Taking The Airlines To Court

Vauban

I thought it might be useful to start a thread specifically with advice on how to manage the process of taking an airline to Court, and perhaps sharing airlines defences and such like.

I have found MCOL so far quite easy to use, and hope people aren't put off from claiming what is their's.

For those thinking about taking the airline to the small claims court, I found this link very helpful:

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview


For those who want to use the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) - which is necessary for Ryannair and a few others based outside the UK - Dr. Watson has produced an excellent guide here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64457359&postcount=622

And for those interested in how legal action played out for me in reality, you can read my account - and see the documents I relied upon - here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64739956&postcount=426

AND

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64739956&postcount=427

Vauban

Most of the MCOL online form is very straightforward. The one thing that you want to think about is how to pitch the statement of your claim.

Centipede suggested a useful template here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59225379&postcount=423

My own statement read as follows:

I am claiming compensation for myself, my
wife and our three children under Article 7
of EC 261/2004, pursuant to the Sturgeon
judgment in the ECJ (Case C-402/07 of 19
November 2009), which provides for €600 per
passenger to be paid in the following
circumstances.

These were that Monarch delayed our flight
from Sharm el Sheikh to London Gatwick on
08/04/12 and did not return us until
09/04/12, a delay of some 24 hours.

Despite writing to Monarch on four occasions
since this event, most recently on 27 January
with a final notice before action, they have
declined to respond to my request for
compensation.

Short and sweet - but that's all it needs to be at this stage, I think.

Mark2spark

An excellent, self explanatory link, courtesy of Centipede:
http://www.howtotakesomeonetocourt.info/joomla/explaining-the-small-claims-process.html

Mark2spark

What I would like to know more about, is what happens if an airline doesn't return the paperwork, and you achieve a judgement by default.
A poster in another thread has been told not to get baliffs involved, as the airlines can easily overturn the judgement!

As per this post:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60094531&postcount=5948

Vauban

I now need to fill in the Court's "questionnaire", prior to formal allocation to the small claims track. Most of this is very straightforward, but one section allows me to ask questions of Monarch to support my action. As I'm new to this sport, I would would welcome advice from other more experienced MSE'ers on what I should ask.

The background to my claim, and Monarch's defence, can be found here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60010777&postcount=1180. But basically my flight from Sharm to Gatwick was delayed by over 24 hours when the previous flight (Gatwick to Sharm) was delayed due to the discovery of cracks in the windscreen.

These are the questions I think I would ask of Monarch:-

a) How old was the aircraft concerned, and when was the last time the windscreen was replaced?
b) How many cracked windscreen incidents has the Monarch fleet experienced over the last 24 months?
c) What facilities did Monarch have at Gatwick airport for dealing with this problem? (ie why did they appear to have none?)
d) Can they provide witness evidence of exactly when the cracks were discovered? (the evidence in their defence statement is contradicted by someone on the flight, who says they never got to board the aircraft)
e) How long did it take to fix the windscreen? Why exactly was the flight delayed by over 24 hours? Can we have a timelined account of action taken? (I understand that the delays were caused initially by the fact that Monarch having nothing at Gatwick to fix the cracks, and then by the crew being out of time)
f)What efforts did Monarch make to provide a reserve aircraft/crew or to wet lease from another company? I would be grateful for evidence of who they approached, and why an alternative aircraft could not be provided (NB: I don't believe they approached anyone)
g) What is Monarch's punctuality record for this route for 2011/12? (ie why do less than 65% of their flights leave on time)

I think this is probably enough, but I would be grateful for thoughts - either here or via PN. Thanks!

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Leave that section blank on the AQ and keep your powder dry for court.

Thanks for this advice. At what point am I able to ask Monarch these questions? And will I be criticised for asking them late?

urban469

Excellent. I think you've got it spot on there. Knock-on effects are not ECs anyway, and that's been established, so I don't think you'll need to push very hard. But it's good to do so anyway.

My only comment is that I would re-word some of the questions. I've done a few FOIs (never in a court questionnaire), and the key point there is always to be specific and to make sure it is info that can be gathered relatively easily. So, with that in mind, see below...

Vauban wrote: »

a) How old was the aircraft which suffered the cracked windscreen?
a1) (SEPARATE QUESTION) When was the last time the windscreen was replaced?
b) How many cracked windscreen incidents has the Monarch fleet experienced over the last 24 months?
c) What facilities did Monarch have at Gatwick airport for dealing with this problem on the day of the incident? (ie why did they appear to have none?)
d) At what time was the crack discovered?
d1) What evidence can Monarch provide for (d)
Can they provide witness evidence of exactly when the cracks were discovered? (the evidence in their defence statement is contradicted by someone on the flight, who says they never got to board the aircraft)
e) What was the time between discovering the crack, and having the plane ready to fly?
e1) Why was (e) so long? (I suspect they'll say that the filler needed to dry, which is a fair point).
f)What efforts did Monarch make to provide a reserve aircraft/crew or to wet lease from another company? (asking for evidence is implicit - unless they want to commit perjury)
g) What is Monarch's punctuality record on flights from Sharm to Gatwick in 2011/12? (ie why do less than 65% of their flights leave on time)

111KAB

Centipede100 wrote: »

Leave that section blank on the AQ and keep your powder dry for court.

As Centipede says however, in effect, you have advised Monarch of the possible questions as they do read this forum so you may wish to edit your post!

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

As Centipede says however, in effect, you have advised Monarch of the possible questions as they do read this forum so you may wish to edit your post!

I'm sure that they do. But i wonder whether i need to be quite so concerned about this transparency? Why not put the questions up front? Do I really disadvantage myself by asking Monarch to provide this detail? I'm fairly confident that they cant give good responses, no matter how much notice I've given them.

Tell me if I'm being naive - and why ...

111KAB

Far be it from me to suggest Monarch might alter facts to suit the situation however SMART is one of the UK's leading aircraft response teams and I suspect they were responsible for the repairs to your a/c. They are 100% owned by Monarch Holdings Limited who also happen to own Monarch Airlines Limited.

Mark2spark

Vauban wrote: »

f)What efforts did Monarch make to provide a reserve aircraft/crew or to wet lease from another company? I would be grateful for evidence of who they approached, and why an alternative aircraft could not be provided (NB: I don't believe they approached anyone)

I would use words like;

I require documentary evidence of the attempts to replace the aircraft with one from an external source.

But I agree with Centipede. The onus is on the airline to prove they don't have to pay. So let them dig themselves a hole in court first, and then ask why they do not have the documentary evidence with them to back up these obvious questions.
It's a shame that there isn't going to be an element of advocacy. Take point d. You could ask them if they clearly remember what time the passengers had to disembark the aircraft, and even if the time was wrong, the fact that they had boarded is clearly remembered?
And then ask why this passenger (holding up a sworn afidavit) states that they never got round to boarding whatsoever?