What happens to Avios / TPs / status upon the death of the account holder ?
Oct 23, 2013, 12:26 pm
#46
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: AUH
Posts: 8,267
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
2. Regulation 5 (1)of UTCCRs state as follows:
"A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."
Good faith involves the question of fair and open dealing, which I believe is not questioned in this case since there was no suggestion that the T&Cs were unexpectedly sprung on the consumer or the language deliberately unclear. And convincing the Court that the term represents a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations is certainly going to be a challenging argument, although I am open to being persuaded.
Originally Posted by shorthauldad
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.
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.
Oct 23, 2013, 12:44 pm
#47
Join Date: Jan 2006
Programs: BA Gold, VS Silver
Posts: 399
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.
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.
Not much help here, but I believe some of the US airlines will credit miles to the next of kin. That's not something that's required by law or because the miles form part of the estate, but it's simply something that the rules of those programmes allow for. BAEC doesn't have the same rule.
Oct 23, 2013, 1:06 pm
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Programs: BAEC Gold, Hyatt Plat, Amex Plat.
Posts: 651
I think lawyers like me enjoy these conversations, not least because they show how quickly folks can lose the wood from the trees. I am not sure it matters what the small print says except as a startling point for negotiations. That's because the drafter of those terms is thinking about his terms standing up to scrutiny by lawyers likely sharper than he. So we know that the OP is losing her husband's miles and BA is entitled to take them. But we don't know how many miles are at stake. We don't know how they were obtained and over what period. What type of customer was the OP's husband? We don't know what the OP wants to use them for and who is going to use them. The answers to these questions might enable the OP or someone on her behalf to contact BA and try to work something out for everyone's mutual benefit. Who knows, may be the OP wants the miles to take her nearest and dearest to where her late husband fought in the war/played his best round of golf/honeymooned/dreamed of but never quite got there. The OP's obvious honesty with BA together with her unfamiliarity with household accounts may persuade BA to allow her to retroactively open a household account as Hiddy recommends.
I think we post here because we either like BA or have attached ourselves to BA for some reason, so let's give BA an opportunity to figure something out behind closed doors (and most definitely without the help of media).
I think we post here because we either like BA or have attached ourselves to BA for some reason, so let's give BA an opportunity to figure something out behind closed doors (and most definitely without the help of media).
Oct 23, 2013, 1:12 pm
#49
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: All Over the world!
Programs: BA Exec Club, EK Skywards, Hilton Hhonors. No Mucci, but have a far more useful Gucci (wallet).
Posts: 591
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.
^
Oct 23, 2013, 1:18 pm
#50
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,211
Oct 23, 2013, 1:34 pm
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
1. The burden of proof is on the consumer alleging the unfairness, unless the Court takes the initiative and decides to review the fairness of the term. For the purposes of these discussions, it would therefore appear logical that those seeking to argue that it is unfair make their case, not the other way around.
2. Regulation 5 (1)of UTCCRs state as follows:
"A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."
Good faith involves the question of fair and open dealing, which I believe is not questioned in this case since there was no suggestion that the T&Cs were unexpectedly sprung on the consumer or the language deliberately unclear. And convincing the Court that the term represents a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations is certainly going to be a challenging argument, although I am open to being persuaded.My thoughts exactly - it wouldn't surprise me if she is put in a very awkward position soon and find that the scope of her discretion becomes restricted when people do not think before telling the world.
2. Regulation 5 (1)of UTCCRs state as follows:
"A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."
Good faith involves the question of fair and open dealing, which I believe is not questioned in this case since there was no suggestion that the T&Cs were unexpectedly sprung on the consumer or the language deliberately unclear. And convincing the Court that the term represents a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations is certainly going to be a challenging argument, although I am open to being persuaded.My thoughts exactly - it wouldn't surprise me if she is put in a very awkward position soon and find that the scope of her discretion becomes restricted when people do not think before telling the world.
