omk298

I don't think when the money is paid needs changing - I think it's reasonable to pay and claim it back, and there 's no way of making the management personally liable. But there definitely needs to be a reason for airlines not to wrongly reject claims - maybe make CEDR give 1.5x compensation due for standard cases that make it that far, with the ability to give 2x if it's a particularly dishonest display by the airline

simons1

Of course the challenge of paying additional compensation where the traveller wins the case is you would expect the airline to be placed in the same position if they win.

theddo

If BA wants control of the costs they can book and pay for the hotel directly. If they don't they are stuck with whatever the customer books.

If they want to save money by not having the staff available to do that then they take a risk, and if they don't pay themselves they can hardly force me to pay for it and ask for reimbursement later on.

windowontheAside

I've been stranded alone at an unfamiliar airport scrabbling to find a hotel. Even as a fairly seasoned traveller I didn't find it a straightforward experience. Not all airports have free WiFi; not all pax have (charged) smartphones, with or without data plans. Having internet access should not be an obligation for the passenger.

If BA want control of costs, then they should sort out contracts with hotels and make the bookings. Otherwise the limit should be a) advised to the passenger and b) reasonable for the city and season. Ł200 really won't go very far at times around LHR.

secretplantofightinflation

This.

BA has the ability to dictate what the customer is worth through booking the hotels themselves.

If they choose to let the customer sort themselves out, the. As far as I'm concerned they are on the hook for whatever the customer books.

Fitch

We look forward to hearing about your success in litigation on that one

secretplantofightinflation

I never said anything about litigating. It's my personal opinion.

It's what any customer-centric organisation would do.

origin

If I was travelling with Ba or any LHR airline, then I would have stayed as close to the airport as possible.

Also heathrow and the surrounding area has Premier Inn and travelodge which are reasonable and very easy to use. Its not frowned upon to use these hotels many business people are often using them the same way leisure people are.

With already suffering an issue with travel, the last thing I would do is go further away from the airport. We all know there are spots in the UK when trouble can happen most of London is one of them.

theddo

They EU regulations these rules are based on doesn't have any limits, or demands for reasonable accommodations, nor does it define what reasonable is.

Telling a customer to sort it out themselves open BA up to whatever the customer books since it is BA who should arrange everything themselves.

If you go from staying at a travellodge to the hilton for no reason, it may be unreasonable. But saying everything over GBP200 is unreasonable because the computer says so is highly unlikely to work out well for BA.

LiviLion

They don't have an infinite amount of rooms though.

My LHR hotel of choice is the Bath Road Premier Inn and I've stayed at the Travelodge a bit further along as well but if they are full, they are full. I got caught up in the disruption a few years ago when a 787 had a bit of a fire at it's gate which caused a lot of disruption and the shorthaul schedule getting cancelled. Hotels were coming in very expensive so I risked getting back into town and getting the sleeper service back up to EDI. In the end it sort of balanced out by the refund for cancelled flights being more than the sleeper service walk up fare. As this was obviously out of BA's control then compo never got discussed - I did try to get the mileage and TP's but they weren't having any of it.

I'm not sure why BA can't put together a one pager to hand out with guidance around maximum claim limits for hotel, taxi, food. This might make people try and get something at the max limit though which is probably the reason why.

simons1

Presumably their lawyers have told them not to, because there are no maximum limits.

As covered several times up thread BA's responsibility is to provide accommodation and refreshments. There is no limit to the cost, the only way they can cap this is to arrange it themselves.

South London Bon Viveur

Agree with all those above that say if BA cannot (or cannot be bothered) to assist customs, and who have already been inconvenienced, then it is very churlish to set a Ł200 limit in London. It's do-able, but might require a fair bit of searching. Late at night after a delay I would not criticise a passenger for not shopping around for too long.

TravellingSalesman

Sure. If you can show that the customer acted dishonestly.

I don't think anybody is arguing any more that BA are not aware of the gross breach of EU regulations their behaviour in this case represents.

Often1

If BA is not paying when presented with a Letter Before Action or even advising MCOL that it will contest, that is exactly what it is doing. BA is effectively advising an official body with jurisdiction over the issue that it's cap of 200 is in compliance with the Regulation.

It is also possible that BA has settled dozens of these matters along with an NDA, although for the small amount in this matter, one might simply refuse the NDA and see what BA's next step is.

Tafflyer

Indeed, the most likely time that BA would leave the passenger to book his/her own Hotel is when during major IRROPS everything immediately and easily available to BA is sold out. This is precisely the time when GBP 200 might be insufficient.