This another example of exploiting people's misfortune. This rule was implemented to protect the airlines revenue, because they often charged ludicrous fees for single tickets, so passengers often threw away one leg of a return. This is not what happened In Your case, you gave BA advance notice of your intention to still use the return leg and they sold you a single, knowing that it would have been cheaper for you to purchase a return ticket. This is bordering on fraud. They knew that you expected to utilise your return. I consider their actions to have been dishonest. There is a general obligation in any contract for the the transaction to be honest. How angry are you? Did you have any witnesses who will testify that you specifically told the BA staff who sold you the replacement outbound ticket that you intended to return utilising the return portion of the ticket. If you can establish this, you could argue that BA entered into your new contract in bad faith. If small claims accepted this argument, the contract is negated. Small claims are often sympathetic in these situations, but be realistic. Your loss would be the difference between the cost of buying two singles for each passenger, versus the cost of buying a new return on the 4th. That is what you would be suing for. You are also entitled to claim back the tax and APD on the unused tickets. Your decision is whether to gamble on court or let it go. I would however, write again to BA summarise your claim, invoking bad faith and emphasising that you told the BA staff that you still intended to use the return ticket at the time they sold you the outbound singles. This is critical. If this doesnt work, write to BBC Watchdog and see if they show any interst and post it on BAs facebook and other websites. It is little comfort I know, but the EU is currently consulting on a new rule which would outlaw the cancelling of return legs in circumstances such as yours. Hopefully, this will happen, but if you can let your MEP know of your story, that might help.
|