Airport tax refund rip off?

Horsetrotters

We have recently had to cancel holiday plans due to family illness. According to our travel insurance policy, the insurance does not cover UK airport departure tax which the form advises is recoverable from the airline. We were booked to fly with bmi baby – I was fully aware that the tickets are non-refundable, but have since discovered that in order to obtain a refund of the £10 per person tax, bmi baby demand a £20 per person administration fee.

Is this rip off common to all airlines? To me it looks like an unfair charge similar to those applied by banks and other financial institutions.

As no one (presumably) would be misguided enough to pay £20 to get back £10 already paid, I assume the tax simply goes to airline profits.

dmg24

This has been covered numerous times.

This practice is common to many of the low cost airlines, and is not an unfair charge in the way that those charged by the banks may be.

Will your insurance company not cover the admin fee, or just give you the £10 back?

Thailand

Yes, it is a rip off - plain and simple. The airline will justify the pilfering by way of admin fees, just like the banks.

Time to litigate.

Some airlines will refund the tax, such as BA, but you are likely to have less luck with the budget mob (I would normally defend them, but this is my beef with them)

No matter what anybody may tell you, non-refund of airport tax is unlawful. I would write to the airline giving them 14 days to respond, then a further 14 as a letter before litigation.

If they don't cave in (Ryanair certainly wouldn't!) you can sue. The only chance they have of winning is if they can demonstrate to the judge that thier admin fees did indeed cover thier own costs. Since there can be no admin, or very little, for your not flying (did they need to write to you lol) I can't imagine you would lose.

Tozer

Good point - if it costs you £20 to get it back, ask your insurers what they want to do!

Thailand

dmg24 wrote: »

This has been covered numerous times.

This practice is common to many of the low cost airlines, and is not an unfair charge in the way that those charged by the banks may be.

Will your insurance company not cover the admin fee, or just give you the £10 back?

Obviously I couldn't agree less. Nothing personal, but can you explain how they incur these costs? Because, as I see it, if they can't demonstrate how they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

And...the bank charges are unlawful. Just because they are appealling (to exploit the FSA waiver a little longer) does not change the fact they have been found guilty... which I knew from the start.

Tozer

Thailand wrote: »

Yes, it is a rip off - plain and simple. The airline will justify the pilfering by way of admin fees, just like the banks.

Time to litigate.

Some airlines will refund the tax, such as BA, but you are likely to have less luck with the budget mob (I would normally defend them, but this is my beef with them)

No matter what anybody may tell you, non-refund of airport tax is unlawful. I would write to the airline giving them 14 days to respond, then a further 14 as a letter before litigation.

If they don't cave in (Ryanair certainly wouldn't!) you can sue. The only chance they have of winning is if they can demonstrate to the judge that thier admin fees did indeed cover thier own costs. Since there can be no admin, or very little, for your not flying (did they need to write to you lol) I can't imagine you would lose.

Sue for £20?

It is not the same principle as in respect of banks as the airline is not putting the charge forward as a form of liquidated damages for a breach of contract by the passenger.

Therefore, the law of penalties does NOT apply.

Tozer

Thailand wrote: »

Obviously I couldn't agree less. Nothing personal, but can you explain how they incur these costs? Because, as I see it, if they can't demonstrate how they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

And...the bank charges are unlawful. Just because they are appealling (to exploit the FSA waiver a little longer) does not change the fact they have been found guilty... which I knew from the start.

All very emotional but factually incorrect/

Banks haven't been found "guilty" - it wasn't a criminal trial. The OFT has won, subject to appeal, the right to review the charges.

richardw

Horsetrotters wrote: »

a £20 per person administration fee.

sounds like a penalty to me, not a charge.

Tozer

richardw wrote: »

sounds like a penalty to me, not a charge.

On what basis? There is no breach of contract.

dmg24

Thailand wrote: »

Obviously I couldn't agree less. Nothing personal, but can you explain how they incur these costs? Because, as I see it, if they can't demonstrate how they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

And...the bank charges are unlawful. Just because they are appealling (to exploit the FSA waiver a little longer) does not change the fact they have been found guilty... which I knew from the start.

The bank charges case did not found that bank charges are unlawful, but rather that they are subject to a test of fairness. There is a huge difference between the two.

No, I can't explain what costs an airline may incur in refunding costs. I don't work for an airline! However, the prime difference here is that the cost that the OP is referring to is an administration fee, not a penalty.

I think that your understanding of the current bank charges discussion is flawed (though your misconceptions are extremely common). If you refer to Martin's explanations, it may become clearer.

Edit: Tozer beat me to it! x

Thailand

Sue for £20?

Yes, why not? - It's the principle of the matter.

Banks haven't been found "guilty" - it wasn't a criminal trial

True. But I hope you knew what I was getting at.

I don't agree that it is factually incorrect for reasons I have outlined above. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but this is all contrary to what I have read before.