Flexible preferences

Hi there scillyisles, I disagree with you there, but might I suggest you use the alert button if you object to my posts in the future? It is less disruptive to the thread and allows a mod to objectively look at the situation.

Anyway, whatever happened with the hotel search, the screenshots only show 4 star and above, so we have no way of seeing prices and availability of 3 star accommodation. And in a way this is a detail, I'm more interested in the legal obligations of reasonableness (or not).

TravellingSalesman

Since you seem to keep asking about reasonableness, where do you get the suggestion that this is something relevant here?

Did you read it in the regulations, if so could you give a pointer?

Flexible preferences

I don't have a suggestion, just interested.

IAMORGAN

The question was whether it is implied. I think the basic position is 'no' as the Regs are for consumer protection.

Even if it were qualified in that way, I'd say the OP acted reasonably in all the circumstances. I don't think there would be an arbitrary 3* max limit. Ł295 / night isn't particularly excessive for a London hotel room either.

Flexible preferences

I agree with this. But I'm curious, is it acceptable, within the regs, to blanket exclude 3* results (with the caveat I'm not saying the OP did this!) and expect repayment of more expensive resultant hotel options?

scillyisles

The displays show hotels sorted by popularity in the location specified by the op. If you read one of the displays it shows that 95% of the hotels available on booking.com for those dates are not available i.e. fully booked. The displays also show that 169 hotels were available and of those 169 he booked the Mandeville at Ł295. I guess to allay the suspicious types on FT, the op should have screen captured all 169.

TravellingSalesman

According to the regulations it is up to BA to provide duty of care. The regulations do not expect the passenger to be involved in paying for this at all.

corporate-wage-slave

Article 9 of EC261 is quite short so I can put it here:

So there is no quality threshold mentioned, no cash limits. In fact it doesn't precisely say that the airline needs to provide it directly. However it is done, though, the hotel needs to be free.

So any discussion about the hotel's quality may be up against what is reasonable, but that's not directly in the Regulation. What I do know is that BA (and other airlines) when they book hotels do discriminate on status, cabin, short versus long haul. So you're more likely to end up in the Ibis if non status and domestic, more likely to get the Sofitel if Prem and First class. That's the span, with Novotels, Sheratons and Hiltons in the centre area. The OP is silver on shorthaul, so personally I think 5 star is stretching it, but if that is all that is left then that's what it takes. But my view counts for little here, if BA wanted to control this they should have made the booking. They abdicated this to the OP, the OP's responsibility is to get accommodation, the airline's responsibility is to ensure it is free of charge.

The Mandeville is nearer 4 star than 5, it's got that boutique label, it's corporate rates are Ł170 or so, the rooms are fairly pokey in the 20 m2 area. It's at the back of Selfridges.

Edit: notice, incidentally, where there is a reasonableness clause on food and drink, there isn't on hotels.

simons1

It doesn't need to, as Articles 4, 5 and 6 (which all cross refer Article 9) have already stated that any assistance under Article 9 is to be provided by the operating air carrier.

It may in practice be provided by agents but the carrier remains responsible.

Dave Noble

Where there is dispute about a debt, that is where a court can make a judgement. It is not the court that creates the debt, just confirms that the person claiming that the other person owes a debt is right - or of course can confirm that there is no debt

Often1

That becomes circular in the context of this thread. BA has not suggested that it is not responsible, only that the OP was profligate. This raises the question of what is reasonable for LHR at 10:00 PM.

It is clearly to the operating carrier's advantage to provide a voucher and BA routinely does so at its LON stations. But it appears that it ran out here. So, where is the line drawn?

As noted, no need to debate that here as BA failed to give OP a limit. Had BA at least done that, OP could have chosen to keep looking for something cheaper or to have accepted the more expensive rooms and run the risk of having to fight BA for the excess as he now must.

simons1

I think we are agreeing. There is no disputing that according to EC261, BA is responsible as the legislation (contrary to what was said earlier) does explicitly state that assistance is to be provided by the operating carrier.

The only foolproof way of managing costs was for BA to do what was required and provide the assistance required under 'right to care'. Of course BA could have said 'don't spend more than Ł200', the OP could have chosen to be guided by this or alternatively the OP could have said 'no thanks, you sort it out then'.

TBH I can't see anything other than a routine MCOL win for the OP here, I'd be surprised if BA wasted time defending it.

bafan

If BA feels confident of its position, and that there is a reasonable limit on hotel costs in these circumstances, then it can always defend claims in court and see if the judges agree with it...

Swiss Tony

Op - there's an article in the money section of the times on Saturday you might want to look at. Ba running out of hotel rooms in irrops told a customer to take a cab home and back if they could. Promised to cover cost then reneged. Evidently a call from the times tipped opinion but if you can ping the journalist the details it makes for a stronger shaming...

Dave Noble

Indeed , this seems to be the simplest approach -- though it is possible that the court will agree that GBP285 is more than reasonable per person per night