The whole idea of the legislation is to side with the consumer in seeking protection from onerous small unfair terms imbedded in consumer contracts. These cases are relatively few so far because corporations prefer to leave ambiguity than being told they have unfair contracts, which then involves an obligation to remove the clauses. That is why these cases are nearly always settled. Those that are not are invariably found in favour of the consumer. It has to be pretty wobbly to go the other way.
Secondly, when heard the claim is heard informally. The claimant will simply have to say " I feel firstly that it was most unlikely my husband would have ever seen this clause, and secondly if he had I feel it unfair of BA to keep miles he puchased or earned." The judge will then simply decide. He will possibly even ask- in this case BA - "when would the husband have been presented clearly with this clause during the transaction?"
Thirdly, I think it might win on the first hurdle. I do not recall ever seeing on any screen whenever I buy the miles or earn them a warning stating that if I were to pop my cloggs BA would confiscate the miles. Many people might not know this, or think it fair. The law specifically mandates that any significant clause must be seen clearly before the consumer chooses to complete the transaction. It is specifically stated as being insufficient to state that "our normal terms and conditions apply".
Finally, you imply that even if the consumer saw them and in your view accepted them, that this means the legislation dosn't apply. The revese is true. The presumption is that the consumer has no power to negotiate with the corporation, and as the terms are often industry generic - with a whole industry. The whole point is to make any onerous term unenforceable if it is ruled onerous.
Anyway ...as I said ...if the OP asks for these miles in the way I suggsted I believe they will receive them.
Last edited by uk1; Oct 23, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Oct 23, 2013, 2:20 pm
#53
Company Representative - British Airways
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 834
Transfer of airmiles to next of kin
penhill57 my sincere condolences.
I have sent you a private mail but in case you read this first please refer to my email and I will contact you when I return to the office next week.
Warm regards
Nicci
I have sent you a private mail but in case you read this first please refer to my email and I will contact you when I return to the office next week.
Warm regards
Nicci
Oct 23, 2013, 4:04 pm
#54
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: AUH
Posts: 8,267
To the OP: My condolences, and I hope that Nicci will be able to sort something out to your satisfaction.
With respect, I put it to you that the reverse is true.
The reluctance of large corporations to go all the way to hearing and judgment is as much because of (i) PR considerations and (ii) the very high costs of defending cases, even the misconceived ones, as it is due to the reason you state which is (iii) the risk of losing and having to remedy any defects found. It would be amusing to suggest that getting a company to settle is somehow an admission of guilt, when quite frequently the biggest driver to settlement is the simple fact that the payout costs far less than the legal costs associated with defending the claim.
You are not seriously suggesting that the hearing and judgment will not concern itself with an analysis of the relevant statute? To which, see the following:
Your suggestion that you might win "at the first hurdle" suggests a complete lack of understanding of the relevant test in 5 (1) above.
You, like everyone else, would have joined BA Executive Club at some stage, at which point the T&Cs would have been available to you. Indeed, if you joined online, you would have been precluded from joining if you did not read it and tick the box. Whether that constitutes valid notice and incorporation is a different question, but it would be most surprising if your case relies on the fact that BA do not tell you about the "forfeiture upon death" clause every time you earn or buy Avios.
You are now clearly just very, very confused about the argument you're putting forward. Namely, you appear to have veered off to a discussion of onerousness rather than unfairness.
I sincerely hope that the OP is able to work it out with Nicci 
The whole idea of the legislation is to side with the consumer in seeking protection from onerous small unfair terms imbedded in consumer contracts. These cases are relatively few so far because corporations prefer to leave ambiguity than being told they have unfair contracts, which then involves an obligation to remove the clauses. That is why these cases are nearly always settled. Those that are not are invariably found in favour of the consumer. It has to be pretty wobbly to go the other way.
Secondly, when heard the claim is heard informally. The claimant will simply have to say " I feel firstly that it was most unlikely my husband would have ever seen this clause, and secondly if he had I feel it unfair of BA to keep miles he puchased (sic) or earned." The judge will then simply decide. He will possibly even ask- in this case BA - "when would the husband have been presented clearly with this clause during the transaction?"
