David-A

This is a longstanding issue - and I've heard (from within BA) two different explantions:

1) It dates back to the days of GB Airways, and - for very historical reasons - GB had (even though they also operated from many other locations) some kind of greater ownership of exGIB origin bookings. And then GB did not want to pay higher Amex txn costs. (And this legacy hard code has not been removed)
2) It is due to BA pricing / quoting fares in the non-existant currency GIP. (There is an ISO currency code reserved called 'GIP' - however it does not actually exist in practice. The notes and coins issued by the Government of Gibraltar have face values expressed in GBP. The nature being in many respects similar to notes issued by the banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Same currency, just a different issuer. Nobody has a bank account in GIP, and it doesn't exist in physical form either, nothing is 'pegged' or anything like that.) Anyway, the issue then being that Amex know it doesn't really exist, and can't take it being put through their network.

This behaviour has been present since BA.com began accepting bookings. Have tried to get it fixed in the past.

Dave Noble

BA is not required to accept a specific credit card - the booking over the phone incurs the same fee regardless of credit card used since it is a fee for booking via the telephone and not a fee for using the credit card

Can you provide evidence of a court ruling that a telephone booking fee would be in breach of the regulation

NFH

This is a very plausible explanation. My guess is that Amex's systems don't support or recognise GIP, whereas Visa's and MasterCard's systems do. GIP is indeed a valid ISO currency code, but which is practice used only in wholesale banknote trading. In the wholesale markets, GIP banknotes are worth less than Bank of England banknotes but more than Scottish banknotes, which is one purpose for which these separate ISO currency codes continue to exist. The simple solution to this is for BA to stop using GIP for GIB-originated flights and instead use GBP.

NFH

It is irrelevant that BA is not required to accept a specific credit card. Where BA does accept a specific credit card, then it is obliged to abide by Regulation 6A(1) of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012. By accepting payments by Amex only via telephone for which it charges a fee, BA breaches the regulation.

The legislation is very new. I am not aware of any precedents having been set yet. However, I do know that with the previous legislation, Regulation 4 of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012, it was established that the name of the fee made no difference, not least as some budget airlines were disingenuously calling it an "admin fee" or similar. What mattered was whether the surcharge was applied as a result of using a specific means of payment.

Dave Noble

If , what you are putting forward had merit in fact, then this would mean that no booking fees could be applied regardless of card used

I do not believe that, even with the new legislation, that there is a prohibition on booking fees being applied

This is not a fee for using a credit card, it is a fee for the offline booking service - the same booking fees would apply for visa and mastercard, not just american express

NFH

No, that's a non-sequitur. It is possible to impose booking fees as long as they are imposed equally upon all payment instruments. In this case, the booking fee is compulsory for payment by American Express but is avoidable for payment by Visa or MasterCard. Therefore it breaches the regulation.

Dave Noble

They are all equally applies - whether AMEX , Visa or Mastercard is all the same telephone booking fee

NFH

No, the booking fee does not apply equally to all cards, if that's what you meant to say. The booking fee is compulsory for payment by American Express, but is avoidable for payment by Visa or MasterCard. Therefore the booking fee in this scenario breaches the regulation.

David-A

Indeed, but I think there are multiple factors at work in the problem perpetuating. Including misunderstanding on BA's part, and some legacy hard coding.

Well, it is an ISO code allocation (as I said) - but I would not say it is necessarily 'valid'.

Let's be clear, these are NOT 'GIP' banknotes, they are notes issued by the Government of Gibraltar, with face values in GBP. GIP as a currency does not exist.
Now Gibraltar issued notes, when used away from their home market, do have a legitimate much higher repatriation cost than Scottish / Northern Irish issued notes, and certainly than Bank of England issued notes. This increase in cost is due both in practical terms (due to transportation hassle, and low irregular volumes) and also due to inventory reason - nobody wanting to hold physical stock of GBP for any reason would want to hold GoG issued notes.

