Open & Shut case for Compensation?

[tc5712]

My Family & I were booked onto the 14:50 flight from Luton to Bodrum. (4th June 2013)

 

We eventually took off at 23:15 from GATWICK!

 

Still away at the moment so will fill out the form that Monarch have emailed me when I get back.

 

The only info I have heard at the moment of the cause is because the flight from Faro to Luton that morning had a technical fault which had the knock effect of our delay.

 

They can't refuse this one, surely? (The flight was 2723Km and there were 4 of us, 2 adults, 1 child, 1 infant).

 

Anyone know likely payout if they cough up?

 

TIA

[Cityboy62]

My Family & I were booked onto the 14:50 flight from Luton to Bodrum. (4th June 2013)

 

We eventually took off at 23:15 from GATWICK!

 

Still away at the moment so will fill out the form that Monarch have emailed me when I get back.

 

The only info I have heard at the moment of the cause is because the flight from Faro to Luton that morning had a technical fault which had the knock effect of our delay.

 

They can't refuse this one, surely? (The flight was 2723Km and there were 4 of us, 2 adults, 1 child, 1 infant).

 

Anyone know likely payout if they cough up?

 

TIA

 

You will be claiming for a cancellation since the original flight plan from LTN-BJV was abandoned and a new flightplan was created from LGW-BJV.

 

The compensation owed is 400 euros per passenger. Monarch will resist paying out and you will have to issue a legal claim to see any money from them even though the aircraft you were supposed to be on wasn't in fact the one on which you flew since it had a tech problem.

[scotgal68]

How did you get to Gatwick?

[tc5712]

How did you get to Gatwick?

 

They bused us there scotgal... 2 hours after scheduled departure time.

[scotgal68]

Ah I though u could claim transfer costs from your insurer x

[tc5712]

Forms scanned and emailed this evening. Thanks for the advice so far

 

Watch this space!

[scotgal68]

Good luck - fingers crossed!

[tc5712]

Reply today from Monarch. Any advice of where to go from here?

 

Dear Mr XXXXXXXX

 

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

[labrat]

maintance issues are NOT extraordinary circumstances

[tc5712]

Hmm, the plot thickens after a very brief google search I found http://www.flightmole.com/extraordinary_circumstances.htm

 

According to them it is the airline that has to provide the burden of proof that the delay was caused by an 'extraordinary circumstance'.

 

How do I best pursue this? I have no clue as to aircraft maintenance and if this could be avoided though I suspect it could.

 

I also made an identical claim of behalf of my wife as we were travelling together and I got the identical reply below but from a different agent. Must be a trying job sending all these refusal letters! (An Airbus A321-231 takes 220 people, the flight wasn't entirely full so make that 200 ppl, maybe a third of people know about the EU rules & and have claimed? So that makes approx 60 odd people to email). I could do that in an hour, cutting and pasting names let alone mail merge!.

 

Good to see they have their stories straight though. What with the 2 emails being IDENTICAL!

 

Dear Ms XXXXXXX

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

 

James Beahan

 

EU Claims Team

Monarch

+44 (0) 08719 40 50 40

[tc5712]

Considering sending this:

 

Thank you Hayley for your reply.

 

After taking advice I have been informed that a 'technical issue' with the aircraft does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" as per the European court in the Kramme v SAS case.

 

I quote "An aircraft with a technical problem cannot in all circumstances be classed as an extraordinary event. Perhaps not even in most cases".

 

I am sure that you are aware that the burden of proof is on yourselves to, beyond reasonable doubt, prove this was an "extraordinary circumstance" and merely stating the reason and not divulging what preventative measures were in place to prevent said "extraordinary circumstance" is not acceptable.

 

I await your reply.

 

Regards,

[Cityboy62]

Considering sending this:

 

Further to your reply to my letter requesting compensation for a cancelled flight on xx/xx/xx, flight number xxxxxx, after taking advice I have been informed that a 'technical issue' with the aircraft does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" as per the European court in the Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia case.

 

I am sure that you are aware that the burden of proof is on yourselves to, beyond reasonable doubt, prove this was an "extraordinary circumstance" and merely stating the reason and not divulging what preventative measures were in place to prevent said "extraordinary circumstance" is not acceptable.

 

Should you neither settle my claim in full for 1600 euros nor prove a valid defence to me within 14 days of the date of this letter, I reserve the right to commence legal action without further notice.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Corrected the letter you should send to the airline!

