Craig

I'm sympathetic to your plight, but

No you weren't. Were you handcuffed? Were you locked in a small room with a steel desk bolted to the floor?

Often1

Duplicate.

Often1

Exactly.

There is a standard FT conflation of the question of whether OP was incorrectly denied boarding which may well be with whether BA handled the situation improperly which it does not appear happened.

It is, of course, possible that BA fabricated the story about calling Canadian authorities or that it asked the wrong question when it did. But, there is not one shred of evidence of that any more than the possibility that BA dialed the wrong number and spoke with an impostor.

orbitmic

I do not believe that the OP would or should accuse BA of lying! That has never been part of what I suggested or for that matter believe. My sense is that the OP would accuse BA of having denied them boarding on the grounds that he did not have proper documentation whilst he did (ie without good reason). In my view, the OP has no reason to assume anything (positive or negative) about what the agent he spoke to asked or not and to whom, nor what they answered. His point would just be 1) I wanted to travel and had the right documentation for it, 2) BA told me that I had not but I did and here is what I explained, what I was asked, what I answered, and what I was told. I believe that the airline made the wrong decision and prevented me from travelling on a valid ticket with valid documentation as a result resulting in cost x for me.

As you say, BA will come up with their answer. I personally would not presume anything at this stage regarding what evidence they will provide. If Canadian authorities confirm 1) that BA spoke to them and 2) that they told the BA agent that the passenger would be refused entry into Canada, the judge will presumably tell the OP either that indeed he might not have been eligible to enter Canada for reasons that none of us seem to fully understand or that it seems he should have been allowed to but is suing the wrong person. It is possible that this is what BA will be able to show, but I personally would not assume that this will necessarily be so, and again, there are plenty of reasons for different results of the fact finding that might not include lying (such as the agent not asking the right question or not understanding the answer he/she was given correctly).

Tobias-UK

You quoted my post that was a direct response to a suggestion that BA lied. This is the post I responded to:

and my reply:

In litigation I never presume or assume anything.

orbitmic

Thanks, I did not realise that this was the part you were answering to. If the OP were to mention a belief that BA were lying in his view, he'd indeed need to prove it. But I personally think that this would be a really dumb move on his part and that he is much better off just sticking to the facts and letting BA put together their own defence if they wish (I wouldnt' be altogether surprised if they tried to settle instead).

flamboyant 1

I don't think BA lied and was never going down this route. Not at all, but the information used and received to make a denied boarding decision or the conclusion was incorrect.

I just sense that unless it comes from a lawyer, BA will just stick to 'the Canadian Authorities told us so' which is all I heard so far.

orbitmic

personally i share your doubts!

Skatering

Seems you were very unfortunate.

As others have touched on, your work permit letter should have an ETA number on it. It's worth keeping a copy of that letter should you be asked for it at any point in the future.

I had a regular ETA, which was revoked when I received a work permit (via the IEC). I never used it, as I received PR, but I did check my IEC ETA number in the system and it returned no results. So based on that one anecdote, I don't think these work permit ETAs are 'properly' in the system. They need the passenger to physically have the ETA number to give the airline.

Tobias-UK

Even if it comes from a lawyer, your difficulty will be getting past the Article 2 defence of 'reasonable grounds'. BA would not have denied you boarding unless they genuinely believed you did not have the correct entry clearance, it appears they sought clarification from the Canadian Authorities and they relied on that advice.

I wouldn't throw any money pursuing this, unless you are prepared to lose it. BA allowed you to travel to the USA, they were under no legal obligation to do so.

Jimmie76

My own experience with BA and entry documents was at the F area at LHR T5. There we were asked at check in if we had a visa or US passport. I said that we both had ESTA numbers and would be travelling on those. The woman said that we couldn't as there wasn't a space on her screen for our ESTA info. Did we have our numbers per chance for her to check. Nope so forgetting that I could check, I applied for mine again on my BlackBerry and presented it to her. That caused a problem because there wasn't a space on her screen (she showed me) to input it. I suggested she call IT (after a colleague of hers said that it might be a glitch) and I wasn't going to go away until we had handed over bags and were able to go through security. It was fixed a minute or so after IT got involved.

She wasn't going to let us fly at one stage which would have been interesting. We had all the correct documents and still she was saying we couldn't go. We spent about an hour getting from the taxi into the CCR which is in not great. OP I hope you get a better explanation and some sort of recompense from BA.

MBDublin

I would also be of the opinion that there is no point pursuing this.

However just to counter the article 2 defence I would think it could be considered unreasonable for an airline which is in the business of delivering people across borders not to have a robust system for finding out the factual basis of any particular scenario.

This robust system should include the ability to present the information to 3rd parties( Canadian authorities or otherwise) to get the correct answer. Clearly in this case the incorrect information was used to IDB the OP but I would consider that blaming a third party for this mistake is an unreasonable stance.

warakorn

BA would have to prove in court that they have received this advise from the relevant Canadian authorities.
A claim by BA that they did so is not enough,

corporate-wage-slave

That's not correct, unless you mean you would like this to be the case.

Reasonable, in UK law, means rational. So - for example - if BA relied on the need for an eTA based on the weblinks at the top of the page - and the traveller could not produce the eTA, BA would have rational/reasonable grounds to deny travel. If they denied travel on the basis that they thought the traveller was actually trying to get into Bermuda via a back door route, that on the face of it is unreasonable, not rational.

Hence the onus is unfortunately very much on the traveller rather than the airline in this area.

Enigma368

Both myself and my partner moved from London to Canada on a working holiday visa last year. We flew with BA from LHR-YVR and I do not recall ever being asked for my eTA(which is on the letter of introduction as others have said).

We have flown from the US to Canada 10+ times on this visa and have never had to provide this eTA, passport alone has usually been sufficient.

Also my OH just flew from MAN-YVR with SAS (via CPH/ORD) and was not asked for his eTA. That said, I don't know if they can lookup the eTA using the passport number so maybe that is why they don't ask.

This is what it says on my letter of introduction that came with my work permit:

Not sure how I feel about BA on this one. It sounds like you do technically need an eTA to travel so that is correct but you do have one and there should have been a way for you or them to look it up. Not sure why that wasn't possible? I doubt the OP will get anywhere pursuing compensation from BA since they were technically correct, if unhelpful.