Originally Posted by
callum9999
You couldn't possibly know what will happen, and the legal term "unfair" does not mean "if any random person doesn't like it then it's illegal". There is nothing inherently unfair in assigning avios to an individual and not allowing them to be transferred to other people. It's a bit callous and rather stupid in the OP's scenario, but I can't see how it's unfair.
While I'd hope you're right and the threat of legal action alone is enough to make BA change their mind, you dictating that your definition of fair is correct and someone elses is wrong is nothing more than arrogance.
They are relying on the preservation of consumer ignorance with respect to their rights.
This basically is fairly black and white as far as these issues go. The reason why you are doubtful is because these issues never get tested and instead are dealt with informally to preserve the doubt that you clearly and understandably demonstrate. BA needs people to doubt their rights. It is more profitable. Ie eu regs ...... People are steeped in the acceptance of Ts and Cs.
It might not be unfair to preclude them being reassigned during the lifetime of the holder of the miles. However it all changes on the death of the holder. BA are relying on three simple unsustainable and daft ideas. Firstly that the miles have no value. They do. I have paid for mine. They are not given away for free. Secondly that they are not owned by the person who has " bought" them. This is also clearly rubbish. They are in an account with a name on them with rules about how they can be used. The last idea relies on the first two being fair and that is that consumers are bound by terms and conditions even if they are unfair. BA knows that this isn't so.
Once the miles are transferred to the next of kin of the original owner, they then become bound - as the previous owner - by the reasonable terms.
They will be transferred to her once she has made it clear she isn't going o be fobbed of.