Originally Posted by
flyuk
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect BA to return you to the state you were in before they caused you to be inconvenienced due to their negligence. In fact, that's effectively how the law looks at actual damages. To go back on their word is irrelevant other than it makes it harder for you to recover your £60, and more expensive for them to fight it.
Bad call BA, bad call.
I think the point is if you go over and above what your credit card company advise you to do should BA be liable for costs associated with that. Just to make clear if someone has had fraud on their account I am in no way questioning that costs should be reimbursed from BA - and I don't think anyone who has been the subject of fraudulent transactions has said BA has refused a claim?
However, if there aren't any fraudulent transactions, and the card company advises no replacement is needed unless there are, but I then go and request a new card anyway which leads to costs being incurred, should BA be liable for that too?