Morges2

Have been an avid reader of the forum for some years, sadly my first post is prompted by sheer frustration of BA’s interpretation of the above condition. I’d much appreciate the wisdom of the Forum on the following matter.

Last month, I was traveling from holiday on an Italian motorway in poor conditions en route to Geneva when the car aquaplaned into the central reservation. Thankfully everyone in the car was OK but as we later discovered the car was a total right off.

It became quite apparent that I wasn’t going to make my mid-afternoon GVA – LCY CE flight due to the time it was taking for police reports to be completed, to get towed from the motorway and the fact that we had to arrange alternative transport from a small village in the middle of nowhere!

I called the Gold Line to advise them and requested a transfer onto the last flight out that evening which was to LHR. I was told that there would be a £100 change fee plus the difference in seat cost which was a further £230. As it turned out, there were some reward seats available and so shelling out 7750 Avios and £50 for a CE seat was by far the cheaper alternative to getting back.

Recently, there was an article on this Forum referring to BA Condition of Carriage 3c4 which states

` If you need to change any aspect of your transportation because of events beyond your control, you must contact us as soon as possible. We will use reasonable efforts to transport you to your next stopover or final destination, without re-calculating the fare’.

I therefore contacted the Gold Line again to tell them that I thought I’d been incorrectly advised and please could I have my Avios and £50 fee back as well as being awarded the 40 tier points that I would have received had they just moved me to the later flight.

After being put on hold for some time, the CS agent advised me that I had been correctly advised in the first instance and that I should claim from my travel insurance. Somewhat flabbergasted by this response as it felt that BA was trying to deny their own legal condition, I wrote to Mr Cruz last week, asking for his explanation of the condition. Whilst I still await his response, I also emailed the content of the letter to the CS rep that I originally spoke to. The rep has already responded informing me once again that they have made the correct decision as ` Section 3 refers to an act of God, for example volcanic ash’.

I’m not a legal expert but surely if an `event beyond your control’ has to be an `Act of God’ to qualify then shouldn’t those particular words be clearly stated in the wording of that condition?
The Oxford dictionary definition of an accident is `an unexpected or undesirable event, especially one causing injury or damage’ and personally I certainly think a serious accident falls within the concept of an `event beyond your control’.

Whilst I could claim on travel insurance, this has really got me riled and although there aren’t vast sums involved, I feel BA ought to be challenged in court if necessary on the wording of this clause.

Or am I wrong? The Forums input would be much appreciated.

apollo00

I can only say that BA have in the past (maybe 18 months ago) changed a flight to a later one without any charge when I phoned (30 minutes before check in closed) and said I was likely to miss the earlier due to being stuck in traffic on the M25.

It was actually for my wife's flight and I called the GGL line because I had it saved in my phone. I wasn't at that time aware of the 3c4 provision so it was quite a speculative ask but they did it straight away with no trouble. Whether they did it because of that provision or were just feeling helpful that day I do not know.

If it was me I would be tempted to write them a letter and consider either CEDR or MCOL if you don't get anywhere as it's clear they do sometimes make such changes for free and an accident is probably as 'beyond your control' as traffic or a puncture.

FrancisA

I would say: did you have travel insurance and if so why are you not claiming?

i would interpret act of god to means something that directly affected your flight.

What the op describes is a classic insurance claim.
​​​​

Tobias-UK

... but the CoC do not mention Acts of God, they simply refer to "events beyond your control".

apollo00

I think you need to actually read the conditions of carriage (https://www.britishairways.com/en-de...ns-of-carriage) as they seem tailor made for this situation exactly - they do *not* say 'act of god'. They say

This seems to fit that definition clearly (assuming you took every action​ reasonably possible not to have an accident while driving to the airport), I'd generally say you should really avoid claiming insurance for something which the carrier appears obliged to cover. Unless you enjoy higher insurance premiums for some reason...

CloudGazer

Did you pay with a credit card? If so could you try a chargeback via your card issuer?

Flexible preferences

The clause seems clear - I can't see how BA have a leg to stand on here. To me, it does seem a very generous clause for an airline, and they should honour it.

Welcome to FT, Morges2, even if it is misfortune that has transformed you from a lurker to a contributor! Good luck with pursuing this matter.

Finkface

But this is not an event beyond (his) control. He had an at-fault car accident, which, being a single car accident is his/her fault. Hydroplaning doesn't take the fault away - it is still human caused whether it is driving too fast for the conditions or whatever, and he is the only driver involved therefore the fault lies with him, which is how car insurance will also adjudicate it. He wasn't hit by another car or something that was someone else's fault. So the events were not beyond his control. Had he been going much, much slower, whether practical or not, it likely wouldn't have happened. I appreciate the bad conditions but not everyone on the road had the same outcome so therefore some driver error occurred - again likely driving too fast for the conditions at the time. And too fast doesn't mean you were speeding. Just that the conditions were bad and one must adjust accordingly.

CloudGazer

It sounds like the delay dealing with police matters and having the car recovered were the issue that meant he didn't make it to the airport in time. The time that these third parties took would have been outside his control.

CCayley

If the accident is accepted as OP's fault, and so not an event outside his control, then the same applies to the natural consequences of the accident, such as having to remain at the scene while the police investigate.

fransknorge

This chapter of the CoC is called the Flat tyre rule for a reason.

Wayland

I would carry on seeking recompense. Unless you were driving recklessly, I don't buy some of the earlier arguments that the event was under your control - we've all been caught at some point out by treacherous road conditions, unusually deep standing water, black ice etc.

In the past 12 months BA happily rebooked a friend of mine who left his passport at home and only realised in the lounge (when I made a joke about "all having our passports"), and my wife who's passport was delayed whilst at the home office for a permanent residency application, so I think you've been harshly treated.

suley

If BA's interpretation of events out of your control is act of god then tehnically an accident happens as a result of negligance and not an act of god (as much as we like to believe it is). Similarly an accident if it was as a result of your negligance or you were to blame then the primary reason was within your control. You can argue and may be someone will side but difficult. I would say if its a third partys fault you can claim against the third partys insurance as a uninsuired loss

Dave Noble

Where is it stated as being a flat tyre rule? I have not seen it on any authoritative source, only used on places such as FT

apollo00

Well, it doesn't much matter if that's what BA think it means because that's not what their conditions of carriage say and any attempt to pretend it meant that would likely not last long in front of a judge.

I tend to believe that they wouldn't be inclined to find out as it's much harder to fob people off and send them to their insurance once a precedent has been established.

It's also fairly well established that BA have moved people's flights free of charge in broadly similar situations (unexpected delays getting to the airport that could, technically, have been avoided by leaving earlier, using different means of transport etc).

I strongly believe the OP was entitled to that here and pushing that point via CEDR will cost nothing. I'd personally be keen on ensuring BA didn't get away with avoiding honouring their terms in this way regardless of the money.