A HfP reader sues BA when it refuses downgrade compensation on a 241 voucher

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• r* says:

  15 Feb15 February 09:29

  Why does the CAA constantly allow them to not comply with their legal obligations?

• Anna says:

  15 Feb15 February 09:29

  CEDR is a less formal mediation service which doesn’t require serving papers on BA, you just upload any supporting documentation to the website and they do the rest of the work from there. BA refused to pay us delay compensation in 2019 when the air conditioning broke on our plane and we landed 5 hours late. I submitted the claim through CEDR and BA caved in immediately and we got our £1072 within 4 weeks.

• Lady London says:

  15 Feb15 February 09:32

  First and Club not the same for YQ often. The small, actual tax, part of what BA calls taxes would be the same across any classes above Y. Most of the taxes are forced co-pay so should ve claimable

• Froggitt says:

  15 Feb15 February 09:44

  Well done. Why wouldn’t BA offer another companion voucher as compo? Would that be acceptable?

  • Rob says:

    15 Feb15 February 09:48

    Nothing stop BA and the flyer reaching a private agreement on that but the passenger must always have the option of taking the 75%. Personally I would have taken £1000 instead of another 241 anyway since, added back £500 of taxes required to use the 241, I would have £1500 to put towards a cash ticket.

• Definitas says:

  15 Feb15 February 09:47

  As this type of claim against BA has been rattling round for years, I remain completely bemused as to why nobody has ever gone up against Amex over this. The card fee constitutes a contract with Amex and the description of the card benefits on the Amex website is clear and unequivocal that the holders of the companion voucher are ENTITLED to a second seat. There is no mention of it being dependent on availability on the day, irrops or anything else. If someone were to be successful at taking Amex to court for false representation in the card terms, they would have a much greater interest in ensuring BA do not flout the terms. Either that or Amex would have to amend the card terms to advise that the voucher may not be honoured. I was advised at check in a few years ago in the US that we were likely to be downgraded at the gate. Fortunately it didn’t happen but I was determined to MCOL Amex on the grounds that there is no mention of the voucher being rejected by BA whenever it feels the need. In my mind, Amex should have to underwrite the voucher and re-issue it if it is not honoured on the day along with sufficient reward points to put the card holder back in the position they were in so a new booking can be made and the original booking written off. Amex takes the card fee and the £10K spend and shirks any responsibility for the terms of the actual voucher being delivered. I seriously doubt that would stand up in court.

  • Chrisasaurus says:

    15 Feb15 February 09:57

    I’m inclined to agree.

    Nothing is guaranteed per se and have to be reasonable if, say, it is impossible to accommodate but it would open up the matter of the deliberate targeting of 241 tickets for downgrade to scrutiny and if BA are engaged in could play here which anecdotally at least there’s a case to answer for, it would be very interesting to see how Amex would respond

    • meta says:

      15 Feb15 February 10:03

      Good point. I would actually put both Amex and BA on the MCOL claim.

      • JDB says:

        15 Feb15 February 11:17

        If you put two defendants, even on the same claim, you have to pay twice. Realistically, I can’t see you would have any prospect of winning vs Amex, as they are not a party to the conditions of carriage or the EU261rights.

        • NFH says:

          15 Feb15 February 11:45

          No, you do not have to pay twice if there are two defendants. I have twice issued County Court claims against two defendants (an airline and American Express) and there is only one court fee to pay followed by only one hearing fee to pay. The fees are very slightly higher if you issue a County Court claim at the court instead of via MCOL, which is necessary if, for example, there is more than one claimant or more than two defendants.

  • Lady London says:

    15 Feb15 February 10:10

    Amex claim wont fly because you were able to book a ticket with BA?….any ticket

    • Definitas says:

      15 Feb15 February 10:24

      Sorry, but that is only partially correct. Booking a ticket is not the same as being “Entitled” (word used in Amex terms”) to a companion seat in same booking class. I am convinced that the Amex terms are indefensible in law as they make no mention of BA being able to cherry pick which parts of the CV they honour and that BA view the companion element of the voucher as having no value. I cannot envisage any scenario whereby Amex could mount a credible defence for omitting those details from the card terms, not least because BA’s stance has been widely documented in both MCOL and CEDR cases. Amex include terms in the card contract which they are unable to deliver (entitled has an unambiguous definition in law). I am genuinely amazed that Amex has been able to get away with advertising undeliverable terms for so long and that card holders even bother trying to deal with BA. I

  • cinereus says:

    15 Feb15 February 11:01

    This _will_ get tested one day if they keep up with the wording and it will certainly be interesting!

