May I repeat some advice that I received from a QC some years ago - sue on a point of money, not a point of principle. If you don't think that you will get any judgement paid, then don't throw good money after bad. Having said that , you may be able to register a judgement (on the basis of misrepresentation or sales description) and then apply to garnish his Paypal account. This requires that you find a UK address for Paypal to be effective though. A court garnish is a direction to divert funds issued to the holder of those funds (usually a bank or other debtor to the defendant). The garnish is only effective on the day it is served, so you need some luck on your side as well.

I am experiencing a similar situation, although this goes back over a year and the rate increase was from 6.99% to 23% and more recently 25%! These contract terms are definitely unfair in my opinion as they really say: "We can do what we like, when we like." Having recovered over £9000 from various banks in the last year, I now intend to recover some £2,500 from Amex for these interest charges and other costs. I have always gone straight to County Court on these claims, because: i) There is generally a far quicker resolution ii) No bank is willing to risk losing a CC case and they always settle a day or two before the case Also, I add in my own charge (for administration, distress and inconvenience) for each occurrence of unfair charging and include this in the claim, insisting that they pay this as well if they don't want to have the matter heard in court. Good luck - I'll let you know how I get on (I have just issued the first letter before action).

I agree that there is nothing illegal about a fuel surcharge in itself, so I have based my claim on the fact that the amount of the surcharge is brought into disrepute by BA's having plucked it from thin air. Because they 'cheated' in arriving at the surcharge figure (£30 per sector in this case) I will contend that any prior or subsequent calculations are tainted by this dishonesty and they have forfeited their right to any surcharge at all. This is to similar to the bank charge cases where £30 charges were fully refunded, although there probably was a small genuine cost element involved. I will claim that the fuel surcharge is unfair in any case under the 1998 act, because it has not been fairly applied (i.e.: not based on actual costs). BA will not want to reveal their complex fuel calculations in court, because the whole surcharge thing is a sham anyway. Oil is priced in US dollars and we paid for the flights in pounds. The dollar has been gradually devalued to the pound over a three year period, so the actual cost of fuel loaded in the UK has remained fairly stable (when converted back to GBP). Most of the news media are too poorly informed to see the reality of dollar oil prices in terms of sterling cost and just report the headline barrel values, encouraging BA to slap on a surcharge regardless of the economic reality. I am not sure about the tankering issue being based on UK tax - there is no tax on aviation fuel at an international airport. I am guessing that fuel is cheaper in the Arab states because it doesn't bear the economic cost of shipping it to the UK.

This reply may be a little late, but I think that every passenger who paid a surcharge is entitled to their money back. There are several arguments in favour: 1) The surcharge element was a deception - it was calculated by illegal collusion and not based in fact. 2) The surcharge element is grounds for illegality of contract, meaning that part of the contract of sale could be repudiated because it runs contrary to statute. I am asking for £240 back from BA and will take it to county court if BA hold out - I don't see how they can defend against a claim.