Downgrade from First to Business with BA

[meta]

One other thing is that you should really claim separately for each passenger even if though the law does not require you. The court can then decide whether they want to link up cases or not. Of course there is fee to consider here as you need to pay twice, but this also means that it puts more upfront costs to BA of defending the case. In my experience, they are more likely to settle.

And the time to state the value of the claim is already in the letter before action. It’s the only time you have the upper hand and it’s the first thing judges read.

[sayling]

@NorthernLass

A pertinent article to link to, thanks.

I actually quoted – with the same paragraphs emphasised – both the EU261/Mennens Articles mentioned!

[JDB]

sayling wrote:

@NorthernLass

A pertinent article to link to, thanks.

I actually quoted – with the same paragraphs emphasised – both the EU261/Mennens Articles mentioned!

EC261/Mennens are only a small part of the equation and don’t help you in any way re a companion ticket having the same cost/value as the voucher holder’s ticket which is a separate argument that has to be made. As above, BA’s argument is simple and superficially very attractive so they can often get away with it.

[Ihar]

The word @JDB used earlier – “consideration” – is crux. BA have basically assigned it a value based on what it offers you in exchange. EU261 specifically includes such payments in its definition. The CV in itself has no value until BA assigns it one (and I think using AMEX spend/annual fee argument does not in itself give it a value).

Still a very weird decision by the judge that if you didn’t pay for it then it has no value.

[sayling]

@JDB It did seem to be the points that were relied on in the article linked to by @NorthernLass, though I appreciate everything is in the wording – and that’s the disappointing part.

It appears to be well established that many people have successfully been awarded a sum in respect of the reimbursement value of the voucher, but I’m not the only one to suffer from, as @Ihar says, “a very weird decision from the Judge”.

(Still disagree that the ‘value’ of something is necessarily relevant in terms of reimbursement of costs incurred by the traveller – which, potentially, is what the Judge wanted to establish in my case and, fundamentally, disagreed with my calculations and assertions. Value to whom? Value to me would surely include access to and use of CCR, which was lost. As was the speed and efficiency of using the First Wing.)

I still feel that I – even now – would not know what words to use should I ever have to go through this again, to ensure a valid case was presented to the Courts, which would be useful to more people than just me.

[Ihar]

sayling wrote:

(Still disagree that the ‘value’ of something is necessarily relevant in terms of reimbursement of costs incurred by the traveller … )

And that’s why we still have confusion – the “reimbursement of costs” is what the judge thought about (zero cost) compared to the “value” lost. EU261 provides reimbursement of 75%, and the “value” assigned to the 241 by you/BA was the cost of the Avios required otherwise. If you tried to claim loss of CCR/First Wing, etc I’d imagine BA would vigorously defend it (mainly to deter others). In any case this would be a claim for “breach of contract” (unfair terms) which would be a very high bar for success.

Ultimately MCOL should have easily been able to side with you based on EU261, but if you muddy the waters then the judge is likely to treat it as contract law (IMHO). And then “to make you whole” would only be the difference in Avios between First and Club – much less than EU261. CEDR is a passenger’s friend. MCOL is no-one’s friend.

[sayling]

EU261 provides for 75% reimbursement of the fare paid though?

[Ihar]

So just agree with the judge and be happy. @JDB told you the magic word – “consideration”. At that point BA has offered to supply you with a seat in exchange for a voucher. Without the voucher, they would ask for x Avios (which you could have booked). It’s not rocket science to equate the voucher’s “value” to be equal to the Avios waived by BA in lieu – agreed by both parties.

This is defined in BA’s T&Cs. If you failed to bring it to the Judge’s attention…. 😕

[sayling]

You seem to forget, or missed the part where I said my claim included a sum for the voucher.

Or is it easier to seemingly continue to berate me for the Judge’s decision than to constructively put together the necessary wording that should be used to – as far as possible – guarantee it doesn’t happen to others put in a similar position in future?

[JDB]

@sayling – all the salient arguments and wording to win this type of case have already been posted in this thread by me and others. Where there is any doubt about these arguments or the need actively to manage cases at MCOL, it’s better for a pax to go to CEDR. @meta wisely highlights the importance of pre-action conduct and making a claim for each person so that these cases don’t even make it to court. BA is perfectly pragmatic and will settle cases reasonably easily, but they need to recognise you mean business so they are at a high(er) risk of losing.

[sayling]

Hopefully, anyone else that gets downgraded will thus find all the information they need to successfully make their case and win their argument, then, in future.

On their behalf, thanks for the advice and contributions, fellow forumites

[Ihar]

tl;dr : Go to CEDR, not MCOL. @sayling has highlighted a very important point – big corporates will bamboozle you into losing in court, and it’s the first time a judge has heard the argument. CEDR have heard the argument 1000 times before.

I often think EU261 is over-generous in most cases (and under-generous in a few), but if you ask for what is fair you will usually get it. Ultimately a few Avios is a cheap way of keeping customers happy.