  • ChrisW says:

    15 Feb15 February 11:05

    Amex could easily add a few words in the Ts and Cs to voucher is subject to availability, and ‘oversold operational requirements’ or something similar which 99% of cardholders would never read. This would give BA an out not to provide any compensation.

    I don’t think this is the answer.

    • JDB says:

      15 Feb15 February 11:25

      There are quite a few companion voucher T&C’s that already aren’t enforced (for the better) e.g. the requirement to use the card that earned the voucher for payment and still to have that card account open at the time of travel. Be careful what you wish for with the T&Cs…

      • Scallder says:

        15 Feb15 February 12:01

        That one would no way stack up as a fair regulation though. Saying that having earned one voucher, on the BAPP, would then require you to keep and pay for up to 2 years the fee on that card just to pay – so you’re not paying £195, you’re actually paying somewhere between £195 and £585 to use that one voucher (assuming no future vouchers earned etc etc).

        • meta says:

          15 Feb15 February 12:43

          What about pursuing a S75 claim with Amex? You paid charges on Amex card, hopefully BAPP so a credit card.

        • Callum says:

          15 Feb15 February 15:33

          Why do you deem that to be “unfair”, as opposed to just not liking it? As long as that was made clear before signing up, I don’t see how it could possibly be illegal?

  • Charlieface says:

    15 Feb15 February 13:41

    Not sure whether that argument would work, but S75 definitely would work if the ticket was paid with a credit card

• Stephen says:

  15 Feb15 February 09:58

  Hi All. Very interesting to read as always. Just wondering how one might approach this with cash tickets where the prices are constantly moving? Do you need to take a screenshot of all the prices and different taxes (and show what BA’s carrier charge is!) for different classes when booked so that can be referred back to? And assuming this relates to a ticket bought a while back how would I go about doing it? FYI this relates to a WTP to QR Econ because of BA cancelling one of their Doha flights. I know its not going to be a huge amount of money but its the principle really! Thanks

  • Lady London says:

    15 Feb15 February 10:08

    based on what you paid for the higher class they booted you out of

• MKB says:

  15 Feb15 February 10:04

  It’s worth noting that, legally, UK Air Passenger Duty is levied on the airline, not the passenger. It is a commercial decision by the airline, not a legal requirement, to itemise this element of their costs in the fare construction and not include it in the base fare.

  I cannot see on what legal basis the 75% compensation for downgrade would not include this element of the total fare. Unless a precedent to the contrary has been established?

  • Lady London says:

    15 Feb15 February 10:11

    interesting point. other claims do get the VAT element of a purchase back so why not.

  • AJA says:

    15 Feb15 February 11:20

    It makes no difference on a downgrade from First to Club or Club to WTP as APD is the same in all three classes but I think it should apply to a downgrade from WTP to WT. Note also that APD is only payable on flights departing the UK so if downgraded on a flight inbound to the UK it wouldn’t apply.

  • JDB says:

    15 Feb15 February 11:22

    I’m not sure that is correct. APD is an excise duty levied on each passenger that the airline collects on behalf of the government and has to pass on to HMRC. It needs to be itemised on the ticket, as with the various other levies so that the status of the monies received by BA is clear. Sums such as the APD are held by BA on (legal) trust and need to be accounted for separately from fare revenue.

  • NFH says:

    15 Feb15 February 11:49

    That’s not true. Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 obliges airlines to itemise the amount of:

    (a) air fare or air rate;

    (b) taxes;

    (c) airport charges; and

    (d) other charges, surcharges or fees, such as those related to security or fuel

• Wollhouse says:

  15 Feb15 February 10:08

  Having tried, completely unsuccessfully, to get BA to swap my cancelled flights (Avios and 241) onto another airline, I agree that this is endemic within BA. I am prepared to MCOL but, like others, feel we shouldn’t have to. I’m holding off doing this purely because my alternative (Qatar) routes via Dubai which presently is in the red list. The flights to Bangkok aren’t until sep so holding fire in case BA restarts the route. But there’s no way that many agents are giving out the level of incorrect info that’s happening without it being a deliberate policy. But it obviously “works” for BA. Targeting Amex might, as other posters have said, focus the mind!

  • MKB says:

    15 Feb15 February 10:18

    Targetting Amex could also result in a change of the terms and conditions of the 2-for-1 voucher to explicitly forego any downgrade rights.

    • Chrisasaurus says:

      15 Feb15 February 11:34

      The downgrade rights exist in legislation not in the T&Cs so they can’t be amended out of existence.

      • memesweeper says:

        15 Feb15 February 12:19

        … and Amex would have to notify all existing card holders, with sufficient notice of the T&Cs changes, which would need to be ‘fair’. They’d hate to do this.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.