

blondmark

urban469 wrote: »

I've just received a letter from Monarch that reveals something very interesting, if you read between the lines. Here's an extract:

"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. Consequently, your flight departed at the earliest opportunity on the first available aircraft.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance..."

What do we think of their use of the phrase "an aircraft" and "technical problems within the fleet". This would imply to me that it wasn't my aircraft that had the problems, and therefore this ISN'T an extraordinary circumstance (according to BLONDMARK here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59259169&postcount=5).

What should I do next? Is it worth writing to Monarch to ask WHICH aircraft had the technical problems, or don't they keep records of which plane was due to fly which route, and so it is all deniable.

This vague explanation appears to suggest the knock-on effect of "an aircraft" developing a technical fault, leaving insufficient planes for your flight. As we know, this does not result in extraordinary circumstances on your flight (Oyj v Timy Lassooy (Case C-22/11)).

You could ask for clarification, but save time by also giving them 14 days notice of the issue of proceedings.

urban469

blondmark wrote: »

This vague explanation appears to suggest the knock-on effect of "an aircraft" developing a technical fault, leaving insufficient planes for your flight. As we know, this does not result in extraordinary circumstances on your flight (Oyj v Timy Lassooy (Case C-22/11)).

You could ask for clarification, but save time by also giving them 14 days notice of the issue of proceedings.

Thanks for the advice blondmark. I'm going to send that letter requesting clarification and then send a NBA afterwards (so I can set out my payment terms etc).

My only concern is that they could just lie about which aircraft developed the fault (mine or another plane int he fleet).

Mark2spark

I agree with the other responses urban. You are wasting your time engaging with them. NBA now, put your payment terms in that.

urban469

Centipede100 wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't bother sending the clarification letter. If they want to clarifylet them file a defence to your NBA or pay up.

Mark2spark wrote: »

I agree with the other responses urban. You are wasting your time engaging with them. NBA now, put your payment terms in that.

That's brilliant. You guys seem to have convinced me. NBA, here we come. I'll update you when Monarch bother to reply.

Vauban

urban469 wrote: »

That's brilliant. You guys seem to have convinced me. NBA, here we come. I'll update you when Monarch bother to reply.

I don't think they will reply, judging by their established form. File the MCOL after 14 days: that shoudl get their attention!;)

urban469

blondmark wrote: »

Mark2Spark is right - the delay, if caused by extraordinary circumstances, must relate to your particular flight and not a knock-on effect from a previous flight. That legal principle was confirmed in Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) and echoes the wording of the Regulation "of the flight concerned".

As for the timing of making claims, the standard protocol is to write a Letter Before Claim straight away giving them 14 days to agree a settlement. If they claim they need more time, you could agree to an extension of 7-14 days. Then sue.

Hanging on since October of last year is completely unnecessary.

Hi blondmark, how does the Finnair case relate to our claims? I'm just trying to pin down something that rules out knock-on effects as 'extraordinary circumstances'. Thanks!