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

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

Have now had no contact since early April where they acknowledged this letter. What are my options? TIA all

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

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

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

Sent this off today with copies of statements I've been provided. They can't refuse to pay out surely? Thank you for your letter of 12/03/13 with your reference of xxxxxxxx in which you state that no PPI was taken out on this account. You further go on to state that ‘Cardholder protection plan’ is the same as PPI. Thank you for confirming this. From this point forward, for avoidance of all doubt, I wish to reclaim the ‘Cardholder protection’ payments as they are the same as PPI, a fact you have confirmed to me in writing. I enclose copies of statements that YOU have provided me detailing ‘Cardholder protection plan’ payments via an SAR. I have included as many as I have been provided but I am sure this does not fully cover all the payments charged on this account. Please investigate and refund all payments made with appropriate interest at your earliest convenience. I look forward to hearing from you in the first instance of receipt. Yours faithfully

That would be because when I initially made a claim to recover CPP they totally missed the subject line of the letter and replied with‘thanks but you didn’t have PPI on this account’. So I sarcastically replied ‘Thank you for confirming I didn’thave PPI, this is about CPP’…. Etc etc But now they have stated it’s the same thing! Next letter with copies of the statements that THEY have sent me will be off on Monday

Service?? What beggars belief is that I have ALL the statements that THEY have provided me for this account via a SAR request detailing CPP was paid and this letter says they have checked their records and none was? Muppets!

Hope the attached helps some people. I've seen a few threads that stated they were different things. Got this letter from Lloyds today stating they are one and the same thing. Kind regards, TC

Well, I fired this off at the end of Jan: [ATTACH=CONFIG]41438[/ATTACH] They have now replied with this [ATTACH=CONFIG]41440[/ATTACH] The title of my letter clearly states 'Cardholder protection' but to give them the benefit of the doubt I did refer to the CCA I enclosed that sort of referred to PPI I guess. Have sent another letter today clearly explaining my points so we'll see what happens. TC

Dear all, The Mrs got the attached letter today. After calling them to clarify it turns out it's for 'overpayment of income support' from 1999! I've been with her for 8 years so I can vouch that this is the first contact about it. Can they do this? TIA

Just re-read the CA I signed for this card. If CPP is supposed to be for '(amongst other things) fraudulent use of your card, replacement cards etc.' Why is the wording 'Tick to take out payment protection to protect your payments'? I didn't tick that and declined but even if I did it sounds like PPI in disguise to me?

I'm starting to think I must have phoned the number on the sticker when I first got the card to 'activate' it and got suckered into the whole CPP thing. Anyone have an address to send a claim to for this sort of thing? TIA

Sorry dx, 'Predate' was my chosen word. Gotta love a trier? lol

To be honest I didn't IMS21, but I will now with this new ammunition I've uncovered!

So, does this predate the whole PPI thing or do I need to go back to them and request the details?

Hi all, Attached is an extract from an SAR request on Lloyds. I've made one successful PPI claim on the line titled 'LTSB Standard Personal Loan'. However, there are four others below that are just titled 'Fixed rate P/loan with Insce' from 1995-1998. My SAR paperwork contained no records of these apart from the attached small extract referring to them. Any thoughts? TIA

Well! Have a look at the attachment! After having another wade through the reams of paper that was my SAR request I came across this little beauty! (Plainly ticked I did NOT want to protect payments). How did I not cotton on at the time I was being fleeced? So, is there a template for reclaiming CPP's? TIA

I'm not sure if it is correct or not to be honest. All I know is: Yes, It was on a loan Amount of PPI was £958.39 (added to loan at start) Taken out 17/07/2002 Never made a claim

Well, out of the blue I noticed some monies were paid into my account yesterday & today I got this letter! Should I accept or go for compound interest? TIA

That's what I thought!!! Thanks for confirming!

Agree Noodle is a bit behind the others (showing Oct 2012 at the mo) but Lloyds wouldn't have sold a debt to BOS surely?

Welcome Fredrickson ‘International’ to the party! Bit weird this one though? They quote their client as ‘Bank of Scotland’ & Brand/Product as ‘Lloyds TSB’? (Neither of which exist anymore)!? This alleged debt has never been with BOS & my Noodle file still says ‘Lloyds’. Is this a case of trying to baffle brains with bull**** or just incompetence? TIA TC

Sry, got carried away with the PPI theme. It's stated as 'cardholder protection plan'. Same thing?