Thirdly, I think it might win on the first hurdle.
I do not recall ever seeing on any screen whenever I buy the miles or earn them a warning stating that if I were to pop my cloggs (sic) BA would confiscate the miles. Many people might not know this, or think it fair. The law specifically mandates that any significant clause must be seen clearly before the consumer chooses to complete the transaction. It is specifically stated as being insufficient to state that "our normal terms and conditions apply".
Finally, you imply that even if the consumer saw them and in your view accepted them, that this means the legislation dosn't (sic) apply. The revese (sic) is true. The presumption is that the consumer has no power to negotiate with the corporation, and as the terms are often industry generic - with a whole industry. The whole point is to make any onerous term unenforceable if it is ruled onerous.
Anyway ...as I said ...if the OP asks for these miles in the way I suggsted (sic) I believe they will receive them.
Oct 23, 2013, 4:33 pm
#55
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
To the OP: My condolences, and I hope that Nicci will be able to sort something out to your satisfaction.
With respect, I put it to you that the reverse is true.The reluctance of large corporations to go all the way to hearing and judgment is as much because of (i) PR considerations and (ii) the very high costs of defending cases, even the misconceived ones, as it is due to the reason you state which is (iii) the risk of losing and having to remedy any defects found. It would be amusing to suggest that getting a company to settle is somehow an admission of guilt, when quite frequently the biggest driver to settlement is the simple fact that the payout costs far less than the legal costs associated with defending the claim.You are not seriously suggesting that the hearing and judgment will not concern itself with an analysis of the relevant statute? To which, see the following:Your suggestion that you might win "at the first hurdle" suggests a complete lack of understanding of the relevant test in 5 (1) above.You, like everyone else, would have joined BA Executive Club at some stage, at which point the T&Cs would have been available to you. Indeed, if you joined online, you would have been precluded from joining if you did not read it and tick the box. Whether that constitutes valid notice and incorporation is a different question, but it would be most surprising if your case relies on the fact that BA do not tell you about the "forfeiture upon death" clause every time you earn or buy Avios.You are now clearly just very, very confused about the argument you're putting forward. Namely, you appear to have veered off to a discussion of onerousness rather than unfairness.I sincerely hope that the OP is able to work it out with Nicci
With respect, I put it to you that the reverse is true.The reluctance of large corporations to go all the way to hearing and judgment is as much because of (i) PR considerations and (ii) the very high costs of defending cases, even the misconceived ones, as it is due to the reason you state which is (iii) the risk of losing and having to remedy any defects found. It would be amusing to suggest that getting a company to settle is somehow an admission of guilt, when quite frequently the biggest driver to settlement is the simple fact that the payout costs far less than the legal costs associated with defending the claim.You are not seriously suggesting that the hearing and judgment will not concern itself with an analysis of the relevant statute? To which, see the following:Your suggestion that you might win "at the first hurdle" suggests a complete lack of understanding of the relevant test in 5 (1) above.You, like everyone else, would have joined BA Executive Club at some stage, at which point the T&Cs would have been available to you. Indeed, if you joined online, you would have been precluded from joining if you did not read it and tick the box. Whether that constitutes valid notice and incorporation is a different question, but it would be most surprising if your case relies on the fact that BA do not tell you about the "forfeiture upon death" clause every time you earn or buy Avios.You are now clearly just very, very confused about the argument you're putting forward. Namely, you appear to have veered off to a discussion of onerousness rather than unfairness.I sincerely hope that the OP is able to work it out with Nicci
For the Ts and Cs in this situation to be fair you have to believe that a reasonable person would agree with all three of the following statements:
1. That when you purchase or earn BA miles - they have no actual value.
2. That the moment you have purchased or earn those miles and they are credited to your account they are not your property, but instead belong to BA.
