Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

CompBunny

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Ah, the old Monty Python defence. 'The parrot is not dead, it is resting.'

This may well be 'a rescheduling due to operational reasons'. That doesn't stop it from also being an event triggering compensation under EC regulation 261/2004!

Haha, love it Thought that was the case! These airlines are slippery so-and-so's!

eddie22

hi new to this so dont really know if doing this right,
I recently applied for over 3000euros compo from monarch for delayed flight back in August 2005, which from what i understand i am within my rights to due, however monarch have refussed the case due to the time scale been over 6 years but i am lead to beleave you can claim back to feb 2005.
i have then looked further into it and they are saying that courts are not taking cases on which are over 6 yrs old too ......
so my question is and this may sound dumb is what is the correct way forward for me.....
i feel that if you can claim upto Feb 2005 how do you do this ????
thanks

richardw

eddie22 wrote: »

..i have then looked further into it and they are saying that courts are not taking cases on which are over 6 yrs old too ...

is there a European court that will let you do older than 6 years?

Caz3121

eddie22 wrote: »

i feel that if you can claim upto Feb 2005 how do you do this ????
thanks

You can make your claim from the airline for flights back to 2005, however WHEN the airline refuses to pay out then you have no further options and just need to forget about it

Doubt many will payout on valid claims over 6 years old as they know there is nothing you can do about it

eddie22

so what i dont understand is where does the feb 2005 come from !!
who and when was this decided
thanks for reply

CobyBenson

eddie22 wrote: »

so what i dont understand is where does the feb 2005 come from !!
who and when was this decided
thanks for reply

The Regulation itself came into force on 17th Feb 2005.

However the law of each individual country sets out the maximum time in which certain claims must be brought.

In England that period is 6 years, in Scotland it's 5, Netherlands it's 2, in Spain I think it's 10 etc.

So, if you had a flight that arrived or departed in Spain then technically you could issue Court Proceedings in Spain all the way until 10 years after a flight.

eddie22

just doesnt seem fair that i can be held up on a flight by over 4 hrs and the eu state you can claim but the courts only go back 6 years, seems to be the same wall everytime, the little man held back !!!!
has anyone ever claimed back over 6 years and how did they do this ......

tc5712

tc5712 wrote: »

:rotfl:lol just the letter. If they want to try everything to get out of paying it seems odd to give these out?

Reply from Monarch today. Where do I go from here?

Re: ZB812 Luton to Bodrum on 04th June 2013

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 was originally scheduled to operate your flight had to return to stand in Faro on its previous flight, due to it developing a left and right wing leak message and a left bleed fault. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate until the requisite rectification work could be completed.

As a consequence, your departure from Luton was unavoidably delayed. However, we did transfer passengers to the first available aircraft from within our fleet, however, this aircraft had to operate from London Gatwick and accordingly, we arranged for passengers to be transferred to Gatwick in order to take the flight. Your flight then departed at the earliest opportunity once the replacement aircraft had completed its previous flying commitments and all the passengers were in place at Gatwick in order to depart.

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.

Yours sincerely,

Hayley Taylor
EU Claims
Monarch Airlines

romanby1

tc5712 wrote: »

Reply from Monarch today. Where do I go from here?

Re: ZB812 Luton to Bodrum on 04th June 2013

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 was originally scheduled to operate your flight had to return to stand in Faro on its previous flight, due to it developing a left and right wing leak message and a left bleed fault. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate until the requisite rectification work could be completed.

As a consequence, your departure from Luton was unavoidably delayed. However, we did transfer passengers to the first available aircraft from within our fleet, however, this aircraft had to operate from London Gatwick and accordingly, we arranged for passengers to be transferred to Gatwick in order to take the flight. Your flight then departed at the earliest opportunity once the replacement aircraft had completed its previous flying commitments and all the passengers were in place at Gatwick in order to depart.

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.

Yours sincerely,

Hayley Taylor
EU Claims
Monarch Airlines

Small Claims Court
Read the Stickies at the top of this forum.

Vauban

For a (admittedly poor) example of the kind of argument that Monarch airlines (and others) are likely to put before the court on D-Day, have a look here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62394729&postcount=2501