50% reduction in claim for delay between 3 and 4 hours

PaulPonting

Monarch have reduced my claim by 50% for a delay of between 3 and 4 hours for a flight in the 1500 km to 3500 km band. Are any other Airlines using this tactic or is it just Monarch. If you have received this notification from any airline please could you list on this forum.

Caz3121

there is only one rate for the 1500km to 3500km distance and that is for a delay of 3 hours + and is €400....are you saying they are offering you €200?

PaulPonting

Yes they actually sent me a cheque for the equivalent of 200 euros for my claim stating it had been reduced by 50% because the delay was over 3 hours and over 4 hours. Looking at the Monarch forum they have done this to a number of claimants and I was wondering if any other airline is taking this tact. I have written to the CAA

Magic_Moments

I know Centipede100 says about going to the small claims court but has anyone actually had a response from the CAA about the subject of Monarch's 50% reduction of claims. It would appear a number of people have written to them about this issue, so it is not a one off. Have the CAA taken this subject up with Monarch!!!, as this is completely different to the Extraordinary Circumstances rejections.

HitAndMiss

We wrote to Monarch disputing on what grounds they had decreased our claim by 50% as it contradicts what is says on the CAA web site for a flight not in the long distance band. Not unsurprisingly we have still to receive a reply from Monarch. Also we wrote to the CAA to investigate whether Monarch could take this action as it was not in the line with their own web site, but again we are still awaiting a response. We know we should take Monarch to the Small Claims Court but would feel more comfortable in doing do once we have had an answer from the CAA. Has anyone had a reply from either Monarch or the CAA on this specific subject.

Chris1447

I keep hearing about the "Sturgeon" Case as means on Monarch denying claims. Has anybody put this to the test yet and what is the result. Monarch must feel that it is very relevant otherwise their EU claims section would not surely mention it in their defence. What is the CAA's opinion on this subject.

Mark2spark

The CAA's opinion couldn't be clearer, it's on their website.
Which would make Monarch wrong.
But seeing as how there's no punishment whatsoever for Monarch being wrong, and a chance that a few people won't chase them through the courts, thus making the company more money, then that's the rather underhand course that they have chosen to take.
No-one has put it to the test yet, as it's still early days, and court cases haven't started hitting the bench yet.

Chris1447

I have read on a web site about the case heard on 26th February 2013 under the Sturgeon ruling.Case was c-11/11 Air France versus Folkerts. reading through it on a web sit it does mention he 505 reduction in compensation but I am not sure if this will have any bearing positive or negative in my proposed Small Claims Court claim against Monarch for their reduction in our claim by 50% for a delay of between 3 and 4 hours.Any guidance of the effect of this ruling will be most helpful.

Vauban

Chris1447 wrote: »

I have read on a web site about the case heard on 26th February 2013 under the Sturgeon ruling.Case was c-11/11 Air France versus Folkerts. reading through it on a web sit it does mention he 505 reduction in compensation but I am not sure if this will have any bearing positive or negative in my proposed Small Claims Court claim against Monarch for their reduction in our claim by 50% for a delay of between 3 and 4 hours.Any guidance of the effect of this ruling will be most helpful.

Chris,

This is all covered in the original MSE article. Compensation can be reduced by 50% only for flights over 3500k that arrive between 3-4 hours late only (ie from 600 to 300 euros per passenger). This is also explained on the CAA's website.

Vauban

BillLucas

Chris1447 wrote: »

I have read on a web site about the case heard on 26th February 2013 under the Sturgeon ruling.Case was c-11/11 Air France versus Folkerts. reading through it on a web sit it does mention he 505 reduction in compensation but I am not sure if this will have any bearing positive or negative in my proposed Small Claims Court claim against Monarch for their reduction in our claim by 50% for a delay of between 3 and 4 hours.Any guidance of the effect of this ruling will be most helpful.

When did CAA last update their website. This case was only heard in February. My interpretation of the ruling was the no decision was made about the validity of the 50% under the Surgeon case, but of course I am no legal expert so I could have got it wrong. Has anyone tested he ruling in the small claims court yet and is only Monarch who are using this ploy or are other airlines employing the same tactics.

PaulPonting

I am aware the advise given on this forum is to take Monarch to the small claims court . I believe the time from applying to the Small claims Court to the case being heard is quite lengthy. Has anyone had a case heard or has one pending with an agreed date specifically about the 50% reduction in settlement for a delay of between 3 and 4 hours. Once one case is heard, despite the advise given, it will give an indication of the full reason why Monarch are taking this step in defence and the courts decision. I feel the 50% reduction is an entirely different issue to claims being denied for extraordinary circumstances.