First of all, the usual excuses if this particular has already been addressed on this forum, but I couldn't find it.

Just read this blog http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2016/02/26/refund-uk-apd-luxury-departure-tax/

This guy clams that UA is refunding APD charged if you send them a BP for a flight out of the UK occurring less than 24 hours from arriving. This is of course a situation where you'd have a separate ticket on a different airline.

Anyone knows of something like this happening on BA?

APD is due unless connecting (<24hrs) on one ticket or conjunction tickets.

The connected flights must be detailed on the same ticket or conjunction tickets to qualify for the exemption.
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nected-flights

It has been discussed several times before:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/u-k-i...-question.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/virgi...funded-va.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/u-k-i...questions.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...-possible.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...m-transit.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qanta...pd-refund.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...rture-tax.html

I have in writing from HMRC that if the airline operating the second flight is able to connect the two PNRs by reference to each other, this constitutes a conjoined ticket for their purposes. Then after the flights have taken place, they can and should refund the APD.

You can't connect or merge two PNRs though. I doubt anyone would describe TCP as a connection between two PNRs.

A "conjunction ticket" has a specific meaning in airline ticketing, being two tickets issued in a single itinerary.

I think what needs to be clarified is whether HMRC mean "connect the two PNRs" in the sense of airline ticketing "conjunction", or in the sense of "making a note in each that that they refer to each other".

The latter is more the meaning an accountant would take, to insist on a record referring the two transactions to each other but not specifying the form of the record. "APD refunded because connecting from <ticket number>" and "APD refunded because connecting to <ticket number>" would be good enough and would satisfy an auditor looking for justification for repaying APD.

The gov.uk link above specifies that it must be on one ticket or conjunction tickets. Simply putting a note in each booking/PNR referring to the other does not make them conjunction tickets.

The connected flights must be detailed on the same ticket or conjunction tickets to qualify for the exemption. Tickets can only be regarded as conjunction tickets if:
a. they are in one booklet, or
b. where they are in separate booklets:
each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question
Although the flights may meet all the other criteria for determining whether 2 flights are connected, they will only qualify for the exemption if the connection is evidenced on the ticket or a flight summary.

Below is my correspondence. I was inclined to agree with you, but I wanted their ruling, so I explicitly stated that they were separate tickets, merely linked electronically. I then asked my local BA office to link the PNRs (which is pretty common practice) with a note on each referring to the other, and send a single email with the two ticket printouts one after the other, just to be sure I'd adhered to the requirement for a single flight summary, whatever that means, and had them confirm that they would be happy to refund the APD after I boarded the second flight.


Dear APD specialist at HMRC

I wonder if you can answer a question about whether I can reclaim the Air Passenger Duty from British Airways in the following case.

� My father has booked us to fly on British Airways from London to Buenos Aires on Ticket A.

� I am based abroad, and am flying into London on British Airways from Tel Aviv on Ticket B, landing 2 hours before the onward flight to Buenos Aires.

� British Airways are happy to link the two tickets together electronically, make notes on each ticket referring to the other, and send a flight summary showing the complete journey including Tickets A and B.


In this case, am I eligible, according to section 4.4 of the HMRC notice on APD (no. 550), to get a refund on the APD, as a passenger in international transit? What else do I or British Airways need to do before the APD can be refunded?

For your ease of reference, here is section 4.4 [redacted]

Thanks

frb98mf

I suspect that if asked, BA would say that it has not done this. Not least is the fact that if BA created a connecting ticket, it could be contractually liable to you for misconnection protection etc.

It would be interesting if you were to get a different response from BA.

You can't create a "connected ticket". That's the whole point.

This question has come up in this forum several times over the years and I do not recall a single FTer who has confirmed BA has refunded the APD after cross referencing two separate PNRs. Not once.

There has been anecdotal evidence to suggest FTers have had limited success dealing with AA and UA who have agreed to refund APD on separate tickets, presumably as a result of a more laissez faire approach to their ADP obligations. Incidentally these carriers evidently take a more relaxed approach to paying corporation tax too but that�s fodder for a different thread in AAnother forum.

BA�s definition of a conjunction ticket can be found in BA�s General Conditions of Carriage - a ticket we have issued to you in conjunction with another ticket which together make up a single contract of carriage. That is pretty clear to me. Other airlines may have their own interpretation of a conjunction ticket and if they happen to be the ticket issuer and operating carrier of the first flight, then you may have more success with them, as it is the first uplifting carrier that is liable for APD.

[Bolding mine] The problem lies in your description: your tickets are not linked. It doesn't really mean anything and what is "pretty common" is not tickets being linked but airlines understanding that when a customer ask that "tickets be linked" (or "merged" or whatever) they just include a note of reference in each booking. This has zero value as has receiving a "single email with the two ticket printouts one after the other".

The airline may have been happy to refund the APD to you but if they did that they were wrong to and if HMRC finds out it will make the airline pay the charge and possibly a penalty.

I wouldn't make quite as firm a conclusion as that. The fact is there is room for interpretation as to what a connected ticket means, and without a court ruling on specific facts we can't be sure (HMRC can be wrong, incidentally).

But that is really second fiddle as far as the passenger is concerned. From our perspective, the difficult built is persuading the airline to refund the APD on whatever 'linking' basis the airline is comfortable with. If people manage to do that, good for them. The one thing we can say for certain is that the airline has no obligation to do this for you when you buy separate tickets.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

For APD purposes, BA's definition of "conjunction ticket" is irrelevant. All that matters is HMRC's definition of "conjunction ticket" insofar as APD is concerned. And HMRC's definition is very different than BA's.

That said, even if BA were entitled to refund the APD in the OP's circumstances, they might not be required to do so.

But if HMRC is deferring to BA as to whether or not BA issued a conjunction ticket (as in the email quoted above), then that's a distinction that's unlikely to make a difference!