Bristish Airways, booked first class flew economy!

miduck

callum9999 wrote: »

Regardless of them "making the choice", surely the EU regulations still stand. The EU regulation someone quoted says "75% of the price of the ticket". I assume that only covers the leg that was downgraded, so it would be 135k Avios (plus the 60k "goodwill" should they still choose to) and £377.90 back from the taxes and charges. In fact, I'd personally push for more considering the rules state it must be paid within 7 days and (presumably) it has now gone past that.

Unless they were explicitly told that they would be waiving their right to EU compensation should they choose the Air France flight (though are they even allowed to do that?).

The EU Regs cover involuntary downgrades, and I expect BA would argue this was voluntary, as they did have the choice to wait and travel as planned.

callum9999

miduck wrote: »

The EU Regs cover involuntary downgrades, and I expect BA would argue this was voluntary, as they did have the choice to wait and travel as planned.

They could argue that I guess but it would be pretty sleazy of them to do so. And would a court view it as "voluntary"? I'd personally only view it as such if British Airways had informed them that they are waiving their rights to compensation (though I'm no legal expert - and BA could have done so but the OP just didn't take notice at the time etc.).

miduck

callum9999 wrote: »

They could argue that I guess but it would be pretty sleazy of them to do so. And would a court view it as "voluntary"? I'd personally only view it as such if British Airways had informed them that they are waiving their rights to compensation (though I'm no legal expert - and BA could have done so but the OP just didn't take notice at the time etc.).

I am not aware that there has been a case on the subject. The fact is that BA did give them a choice, they were not forced to take the downgrade, and hence it was not an involuntary downgrade.

I don't think such an argument is "sleazy", it is a reasonable interpretation of the law. They are not waiving their right to compensation, they are not entitled - two very different things.

callum9999

miduck wrote: »

I am not aware that there has been a case on the subject. The fact is that BA did give them a choice, they were not forced to take the downgrade, and hence it was not an involuntary downgrade.

I don't think such an argument is "sleazy", it is a reasonable interpretation of the law. They are not waiving their right to compensation, they are not entitled - two very different things.

BA may have provided a choice, but they didn't explain the consequences of those choices (hence why I think it's a sleazy argument, and again assuming that the OP wasn't told) - so I'd argue that BA didn't put them in a position where they were realistically able to make an informed choice.

I'm sure you're right about there being no test case though, so we'll have to agree to disagree!

miduck

callum9999 wrote: »

BA may have provided a choice, but they didn't explain the consequences of those choices (hence why I think it's a sleazy argument, and again assuming that the OP wasn't told) - so I'd argue that BA didn't put them in a position where they were realistically able to make an informed choice.

I'm sure you're right about there being no test case though, so we'll have to agree to disagree!

They are not obliged to tell him anything more than they have. You have still not given any explanation as to why this would be deemed an involuntary downgrade? You seem to be basing your viewpoint on a moral viewpoint, not the legal position.

shaun_from_Africa

They are not obliged to tell him anything more than they have.

If you have entered into a contract with any business, that business is legally required to inform you of any terms and conditions that may affect your decision making.
This is covered by the "consumer protection from unfair trading regulations 2008".
This act covers misleading information and also omissions that could affect decision making by a consumer. (section 6 of the act) and this covers anything that takes place before agreeing, during the course of the contract or after it has been completed.

(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a)the commercial practice omits material information,

(b)the commercial practice hides material information,

and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

If BA gave the OP a choice then they should have explained the consequences of the option that the OP decided to go with.

simoncandice

Is there any flight from India for this country ?

jamesthe1

Great news! got he email below from Keith, BA chairman today and then, conformation about funds!

****

Thank you for the e-mail. I will ask that the file be reviewed as soon as possible.

I am sorry that the flight in October was cancelled and the problems that ensued.


Keith Williams

Dear Mr *******

Further to your email to Keith Williams, Keith asked me to look into the situation regarding the refund of your taxes ,as a result of you and Miss ***** being downgraded.

I have contacted our Refunds department and they have asked me to send their apologies for the delay in sending you the refund.

The tax charges in First is £179.50 is for one way and in World Traveller is £119.50. This is a difference of £60.00 per person.

They are arranging for this to be refunded tomorrow. It should show up on your card within 5 working days.

I am sorry you have had to contact us again about this issue. If you do not receive it within the 5 working days, please contact me again.

Best regards

Dawn Brown
British Airways Customer Liaison Executive
Your case reference is:10416721

photome

simoncandice wrote: »

Is there any flight from India for this country ?

Do you like spam