What happens to Avios / TPs / status upon the death of the account holder ?
#31
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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.
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.
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.
#32
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold4life, ICH RA, Hyatt Gold and others
Posts: 692
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 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.
#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!!
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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 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.
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.
#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.
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.
#36
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
The HMRC have a (as much as they are typically) pretty clear statement on this. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21618.htm
#37
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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.
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.
However, there is a tax charge on such items, if they are provided by reason of the employee’s employment.
#38
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
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.
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.
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.
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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.
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.
Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999
#40
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
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
Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999
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...
#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.
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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 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 ......
#43
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,167
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 ......
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 ......
It could lead to different family members of the deceased claiming ownership of the Avios.
#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.
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.
#45
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
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.
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.