Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

What happens to Avios / TPs / status upon the death of the account holder ?

What happens to Avios / TPs / status upon the death of the account holder ?

Old Oct 23, 2013, 8:53 am
  #31  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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.
uk1 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 8:57 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold4life, ICH RA, Hyatt Gold and others
Posts: 692
Talking

Originally Posted by Alan Smith

They must be fair. I'd suggest that the way the rule is being applied in this case isn't fair and wouldn't be judged to be fair. Do a search and try and put a value on the points (don't do it by their maximum value possible value i.e. F to SYD, do it based on how you'd actually use them). Then see if you can use the small claims court.



Good luck!
I am always a little intrigued when threads like this one gather momentum. if we claim the miles have value and indeed are ours, then I believe that goes against the various arguments made over the years to HMRC that miles earned from business travel are NOT a BIK as they have....no value and are restricted in use and ultimately belong to the airline........

I would rather tick the "I accept the BA T&Cs box" than have the taxman asking me for 45% of the cash saved through redemptions in a given tax year.
Mutu is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 8:58 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold4life, ICH RA, Hyatt Gold and others
Posts: 692
and before anyone flames me, the above post was deliberatey not an essay on the actual arguments made for and against the taxation of rewards points in the wider sense but merely a reminder to us all that what suits us one day comes back to bite us the next day!!
Mutu is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 9:10 am
  #34  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by Mutu
I am always a little intrigued when threads like this one gather momentum. if we claim the miles have value and indeed are ours, then I believe that goes against the various arguments made over the years to HMRC that miles earned from business travel are NOT a BIK as they have....no value and are restricted in use and ultimately belong to the airline........

I would rather tick the "I accept the BA T&Cs box" than have the taxman asking me for 45% of the cash saved through redemptions in a given tax year.
I am hopeful - like the majority of people posting on the thread - that the OP get's the miles that her husband earned or bought - but certainly owned before his death - back from BA. I'm reasonably confident that that will be the outcomne .... eventually ... and all of us surely want to focus on her and her issue and be helpful .. It would be a shame if she felt it too complicated because of the resulting debate and simply doesn't try.

But in answer to your point - which has nothing to do with the OP's challange .. HMRC can at any time take a view on this issue and then change it. They do what they want - when they want. It seems to me that the miles do have value and are therefore taxable if they were a benefit earned from company travel, but so far HMRC have decided not to pursue it. They may change their mind.

uk1 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 9:10 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cambridge, UK
Programs: BA Exec, Amex Plat, CX Gold, etc.
Posts: 87
The HMRC have a (as much as they are typically) pretty clear statement on this. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21618.htm

But this is now OT. BA Couldn't use the HMRC/tax argument as HMRC say they're not taxable even if we "own" them.
Alan Smith is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 9:18 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
Originally Posted by Alan Smith
The HMRC have a (as much as they are typically) pretty clear statement on this. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21618.htm
Out of interest, have HMRC ever made a statement about cashback "earned" while making business purchases (TopCashBack, QuidCo and so on)?
shorthauldad is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 9:18 am
  #37  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by Alan Smith
The HMRC have a (as much as they are typically) pretty clear statement on this. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21618.htm

But this is now OT. BA Couldn't use the HMRC/tax argument as HMRC say they're not taxable even if we "own" them.
Beware of a reinterpretation of:

However, there is a tax charge on such items, if they are provided by reason of the employee’s employment.
uk1 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 9:20 am
  #38  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by uk1
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.
Why didn't I realise that before. Your opinions are correct, anyone else who disagrees is ignorant...

This is not black and white, otherwise you could quote a law to prove your case. You cannot do so because it is vague and uses terms like "fair". A term you clearly have a completely different definition of to me and many other people.

You can't just dictate what is and what isn't fair. Why is it inherently unfair for avios to be tied to a single person? It's not an ambiguous requirement, though I accept not many people would have read the T&Cs about what happens after death. It is made crystal clear from the outset that individual avios accounts are only for use by the named person. Hence, for example, why if you booked tickets for you and someone else you would ONLY earn avios on your own ticket - regardless of the fact you paid for both tickets.

