Ritesh Singh, the manager of Mackays Hotel in Wick, Scotland, and his fiancée Arpita Das spent nearly two weeks stranded in New Delhi, India, after British Airways (BA) cancelled their return flight home without notifying them, failed to rebook them for 12 days, and declined to arrange or fund accommodation, meals, or any form of material support during the extended delay, telling the couple instead to arrange everything themselves and seek reimbursement later, John O’Groat Journal reported.
The couple, both in their late twenties and employed in the hospitality sector in Caithness, had travelled from Inverness Airport (INV) to London Heathrow Airport (LHR) and onward to Indira Gandhi International Airport (DEL), New Delhi, for a five-week holiday that was also intended to allow their families to meet for the first time ahead of their planned marriage.
When Ritesh arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport to check in for the return flight, he discovered the booking had been cancelled. British Airways had sent no call, no text, and no email to notify him. The couple were told they would not be flown home for 12 days, that they had spent all their available money— a sum the couple estimate at approximately £2,000.
A Day-By-Day Account of Neglect of British Airways
The incident in late 2025 or early 2026 highlights the difficulties passengers can face when a cancelled flight leaves them without immediate assistance. Ritesh said he contacted British Airways as soon as he learned of the cancellation, only to discover that the airline had not notified him directly.
He told the airline that he was already in New Delhi, hundreds of kilometres from his hometown, and needed to connect onward to Wick, where he had lived and worked for several years. Despite explaining his circumstances, he was offered a replacement flight 12 days later.
Ritesh said he asked whether British Airways could find an earlier alternative, explaining that he had already spent five weeks on holiday, had little money left and would lose income if he remained stranded. According to him, staff acknowledged his situation but said there was nothing they could do.
The lack of immediate assistance extended to accommodation and meals. Ritesh said he asked whether the airline could provide a hotel or cover food costs, but was instead told to pay for everything himself and seek reimbursement later.
Having exhausted his holiday budget, he said he was forced to rely on relatives in India to help cover the additional accommodation costs. He initially stayed with friends before borrowing money from family to pay for a hotel, claiming that British Airways provided no practical support.
The prolonged disruption also took a physical toll. Ritesh said the stress caused widespread stiffness and pain, but claimed the airline again told him it could not provide assistance.
The Couple Missed Work and Functions
The disruption affected Ritesh and Arpita in ways that went beyond the financial strain. Ritesh, a hotel manager at Mackays Hotel, missed several professional commitments after being stranded, despite having deliberately arranged his holiday so he would return in time for them.
He explained that he had planned the trip around his work schedule and was expected back at the hotel when needed.
Arpita, who works behind the bar at the Norseman Hotel in Wick, also faced difficulties after the extended delay. Her employers were understanding after seeing the couple’s itinerary, but were surprised that the five-week holiday had effectively been extended by another 12 days.
The trip had also carried considerable personal significance for the couple, as it included marriage preparations and the first meeting between their families. Ritesh said the prolonged disruption overshadowed what was supposed to be an important and memorable occasion, with the emotional effects continuing long after they eventually returned home.
British Airways’ Response and What It Acknowledged
A spokesperson for British Airways offered a statement that attributed the wider disruption to the Middle East conflict while simultaneously claiming that its teams had worked hard to support customers — a framing that Ritesh flatly disputed:
“The conflict in the Middle East caused significant disruption to global air travel and increased demand for all our flights. Our teams worked hard to support our customers and contacted them directly to offer them a range of options. We’ve apologised to our customer, reimbursed all their expenses and offered a gesture to help put things right.”
The statement is notable in several respects. It attributes the cancellation to the Middle East conflict — whereas Ritesh was told on the phone that the cancellation was due to a technical fault. The discrepancy matters legally: a conflict-related cancellation may qualify as an extraordinary circumstance exempting British Airways from fixed cash compensation under UK261, while a technical fault would not. It also claims that customers were “contacted directly” — which Ritesh says did not happen in his case.
The reference to a “gesture to help put things right” alongside the reimbursement of expenses suggests British Airways made some form of goodwill payment beyond the refund itself, though neither the airline nor Ritesh disclosed its value.
What is clear is that the couple did not receive compensation for their lost earnings, and that Ritesh considers the response wholly inadequate: “It’s not a big ask but it came down to basic human necessities, to have a roof above your head and to have food.”
What Ritesh and Arpita Were Entitled to Claim
For passengers in analogous situations, the legal framework offers the following entitlements:
- Duty of care (Article 9, UK261): Hotel accommodation for overnight delays, transport to and from the hotel, and meals and refreshments proportionate to the waiting period. These rights apply regardless of the cause of cancellation and cannot be withheld on grounds of extraordinary circumstances.
- Re-routing (Article 8, UK261): The right to be re-routed to the final destination at the earliest possible opportunity. Airlines have a legal obligation to rebook passengers as quickly as possible, not merely at their next available scheduled departure.
- Fixed cash compensation (Article 7, UK261): Between £220 and £520 per passenger for cancellations notified fewer than 14 days before departure and caused by circumstances within the airline’s control — such as technical faults. This does not apply to extraordinary circumstances, but the distinction must be proved by the airline, not assumed by the passenger.
- Reimbursement of reasonable expenses: Documented costs incurred as a direct result of the cancellation — hotel, food, transport — must be refunded even when the passenger is instructed to self-fund. This is legally enforceable regardless of whether British Airways proactively offered the arrangement.
Ritesh and Arpita’s loss of earnings, which are estimated at £2,000, falls outside UK261’s scope, which does not cover consequential economic losses of this kind. However, passengers who believe they have been mis-classified as extraordinary-circumstance cases, or who have not received their full duty-of-care entitlements, may escalate complaints through the CAA’s approved Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes: AviationADR and CEDR. The CAA itself has confirmed that the limitation period for UK261 claims in England and Wales is six years, meaning Ritesh and Arpita retain the right to pursue their claim through the courts if necessary.
Ritesh said the experience also raised concerns about passengers who may not have a support network to rely on during a prolonged disruption. While he was able to turn to friends and relatives for financial help, he questioned what would happen to someone stranded for 12 days without anyone to provide accommodation or money.
His experience, he suggested, highlighted how vulnerable passengers can become when an airline cancellation leaves them without meaningful assistance.
