Originally Posted by
Tobias-UK
I don't buy the Unfair Contract Terms Act argument in the current context. I can't see such an argument can be sustained.
That said, the points you make above are very valid and this is where I feel there is great scope for argument should this issue be brought before the courts.
The argument can be braodened further, in English law a penalty is not normally enforceable. Could such a fare recalculation constitute a penalty? If so, an airline would have great difficulty enforcing such a provision in its terms of carriage.
This may well be a moot point, we don't yet know what the new rules will say or how the airlines' will change their conditions of carriage in response to the new rules.
If an airline did try to recalculate the fare in these circumstances, any such recalculation could be interpreted as a breach of the new rules and the protection that was intended to be afforded to the traveller.
Until we have the actual legal text of whatever the new rules will be, anything we discuss here is purely academic.
Thanks. It isn't UCTA, but the specific consumer 1999 version.
It would still however probably fail at the very first hurdle.
The regulations in practice insist that any substantial condition must be made clearly on the summary page before you commit and pay. Also any potential further exact charge must be spelt out. It isn't.
At the moment I think most people buying a restricted ticket will understand the lack of change flex - but I speculate that a high percentage will not know they could be refused boarding if they miss the outward leg or be faced with a fee if allowed boarding. Even less will know what the fee might be at the point of booking.
These I think would be the first tough hurdles. People can reasonably say they didn't know when they were booking. I cannot see how a contract term (under the act) could be seen as fair if a member of the public inadvertently committed themselves to an open-ended charge that wasn't fully spelt out before they hit enter ... irrespective of whether the principle of the charge is fair or not.
If however, BA said really clearly on the confirmation page something like "in the event that you missed the outward leg but presented yourself for the return leg there will be an additional charge of £765.43 ...etc" then I'm less confident of my argument - because BA could at least say customers were given every opportunity of knowing exactly what they were agreeing to.