There is a distinct difference between not liking something, and it being unfair.
callum9999 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 9:48 am
  #39  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by callum9999
Why didn't I realise that before. Your opinions are correct, anyone else who disagrees is ignorant...

This is not black and white, otherwise you could quote a law to prove your case. You cannot do so because it is vague and uses terms like "fair". A term you clearly have a completely different definition of to me and many other people.

You can't just dictate what is and what isn't fair. Why is it inherently unfair for avios to be tied to a single person? It's not an ambiguous requirement, though I accept not many people would have read the T&Cs about what happens after death. It is made crystal clear from the outset that individual avios accounts are only for use by the named person. Hence, for example, why if you booked tickets for you and someone else you would ONLY earn avios on your own ticket - regardless of the fact you paid for both tickets.

There is a distinct difference between not liking something, and it being unfair.
There is no reason to be rude. If you don't know .. google is your friend.

Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999
uk1 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 10:11 am
  #40  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by uk1
There is no reason to be rude. If you don't know .. google is your friend.

Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999
Yes, I'm really going to read an 88 page document... As you reckon you DO know, just tell me which sentence applies to this.

And if you don't want to be spoken to rudely (not that it was intentionally rude - I don't really see the big deal myself?), I'd suggest you don't make arrogant statements claiming that you are right and others are ignorant...
callum9999 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 10:26 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Programs: BA Gold, FB Ivory (no more AF), Accor Plat, VS Silver, HH Gold
Posts: 198
This was the subject of a discussion on Radio 4's consumer show "You and yours" today (starting at noon). Flyertalk got a good mention; the particular consumer was permitted to "inherit" his late father's BA Miles (now Avios) as a result of an exchange with BA's "official lurker" (unnamed but I guess we can assume Nicci) on Flyertalk.
Marcusm is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 11:03 am
  #42  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by Marcusm
This was the subject of a discussion on Radio 4's consumer show "You and yours" today (starting at noon). Flyertalk got a good mention; the particular consumer was permitted to "inherit" his late father's BA Miles (now Avios) as a result of an exchange with BA's "official lurker" (unnamed but I guess we can assume Nicci) on Flyertalk.
That's great.

I suspect that one of the reasons why the informal route is preferred by BA is that a formal route wold require either a probate certificate being requested or an assignment declaration sought from every living member and a way of keeping them up to date ......
uk1 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 11:11 am
  #43  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,167
Originally Posted by uk1
That's great.

I suspect that one of the reasons why the informal route is preferred by BA is that a formal route wold require either a probate certificate being requested or an assignment declaration sought from every living member and a way of keeping them up to date ......
Yes I imagine that's the reason.

It could lead to different family members of the deceased claiming ownership of the Avios.
HIDDY is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 11:44 am
  #44  
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges and Environmentally Friendly Travel
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22,200
penhill57, my condolences.

The only advice I can offer you is to raise your question with the appointed executor of your late husband's estate. The executor will investigate all potential assets and liabilities of the estate. Going on recent personal experience, reward points such as Nectar, Tesco Clubcard, and Avios points are not legally considered as personal assets and thus have no inheritable value. That is the situation here in Scotland although the law may be different where you live.
Prospero is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 12:04 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
Originally Posted by Marcusm
This was the subject of a discussion on Radio 4's consumer show "You and yours" today (starting at noon). Flyertalk got a good mention; the particular consumer was permitted to "inherit" his late father's BA Miles (now Avios) as a result of an exchange with BA's "official lurker" (unnamed but I guess we can assume Nicci) on Flyertalk.
I have an awful feeling that airing "bending the rules" stuff like this in public is the best way to shut it down for good.

Any leeway that individual BA staff may have to deal with individual cases may rapidly evaporate once management find out that ~10 million listeners know that "all you have to do is ask [Nicci] on FT".

Perhaps I'm just paranoid.
shorthauldad is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.