Second bite of the cherry query

[willdo]

Hi Legal beagles.

I had to issue proceedings against BA because of a ticket that was issued for the wrong date by their call centre staff. I took them to Court and they agreed to settle the matter by paying me £100 for my time, the filing fee, and most importantly, changing the ticket to the right date.

I since had problems with the flight as they did not tell me I was leaving from a different airport in London and on discovering this late before the flight left, I had to pay for a taxi instead of a train to London.

Could you claim second bite of the cherry if I issue proceedings for this issue? They won't pay up.

[Amethyst]

Didn't the ticket have the name of the airport on it? ( sorry if that's a silly question )

[R0b]

I took them to Court and they agreed to settle the matter by paying me £100 for my time, the filing fee, and most importantly, changing the ticket to the right date.

It wouldn't be a second bite of the cherry, it would be breach of the settlement agreement, so it is crucial to know what exactly did you agree to because what I quoted above is rather vague. If there wasn't any agreement as to where you would take off then you'd have to issue proceedings for breach of settlement and the court would need to decipher what was agreed.

It would seem odd, on the face of it that you would have agreed to fly from a different airport from the one you originally intended but as above, the finer details of the settlement are important.

[willdo]

There wasn't an agreement about airports, just two flights leaving at coincidentally the exact same time from two different airports. There was no breach of the settlement agreement. This is just a new complaint about their vaugeness over the phone when we settled.

BA are stating that regardless of whether I have a case or not, it is second bite of the cherry. Is it though?

[R0b]

As I see it, the issue is that you didn't know that the departure airport had changed on the ticket. You originally wanted a ticket from X airport at a date and particular time. Following their mistake you agreed and settled with BA where they would rectify the problem and give you a fresh ticket on the correct time and date (but no discussion as to what airport).

So, BA provided you with the ticket but at Y airport instead of X and you didn't realise that the airport had changed until realising late on. So I think the question is, was it in the minds of both parties that BA would change the airport and the time on the ticket?

If the answer is yes, you have no recourse and any second action would be a second bite of the cherry.

If the answer is no, then you could argue that you did not expect BA to change the departure airport as you had only agreed to rectify the departure time, not the airport too and so that was not what you agreed to settle to and therefore is a breach of the settlement, which you are entitled to enforce. It is not a second bite of the cherry which is issuing a fresh claim for the same one that's already been adjudicated.

That said, do you really want to issue a fresh claim on this, can't you let it go? I suspect even if you did have a case to argue, BA would probably say it would be reasonable for you to check the ticket to make sure it was correct in advance, though you could point out you didn't have any reason to believe because you never expected to depart from a different airport.

If the issue isn't costing you much money, I would probably let it go but that's up to you.

[willdo]

Playing Devils advocate here - I take a bank to Court for my expenses chasing up a chargeback with them that they told me they could do, then told me they could not, after I spend a small fortune getting evidence together, calling them, etc. Say £100.

I take them to Court for these expenses and they agree to settle for the full amount to end the claim.

I find out months later that they in fact could have put the chargeback through, after all, but it is too late for me to ask them to.

Can I take them to Court for the missing money from the chargeback? If I can prove it would have been successful?

Or would that be second bite of the cherry?

[R0b]

That would be a second bite of the cherry

[willdo]

How though? I am told by them they could not put the chargeback through after all, and so I begin a claim and then settle, based on the belief I can only hold them responsible for my expenses in chasing up a chargeback with them that they misinformed me could be done.

Then months later I find out the original misinformation was actually misinformation itself, and a chargeback could have been done and would have been a success.

I am now in possession of this new information and it forms the basis of a new and different claim, surely?

[R0b]

If the second action is connected to the first or it could have or ought to have been dealt with in the first action, it is likely to be considered a second bite of the cherry. It's irrelevant as to whether or not you have new information that comes to light because you had already settled the matter regarding the airport ticket anomaly.

It is in exceptional cases such as fraud where one might have a chance to get a second bite at the cherry but fraud in of itself is difficult to prove in court and you would need some serious evidence if you considered going down this route.

Your bank explanation isn't helpful because we are first talking about the airport ticket now you are talking about your bank. Is that connected in some as I'm starting to get confused with this whole thing.

[willdo]

I'm concerned about the second banking issue because that's also something I have going on.

I wanted to put a chargeback through with my bank and they told me I could but I had to wait ten days, only to turn around on day 11 after all expenses were incurred and tell me I could not put it through.

So I took them on for my expenses, and they offered to settle in full, which I found odd as thy were initially not willing, and then suddenly they were prepared to. I accepted.

Found out the other day that I COULD have put the chargeback through, and so they had misinformed me again. It is too late now (you have 120 days) so I want to pursue them for the refund I could have gotten from that chargeback.

I thought that as I could not possibly have known they had misinformed me again before the expenses issue was settled, this was not second bite of the cherry?

[R0b]

You've completely lost me now.

What were you seeking a chargeback for, the airport ticket?

And then you issued a claim against your bank for the taxi expenses incurred to get to the airport?

Did you actually travel or not?

Why did they say they couldn't do a chargeback on the 11th day?

Far too many questions and a lack of information. I'm going to bow out of this one unless you can give us full facts and a proper timeline and history of things because this sounds like a right mess in the way you are explaining it. I have no idea how or why your bank is liable for any expenses if you settled with BA in relation to the airport ticket.

In my mind, the chargeback is a non-issue especially if you actually departed.

[willdo]

rob lol the chargeback with the bank is completely separate and nothing to do with BA, it came to mind when discussing the BA thing.

[R0b]

It's probably best to keep them separate then and maybe start a fresh thread on the matter. Someone reading these posts is likely to get confused about it all.