3. That even if you were able to agree with 1 and 2 as being fair then you were specifially and clearly informed at the point that you purchased or earned the points that they were neither of value and were not going to ever be yours.
Unless you agree with ALL THREE of the above statements then the relevent Ts and Cs in question is almost certainly unenforceable.
The legislation states that even if a consumer has read, understood, and signed a consumer contract they remain unenforceable if they are unfair. This is what you seem not to understand or accept.
If you don't mind me saying so, the reason why these cases rarely if ever get to court is to maximise the number of people that sustain the exact beliefs and views that you and many others have expressed.
I am sorry that you are unable to agree.
EDITED: Wish to make clear ..... none of this is intended to be seen as criticism of Nicci ... who is very much appreciated .....
Last edited by uk1; Oct 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Oct 23, 2013, 4:56 pm
#56
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: AUH
Posts: 8,267
Evidently not.
Says who?
Oh, I understand fully. It's just that I consider your analysis entirely misconceived for the reasons previously stated.
If I thought a term was unfair by virtue of satisfying the relevant legal tests, I would say so. At the risk of repeating myself, your argument is - at best - confused.
I'm sorry too
For the Ts and Cs in this situation to be fair you have to believe that a reasonable person would agree with all three of the following statements:
1. That when you purchase or earn BA miles - they have no actual value.
2. That the moment you have purchased or earn those miles and they are credited to your account they are not your property, but instead belong to BA.
3. That even if you were able to agree with 1 and 2 as being fair then you were specifially (sic) and clearly informed at the point that you purchased or earned the points that they were neither of value and were not going to ever be yours.
Unless you agree with ALL THREE of the above statements then the relevent (sic) Ts and Cs in question is almost certainly unenforceable.
1. That when you purchase or earn BA miles - they have no actual value.
2. That the moment you have purchased or earn those miles and they are credited to your account they are not your property, but instead belong to BA.
3. That even if you were able to agree with 1 and 2 as being fair then you were specifially (sic) and clearly informed at the point that you purchased or earned the points that they were neither of value and were not going to ever be yours.
Unless you agree with ALL THREE of the above statements then the relevent (sic) Ts and Cs in question is almost certainly unenforceable.
The legislation states that even if a consumer has read, understood, and signed a consumer contract they remain unenforceable if they are unfair. This is what you seem not to understand or accept.
If you don't mind me saying so, the reason why these cases rarely if ever get to court is to maximise the number of people that sustain the exact beliefs and views that you and many others have expressed.
I am sorry that you are unable to agree.
Oct 23, 2013, 6:14 pm
#59
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,596
Four years ago when tying up my grandparents estate, the solicitors we had appointed stumbled across what were then an amount of Air Miles which as we know are now rebranded as Avios. The solicitor set about instruction to Air Miles to change ownership. As I was the only beneficiary who collected Air Miles, the executors of the will agreed these should be passed to me. They had a cash value associated with them for inheritance and capital gains tax purposes although the amount of my inheritance was nowhere near the actual limit. It's something I hadn't really given much thought to until now. I find it surprising that Avios would say one thing and Executive Club another when in actual fact it is all amounting to the same thing. Could the OP not have the avios transferred to an Avios account (as opposed to a BA Exec Club account) which for all intents and purposed do allow points to be passed to beneficiaries?
Oct 23, 2013, 8:58 pm
#60
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
From the Avios.com terms and conditions:
B.4.7 (...) You are the holder of Points and are responsible for their security. We are the owner of all Points and they remain our property at all times.
[...]
Termination of Membership
B.6.1 Membership will terminate automatically:
(...)
B.6.1.2 upon the death of a Member, Points accumulated but unused at the time of death shall be cancelled together with Membership of the Scheme;
[...]
Termination of Membership
B.6.1 Membership will terminate automatically:
(...)
B.6.1.2 upon the death of a Member, Points accumulated but unused at the time of death shall be cancelled together with Membership of the Scheme;