Deltus

While it won't help the OP in this case, but for future reference, would CEDR/MCOL consider a mobile phone video as evidence? It sounds like it would often be a good idea to get a record of what ground agents are saying, whether it's IDB, extra baggage charges, demands for more extras at a car hire desk etc. Might make the agent double check that he's doing the right thing too, at the time...

TerryK

S7 will not do verification. It is BA who is at risk for fraud, not S7.

percysmith

Globaliser

Your surprise seems to be based on your assumption that the OP is telling the truth about having the credit card in their possession at the time.

As any lawyer will tell you, sometimes clients who are in this situation are able immediately to produce the original credit card slips showing the time stamps, plus the credit card statement, plus the credit card itself. Other clients who are pressed for this kind of evidence go quiet; and then when chased say they are too busy at the moment and promise to do the work soon; and then when they finally respond they say that they can't find any of it / the cleaner must have thrown out the paper / they have accidentally shredded the wrong documents / the dog ate it - but nevertheless insist that their story is still 100% true.

None of us have any idea what the OP will do if pressed for this information. We can all form a view about what we would decide if the OP is telling the truth about this. But we don't really know the full extent of the information that CEDR had, nor whether the OP had provided CEDR with any documentary backing for the contention that she had the credit card in her possession at the time. On the other hand, we know that BA did provide CEDR with contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting its case.

It may be different the second time around if the OP takes this to court and presents more/different evidence, or appears to the judge to be more credible than she appeared to CEDR. The judge may reach the consequent conclusion that the notes made by the IB agents were untrue even though made at the time. (And the OP does, unusually, get a second time around because the CEDR decision doesn't stop her going to court.)

But it can hardly come as a surprise to find that, on the basis of the material which CEDR had, CEDR preferred the case with documentary backing. It could surely only be surprising if one starts from the position that anyone who posts a story like this on the Internet must be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We simply cannot know, one way or the other.

Often1

Globaliser well summarizes the essence of finding facts. This is not a case of the law of EC 261/2004. That is clear. It is solely a question of whether OP was asked to and thus produced his credit card. Without suggesting that OP lied either to CEDR or here, that is a possibility and one which CEDR not even reach. Simply a matter of crediting BA's business records, ones which are kept across the airline industry on tens of thousands of tickets and minor issues every day, over OP.

No one judge or other neutral type is better at this than another.

callum9999

They very clearly stated that they provided the credit card statements to CEDR showing that they had the card in their possession within the airport on the day.

Given there is no benefit whatsoever for them to lie about that to us (if it's a lie, any advice they receive will be meaningless), your accusation of them possibly lying (no matter how nicely you type it out) seems rather unfounded.

Takiteasy

Often1

It is far from crass.

What advice would you give, if the OP did lie?

Bear in mind that OP started at the gate in a litigation posture by threatening an employee of a sub-agent with legal action.

percysmith

Agreed
In internet forums we have to take things initially at face value.
We may have our doubts and there have been threads recently where we believe the poster is not telling the whole truth (e.g. we suspected the OP to have done something to get banks to deem OP as an AML risk and shut their accounts down), all we can do is suggest areas where OP may not have fully considered the consequences of his actions and leave him to respond or consider his position in the complaint. Accusing OPs of not doing something when they have directly asserted they have done so doesn't further discussion.

Globaliser

I love the way that some people here seem to need to believe that every sob story told about poor treatment by an airline must taken to be true, and that it's beyond the pale for anybody to point out the possibility that it might not be. On the Internet, as everywhere else, everything anyone says about the facts of a situation may be true, or they may be lying about it.

And that applies even if they say it to my face, as lying clients do. Even though the lies they tell me make my advice worthless to them.

Thos who are reading with a neutral eye will have noticed that I have been careful not to accuse anyone of anything. I have merely pointed out the undoubted possibilities that (a) what they are saying may be true, and (b) what they are saying may be untrue. (That is not an accusation, unless you believe that it is accusatory to take any view other than that the OP must be telling the truth.) The position that there are two possibilities is the position from which CEDR started, and that is the position from which any court will start. You cannot assess what the OP's best course of action will be before a court unless you start from that position.

The OP has had all the sound advice already that they need: take it to court via MCOL.

DYKWIA

I was quite surprised how polite people had been on this thread. Then the usual suspects arrive accusing the OP of lying, and it kicks off. If you don't have anything useful to post, then just ignore the thread rather making unfounded accusations.

If the OP was lying, why the hell would they post it on here asking for advice?

callum9999

I don't need to believe anything thank you very much - how incredibly patronizing. In fact, I spend the majority of my time on here defending what BA does against the incessant whinging, so I'm not naturally inclined to think badly of them.

The OP is making a claim, you are saying they might be lying. You used weasel words to make it sound non-committal, but saying they might be lying, for no apparent reason (unless you believe we're all idiots who aren't aware of the existence of lies?), is clearly an accusation.

While you brush aside the fact it's wholly nonsensical for them to be lying, unless it's obviously a lie, there's no reason whatsoever to take that tone.

scubaccr

I readily believe OP, that they purchased online on day, immediately checked in, and proceded to airport and had CC within them, luckily used CC before&after gate issue and provided CC statement to CEDR.

However CEDR is not a face-2-face where adjudicator can ask questions of OP, or OP can add further explanation during decision process. BA are well practiced at writing up CEDR defence in best possible light, whereas OP may not have done so,
eg OP maybe provided CC statement but did not separately hilite the airport CC used just before and just after IB agent refused OP, and that CC statement is proof OP had CC at airort on their person before, during and after chat with IB gate agent so would have shown CC if asked which they were not.

Going MCOL route, it is a face-2-face, the adjudicator/judge can ask questions of OP etc, and may even help OP with clarification prompts in the uneven battle with the far more experienced BA legal defence team.

It is also true that within online booking process the user is informed that CC/DC used to book needs to be carried by passenger. I have been asked at BA AMS checkin for my CC when a BA Blue in the days i usually flew KLM exclusively

As at least one FTer noted, if OPs had checked baggage then chances are any normal checkin counter agents, would have not even said anything but simply asked to see OPs CC. The gate agents have a less customer interaction role, may well have less knowledge and probably less foreign language oral/reading skills.
To the extent IB Gate Agent gets the bad beep, sees BPass no longer aok, OPs offloaded etc has no valid tkt, and IB agent gave stock reply in this situation that OPs needed buy another new ticket, without even noting on IB gate screen that OP just needs to be asked to produce CC used to book the flight.

OP mentioned they booked online, so CC statement showing purchase holds no proof, I often book using one of my CC/DB cards info from memory (I never store my card details on BA) so no physical card needed.

Luckily OP says at airport they purchased food before flight on same card , and to show not lost before gate purchased currency after IB agent scene happened, in effect proving OP had same CC within them at airport both before+after scene with IB gate agent, thus on balance of probability also had CC with them whilst with IB Gate agent.
Ergo OP was on balance of probability never asked for CC as would have no reason to not show CC if asked, and thus readily have shown it immediately if OP was asked and OP was subject to an IDB

all in all, rather a crass incorrect CEDR decision, if OP did indeed provide her CC statement and hilited the 2x airport purchases date+time as being just either side of gate agent boarding refusal.

TerryK

I have no doubt on OP's statement of events. However, credit card statement showing purchases made at airport doesn't proof presence of physical credit card. I often use Samsungpay without carrying my credit card yet transaction shows up on my credit card statement as usual.

LCY8737