Virazuno

But I think we can all agree that this would be quite unlikely, given the circumstances. OP even has screenshots. I find it hard to believe that a judge would rule �295 unreasonable when a) BA didn't bother booking a room themselves, b) BA didn't tell the OP that they impose a limit, c) OP did their best in the situation they put in, d) The Regs don't stipulate a limit, other than that accommodation should be 'free'.

Cymro

My educated, but not "qualified" view, is that it will depend on what is reasonable in all the circumstances.

BA's lack of action and guidance certainly plays a role here.

My view is that there is no strict financial cap - but clearly if the Conrad is going for �150 per night, it's not reasonable to stay at the Park Lane Hilton for �700 when someone else is paying. So a lot depends on what the OP actually did. If the filters were used, that could exclude a lot of options, but as even the Leonardo and the Park Inn are 4*s with a rating >8.0 on booking.com, I think that's frankly the least that anyone can be expected to do.

(I'd consider both of those to be three stars with a rating of about 7/10).

If, in that context, those were the cheapest and closest options to Heathrow (and not "London") then it seems as though he has mitigated his loss from BA's breach as much as anyone could. If he has done that, the �200 cap from BA is arbitrary and not actually documented in the contract.

If, however, the OP usually stays at Premier Inns near the airport but decided he wanted a 5* in Central London for the night, even though he could have got something decent and close to the airport for much less, �200 is frankly generous. I'm not suggesting that it is the case, but �295 would not be recoverable in those circumstances.

In general, in the absence of guidance, I'd suggest that the OP's obligation is to find the cheapest acceptable accommodation, in line with his usual travel style or expenses budget, in a reasonably close location, with a modicum of effort (maybe 10-15 minutes). He doesn't need to document that in any great detail, but should be able to give evidence to that effect.

LTN Phobia

I also tend to take into account the price of the ticket and/or class of travel.

This is just my personal view but it's unreasonable of an airline to expect me to stay in a 3* accommodation if I am in cash F (or A), whereas if I am in discount economy, that's all I deserve to get as long as it's clean, safe and reasonably accessible from the airport, because I chose to travel in airline equivalent of 1* or 2* by choosing to be in discount economy class.

strichener

If you are going to pass the responsibility onto the customer, then the customer would be reasonably expected to be compensated for their time. How much value does one place on their time?

joequimby

I know this is digging up an old thread but it seemed most relevant.

My flight from EDI returned to gate and then cancelled. As it was the last flight out, staff had gone home and we were told to book our accommodation.

Long story short, BA have paid out EC261 compensation and for expenses incurred (hotel, transfer, meal).

However, BA have paid �200 of �209 for the hotel room as that's company policy that needs to be consistently applied to be fair to all customers. I've challenged it on principle as this limit wasn't told to me and given it was 10:30pm night of, this was the cheapest rate.

After a few emails back and forth with customer relations, they aren't budging and insist they have fulfilled all obligations. They've also said "we�re unable to respond to any further requests for a further refund" which I think is terrible customer service.

I've also offered to credit avios in lieu, or donate it to Comic Relief of which both suggestions have been turned down.

Putting the amount aside, what's the general consensus? Is this sort of behaviour by BA worth challenging through MOCL?

corporate-wage-slave

Have a look at the main EC261 thread, via the Dashboard, and there is a very recent case of the �200 limit being challenged. I don't think you should complicate it by involving the charity donation.

If you want your �9 back I would issue MCOL forthwith (BA have made it clear that you don't need to give any more notice), and I am reasonably confident you will get the full amount paid. BA will also have to pay the court costs and tie down an expensive member of the legal team along the way.

Bluebirdnick

The law does not state a limit nor allow airlines to arbitrarily allow one. BA's policy is therefore to disregard the law. Bizarre.

Flexible preferences

Isnt making a claim for �9 wasting the Court's time? My advice: let it go.

V10

Who is wasting the court's time in this situation? Court could be avoided completely if BA simply pays up the 9GBP that it owes, rather than leaving the poster no other option.

joequimby

Thanks for all the replies. I was expecting BA to fully reimburse as no upper limit was advised to us at the airport, except that it had to be reasonable.

Reimbursing �9 short is quite petty and you would think common sense would prevail and grant the reimbursement. I'm more interested in challenging the legal basis of BA's policy and if I get the money back, that would be a nice bonus.

Are there repercussions in pursuing this further? Suspension of BAEC, upgrade blacklist, etc?

Wozza2404

No.

Whilst it may seem petty to go after �9, if enough people do it then BA may finally change this policy.

barobson

I have just read this whole thread and felt very sorry for the OP, it looked like they had little choice and it was late at night. It made me think of an experience I had with BA at the end of the year and whether or not BA had been reasonable. I am a GCH and had used a RFS in Club Europe to DUB from LHR and was due to return to London on 30th Dec 16. I was not in DUB but Athlone a good 70 or 80 miles away and was dependent on public transport to get to and from the airport. A few hours before my evening flight was due to leave I got a text from BA saying my flight was cancelled and I should log into the app to accept/reject an alternative flight. The app was not working so eventually I called the gold line who told me I had been rebooked on the 0700hr departure the next day. If I did not take this then there were no other flights available for a few days (as it was New Year). I explained that I could not get to Dub for that time in the morning and would they provide a hotel and I was told very clearly that as the cancellation was due to weather (fog at LHR) this was not their problem. I ended up getting someone to give me a lift (involving a 4am start), the 7am flight was then delayed a couple of hours and there was no catering at all - simply a glass of water. I had accepted their comment that they had no responsibilty for me as the issue was weather related but after reading this thread I am no longer sure that was the case? Could I have claimed and if so is it too late to claim now? Additional costs were not huge, mainly fuel for my lift but it left a very sour taste in my mouth for some weeks!

theddo

In Europe they have a duty of care regardless of why the airplane was delayed.

Some things are exempt from monetary compensation, but they are still required to provide a hotel and transfer to and from the hotel.

BA thus lied to you.

UKtravelbear

EU261 does NOT apply a limit. Indeed it specifically says in Article 9.1

If BA is trying to wriggle out of its legal obligations where else should the OP go for remedy but the courts?

UKtravelbear

@joequimby

Thinking about it what I would do is now ignore customer services and just write to the legal department at Waterside (which is what I did over a ong delay over a refund and it seemed to unblock it)

Outline the facts and point out the wording of Article 9.1 that clearly states 'free' and the regulation over rides anything in their T&Cs / CoC etc

Tell them you'll give them 14 days to pay otherwise you'll go to MCOL. No doubt they'll have a laugh then realise paying you �9 will be a lot cheaper than defending the case.