seeking refund due to emergency

[discomute]

hello everyone,

 

i am trying to help out a family member in a situation with BA and thought that i might be able to get some help here

 

1. family member (FM) comes from the UK but is based in Australia.

2. FM buys a non-refundable return ticket to the UK through BA to visit her family, this is dated for march 2014

3. FM's mother is diagnosed with cancer and she buys a ticket through BA to the UK for early january 2014

4. FM is forced to cancel the ticket. I believe she had to cancel both legs or none, although she told me 'it was all a blur' so I am not certain of this

5. FM was refunded her tax only, essentially the cancellation cost her $1490 or 830 pounds

6. FM sent a letter explaining the details and was told 'sorry it is non refundable'

7. FM's Mum had a happy-enough ending after some surgery, and FM returned home on singapore airlines, not wanting to give BA any money

 

I am now trying to write the second letter to BA

 

Can anyone help?

 

Although I understand their hesitancy to refund due to the personal emergency, (especially since we can't really prove it in their text based online forms) it seems to be that the crux of the matter is that

1) FM still flew there with BA, they still 'got their money' from the flight

2) Also, my limited knowledge of contract law is that they can only penalise for the losses they have taken. If they sold her ticket in the two months they were able to, surely we have the right to a refund

3) Lastly if FM was correct that she had to cancel both legs, that seems unfair since the second leg could have been of use.

 

Which brings me to my next question - is this going to be based off Australian Consumer Law or UK Consumer Law?

 

Any insight to this would be appreciated.

 

edit: don't think this is relevant, but the original letter said that getting a credit with BA instead of a refund would have been acceptable, due the frequency that FM flies back and forth.

Edited May 11, 2014 by discomute

[Cityboy62]

hello everyone,

 

i am trying to help out a family member in a situation with BA and thought that i might be able to get some help here

 

1. family member (FM) comes from the UK but is based in Australia.

2. FM buys a non-refundable return ticket to the UK through BA to visit her family, this is dated for march 2014

3. FM's mother is diagnosed with cancer and she buys a ticket through BA to the UK for early january 2014

4. FM is forced to cancel the ticket. I believe she had to cancel both legs or none, although she told me 'it was all a blur' so I am not certain of this

5. FM was refunded her tax only, essentially the cancellation cost her $1490 or 830 pounds

6. FM sent a letter explaining the details and was told 'sorry it is non refundable'

7. FM's Mum had a happy-enough ending after some surgery, and FM returned home on singapore airlines, not wanting to give BA any money

 

I am now trying to write the second letter to BA

 

Can anyone help?

 

Although I understand their hesitancy to refund due to the personal emergency, (especially since we can't really prove it in their text based online forms) it seems to be that the crux of the matter is that

1) FM still flew there with BA, they still 'got their money' from the flight

2) Also, my limited knowledge of contract law is that they can only penalise for the losses they have taken. If they sold her ticket in the two months they were able to, surely we have the right to a refund

3) Lastly if FM was correct that she had to cancel both legs, that seems unfair since the second leg could have been of use.

 

Which brings me to my next question - is this going to be based off Australian Consumer Law or UK Consumer Law?

 

Any insight to this would be appreciated.

 

edit: don't think this is relevant, but the original letter said that getting a credit with BA instead of a refund would have been acceptable, due the frequency that FM flies back and forth.

 

The original ticket was non-refundable, the fact that your family member had to buy another ticket due to wanting to visit their mother earlier plays no part in that.

 

Anything else that flows from that event is not the fault of the airline and I cannot see any reason why the airline should reimburse your family member due to their not wanting to fulfil the original contract.

 

If there is any claim whatsoever, it might be via whatever travel insurance your family member held at the time. For information, all airlines will cancel further legs of the same journey where the flights are not taken in the order in which they appear on one's itinerary. This too appears in the airlines' Ts and Cs.

[discomute]

Thanks for the input.

 

I work as a rental real estate agent and the following scenario occurs regularly.