No, I'm sorry but that is not at all WHY they exist (or WHY continue to exist) - if that is what you were saying.

ISO 3 char codes do NOT exist for many other issues of GBP denominated notes - including the various different Scottish and Northern Ireland issues, Jersey/Guernsey/Isle of Man issues etc. Yet in physical terms (inventory or dealing) these do need to be considered separately to BoE issues, so codes get made up for these other issues. (Often either in the X** range or in the GB* range - but the X range is usually safer - given GBX (non-ISO) use in many trading systems for pence, etc).

Now, given that GIP is in the ISO list, that is being used in practice, but it is not the reason why it is on the ISO list, I honestly believe it is a mistake that it is on the list.
It certainly does not exist in practice as a currency. Nobody has anything physical that is GIP valued, nor any bank account in it.

Indeed, especially since occasionally people in Gibraltar are getting charged FX load or foreign usage fee when a card system tries to do a 'GIP' to GBP conversion. Then report it to the bank to get it fixed, etc. So it is just causing problems.

Have reported this to BA many times.

Dave Noble

It is compulsory for a booking made over the phone - that is all

It applies to all bookings made over the phone

The booking made online is processed, iirc, in Gibralta whilst the phone booking in the UK will be a ticket sale in the UK

The booking can be made on a different website and not incur a telephone booking fee ( such as the american express travel website )

I don't see there much chance in successfully making a claim in court for the return of a booking fee

David-A

Your approach requires people to accept the same payment methods both online and over the phone.
I'm not aware of anything requiring that.

Indeed, some payment methods - cash etc - are obviously only suited to face to face, etc.

NFH

No, it doesn't. The regulation does not allow a charge to be applied to one payment instrument but not to another. In this case, BA is applying a charge that is compulsory for American Express but avoidable for Visa and MasterCard. That is a breach of the regulation, and it makes no difference how the charge is engineered.

NFH

Sorry if I wasn't clear. It is one of the purposes for which the GIP code is still used. Wholesale banknote traders make up codes for the other GBP banknotes. I believe they use SCP for Scottish banknotes, which is misleading as SCP would be a Seychelles currency starting with P. Although equally BTC (as opposed to XBT) would be a currency of Bhutan starting with a C, but I digress.

David-A

? - Your approach MUST require that!
You agree that BA is charging a call centre fee regardless of the type of card used with the call centre? (i.e. over the phone they are accepting all cards they support there equally - no difference amex/visa/mc or credit/debit/charge)
You agree that BA is not accepting payment by Amex for departures from GIB. (i.e. online they are accepting all cards THEY ARE ACCEPTING ONLINE equally - no difference visa/mc, credit/debit/charge, etc)

Therefore surely your approach MUST require people to accept the same card types online and over the phone, otherwise what do you believe BA have done wrong? - They are accepting all card types equally online (just not accepting one of them, in the same way they are not accpeting many other types of card from around the world)

NFH

No, there is no legislation requiring the same payment instruments to be accepted across the trader's various communication channels.

In unusual scenarios such as this where BA accepts a payment instrument only in a manner that incurs a charge, BA must waive the charge or otherwise breach Regulation 6A(1) of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012.

If this was not a breach, don't you think that Ryanair et al would not have exploited it? It makes no difference what the charge is called or how it is engineered. If the use of one payment instrument results in an unavoidable charge that can be avoided with other payment instruments, then the regulation is breached.

In fact, this reminds me of French banks around 10 years ago, when EU legislation required all Eurozone banks to charge the same for an intra-EEA cross-border bank transfer as for a domestic French bank transfer. So several French banks decided to make online-instructed bank transfers free of charge and to charge for paper-instructed bank transfers, but restricted online-instructed transfers to domestic only. The policy didn't last long, as it breached the legislation. What we're discussing here is very similar, except that French banks did this on purposes, whereas BA is probably not.