[tc5712]

Thanks Cityboy, I compiled my reply based on a search that must be outdated now. Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia?

I presume that must be the latest test case?

 

TIA

[stu007]

Hi

 

Could I also suggest that at the end of the first Paragraph of your letter you add (I will attach a copy of the EC Summary of the Judgement). then print off a copy of the below PDF and attach to your letter that you send to them.

 

This is the European Commission Summary of the Judgement Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia in PDF:

Edited July 14, 2013 by stu007

[Cityboy62]

Thanks Cityboy, I compiled my reply based on a search that must be outdated now. Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia?

I presume that must be the latest test case?

 

TIA

 

W-H v Alitalia dates from Dec 2008. The Kramme case never had a judgment published as it seems the case was withdrawn, presumably settled by the airline after the legal Opinion was delivered.

 

You don't need to add anything further to your letter as advised by stu007, the airline is only too aware of the precedent case law in W-H!

[tc5712]

Thanks guys. Reply sent:

 

Further to your reply to my letter requesting compensation for a cancelled flight on 04/06/13, flight number ZB812, after taking advice I have been informed that a 'technical issue' with the aircraft does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" as per the European court in the Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia case, (summary attached).

 

I am sure that you are aware that the burden of proof is on yourselves to, beyond reasonable doubt, prove this was an "extraordinary circumstance" and merely stating the reason and not divulging what preventative measures were in place to prevent said "extraordinary circumstance" is not acceptable.

 

Should you neither settle my claim in full for 1600 euros nor prove a valid defence to me within 14 days of the date of this letter, I reserve the right to commence legal action without further notice.

[tc5712]

Number of days stated in letters has never been very clear to me. Is it literally 14 days or 14 working days?

[Cityboy62]

Number of days stated in letters has never been very clear to me. Is it literally 14 days or 14 working days?

 

Calendar days not working days...

[tc5712]

Would welcome feedback from anyone that has been down this route. Should I expect any sort of reply within the 14 days? (Runs out Sunday).

[tc5712]

Well, still no response and as I said above the 14 days are up on Sunday. I suspect a reply over the weekend is unlikely.

 

Will hold fire until early next week, (won't have time to address this until Tues eve). So that will give them ample time to respond...

[jo5ephedward5]

did you have any joy with this...?

[tc5712]

Not as yet, the 14 days I stated ran out last weekend but I also contacted the CAA about 3 weeks ago and am awaiting their response before I consider my next move. (They are running at about 8 week for a response).

[tc5712]

did you have any joy with this...?

Not as yet, the 14 days I stated ran out last weekend but I also contacted the CAA about 3 weeks ago and am awaiting their response before I consider my next move. (They are running at about 8 week for a response).

 

BTW thought I'd give them (Monarch) a call this afternoon at about 3 just to see if there was any update and let them know I wasn't letting this lie.

Their voicemail said they are closed and they are open 9-1:30 Mon-Fri! A top priority dept, obviously!

[Grigg5]

Reply today from Monarch. Any advice of where to go from here?

 

Dear Mr XXXXXXXX

 

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

 

 

Hi,

 

Do you mind emailing me your response from Monarch as my wife and I was on the faro flight which was delayed and caused your delay. We were delayed 14hrs and have just received

Our claim response from monarch which has been refused.

 

They have stated that the air cooling system failed but your email stated a different reason. This inconsistency cannot be ignored.

 

I have copied my response below

 

Regards

 

Dear Mr Xxxxx

 

Re: ZB057 Faro to Luton 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 originally scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the power system used to circulate air in the cabin, during taxi to the runway for your departure. As a result, the aircraft returned to the airport stand and was subsequently declared unserviceable and unsafe to operate until the requisite rectification work and replacements had been completed. Once the fault was identified a new part was required, which was not available in Faro. Therefore shipment of the part from the UK was necessary. Unfortunately transportation to Faro was unavailable until 1930, and coupled with Faro not operating 24 hours this resulted in your flight being delayed overnight.

 

Despite our best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers on your flight to an aircraft chartered from a third party. In order to reduce the length of your delay and minimise the disruption to passengers, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within our fleet

 

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,

 

Stacey Wilson

Customer Service Centre Advisor

EU Claims

Monarch

Tel: +44 (0)844 4815626

[tc5712]

Hi Grigg5,

 

The reply they sent me is post #8 in this thread.

Very interesting to see their contradicting 'extraordinary circumstances' though!

 

The question is where do we go from here?