Thread: £40 Name Change Fee??? Airtours

They don't have to justify it, other than ensure the customer was made aware of their terms and conditions at the time of purchase. Providing these terms were provided, they'll win. If it's any help, my granddaughter had Mr on her ticket and nobody noticed or commented.

Originally Posted by buzby

They don't have to justify it, other than ensure the customer was made aware of their terms and conditions at the time of purchase. Providing these terms were provided, they'll win. If it's any help, my granddaughter had Mr on her ticket and nobody noticed or commented.

Not necessarily. No matter what their T's&C's might claim they still have to justify the charge otherwise it can be construed as a penalty

Disagree. If it can be proved the passenger was advised of all costs pertaining, and he ignored or disregarded them, the onus is then on the OP to ensure there is no requirement to use these additional services. Anyway, those fees are for a name change, not for a salutation. Back in 2004 when the fee was around £20 and I did have to substitute a person, the fee was explained as a 'discouragement' to people to treat otherwise unmodifiable tickets as a commodity. The fee covered the time in re-verifying that the original tickets had not been issued, catching or recalling them and issuing replacements. It was not possible to split the fee based on the actual work undertaken, so worst case scenario prevails. It was also hinted that passenger data has to be re-supplied to unspecified agencies.

There's no 'penalty' here - if the original error wasn't made, there would be no need to pay more. I don't fly with BA because I won't pay their cavalier fuel surcharges. That is just as much a 'penalty' as the one you describe. If you don;t like it, you choose another supplier. That is what consumer choice is all about. Complaining after the event that it is 'unfair' is a cop out. This in not on a par with bank charges, and that's not been a slam dunk win for consumers yet either!

As I understand it this is not a name change but a salutation because of a mistake & if so it can be challenged on the basis that it's an unlawful penalty charge because the charge greatly exceeds the true cost

Why challenge it? Common-sense dictates it should be ignored! As for the 'ture' cost of the change, I'd respectfully suggest that the 'true' cost has NOTHING to do with it. (In much the same way a SORN 'fine' of £80 for NOT taxing a vehicle that probably isn't on the road IS an unfair penalty), and has been upheld by the courts.

There is no correlation between parking penalties or failing to SORN & charges/penalties imposed be commercial companies

Glad you noticed. It's your use of the word 'penalty' within a commercial transaction that started this. It is a fee for a service, and if the error wasn't made in the first place, wouldn't apply. A commercial organisation is free to set its own charges, if you don't like them you go elsewhere.

You don't cry after the event and expect a successful resolution. Neither you nor I are aware of the processes involved in this additional manual intervention. Blithely stating it is a 'penalty' is inaccurate and misleading until you have proof. I've suggested that they have not been deceitful in their charges - simply the OPs problem ISN'T a 'name change', so it's an argument about nothing.

If disputed the company have to justify such a charge As for if you don't like it go elswhere. I imagine the OP would but what would that cost him do you think Ryanair will give him refund

They have a captive customer & are imposing a charge which probably has no relation to the true cost & is therefore open to challenge

As I noted twice before - you're in no position to know either way, hence the 'penalty' claim is reckless. It seems unreasonably high, but then this remains a commercial transaction and if the only recourse is to the courts, I certainly wouldn't count on a win.

What on earth are you talking about. An arbitrary charge that, after payment of the original fee including profit, which must considerably exceed the cost IS a penalty

We all know the banks penalise us if we make a mistake & this is no different or are you suggesting that if we don't like ithe bank charges we should take our business elsewhere

What am I talking about? Look up the thread. Your arbitrary and ill-advised use of the word 'penalty'. Until you can prove it, it isn't one. So when you manage to do (by proving that the cost is manifestly unreasonable - not for the work done in this particular instance - but the a single fee for the complete process as outline before.

I don't think I can usefully add anything to this without repetition so carry on with your belief, as without proof to substantiate your assertion of a 'penalty', you're whistling in the wind...

Until the banks disclose their costs we have no way of knowing for sure that their charges are penalties. At the moment it's just an assumption because of there level as is I assume Ryanairs obviously extortionate charge for amending the data from Mr to Miss.

So until we know differently it's perfectly OK to call such charges penalties

Really? It is a salutation only. I'd seriously doubt anyone being denied boarding if they were called Mr Mary Smith, and Mary Smith's passport was present. After all, protocol in days past was for Mrs David Smith (as the wife of the husband) but that wouldn;t work these days as the boarding pass must match the ticket.

If you pay and attempt to claim back the chanced of reimbursement would be negligible!