 

X person signs a 12 month lease. Half way through the lease X person has to move interstate. They now have to 'break their lease'. The agent/owner is obliged to offer the property at the same rent for the same period. (If the a/o will accept a longer lease, that is great and they can put the rent up) but the a/o is obliged to accept a suitable applicant for six months at the original price.

 

There is more to it but the fact remains that the a/o can't "put the rent up" if the market has moved up since then, they can't charge fees beyond what it costs them to relet it. And the a/o certainly can't charge double rent for the 6 month period. If they find someone new, they need to stop charging the old tenant rent.

 

It is my understanding that this is not based on any specific real estate legislation, but basic contract law that says if one person breaks a contract, the other person cannot profit (or lose) from it.

 

At the very least if one of the six flights that were purchased as part of this were sold out, would we not not be entitled to a refund for that leg(s) under the same principle?

 

edit: in fact, you don't need to respond to this. i am happy to take it from here. thanks.

Edited May 12, 2014 by discomute

[BazzaS]

Thanks for the input.

 

I work as a rental real estate agent and the following scenario occurs regularly.

 

X person signs a 12 month lease. Half way through the lease X person has to move interstate. They now have to 'break their lease'. The agent/owner is obliged to offer the property at the same rent for the same period. (If the a/o will accept a longer lease, that is great and they can put the rent up) but the a/o is obliged to accept a suitable applicant for six months at the original price.

 

There is more to it but the fact remains that the a/o can't "put the rent up" if the market has moved up since then, they can't charge fees beyond what it costs them to relet it. And the a/o certainly can't charge double rent for the 6 month period. If they find someone new, they need to stop charging the old tenant rent.

 

It is my understanding that this is not based on any specific real estate legislation, but basic contract law that says if one person breaks a contract, the other person cannot profit (or lose) from it.

 

At the very least if one of the six flights that were purchased as part of this were sold out, would we not not be entitled to a refund for that leg(s) under the same principle?

 

edit: in fact, you don't need to respond to this. i am happy to take it from here. thanks.

 

Your analogy is flawed.

 

Imagine that the landlord offers a massively reduced rent, but that you can't then rely on breaking the lease and them finding a replacement tenant to mitigate their loss.

 

Your analogy is similar to a fully flexible ticket, rather than the reduced cost ticket that is not changeable as part of the conditions for it being offered at a reduced cost.

You may cite "basic contract law" : but if the ticket bring non-changeable / non-refundable is a major term of the contract : you were free to choose paying less for those terms, or pay more for the more flexible terms.

[discomute]

So Real Estate Agents could start giving two options with their property, a massively increased rent with a "it's okay to break your lease" clause, and the normal price with a "no refunds" clause? Since no one I have ever dealt with has expected to break their lease, which is why they are signing 12 month contracts, everyone would select the normal price option... when it happens I would then be pocketing double rent... stopping giving us agents evil ideas

 

As far as I am aware no contract can "contract outside the act" but you seem to know more than I do. In any event these responses have given me the knowledge that I need to write the follow up letter to BA so I thank you for your time.

[BazzaS]

So Real Estate Agents could start giving two options with their property, a massively increased rent with a "it's okay to break your lease" clause, and the normal price with a "no refunds" clause? Since no one I have ever dealt with has expected to break their lease, which is why they are signing 12 month contracts, everyone would select the normal price option... when it happens I would then be pocketing double rent... stopping giving us agents evil ideas

 

As far as I am aware no contract can "contract outside the act" but you seem to know more than I do. In any event these responses have given me the knowledge that I need to write the follow up letter to BA so I thank you for your time.

 

"Contract outside the act"? which act / Act?.

 

You were referring to basic contract law. There may be Common law for housing / renting, or indeed statute that prevents what you are suggesting (I don't know enough in that area), but there isn't anything preventing such for 'advance purchase / fixed time and date" tickets, which was what was being discussed.

In terms of basic contract law : the parties have agreed the terms of the contract.

 

You might try and claim it is an unfair contract term, but are unlikely to succeed under UCTA 1977, given that they have given the choice : flexible ticket, or offering reduced price but loosing flexibility.

 

It may not be an option for estate agents / residential lettings, but it is common place in train and plane tickets, and hotel room bookings.