Can I make a compensation claim over arbitrary passport rule?

Have a question? Ask our expert Simon Calder

Singapore requires six months remaining on travel identity (Getty/iStock)

Q My wife and I recently fell foul of the rather arbitrary rule, applied by some sovereign nations and airlines, that an additional six months be added to otherwise valid passports. Our intention had been to fly out to Australia to see our two young grandsons, with a four-night stopover in Singapore.

What infuriated me further was that British Airways, my carrier of choice, knew for a period of six months that they could not, or would not fly me; nor did they fly me.

A simple no-cost email alert, on all Singapore bookings, that “the Republic of Singapore requires that the traveller has a full six months remaining on the passport at their time of departure”, would have been basic good customer relations advice.

The need for an additional six months on my passport was not laid out in the terms and conditions of the booking. This looks to me like a systemic error made negligently or innocently, for which I should claim compensation for distress and consequential losses. Do you agree?

Name withheld

A The requirements for admission to Singapore are clearly stated by the republic’s government. You must have a passport that is valid for at least six months (from date of entry, not departure); sufficient funds for the length of your intended stay; a confirmed onward or return ticket; and evidence that you can enter your next destination (for example an Australian eVisitor permit).

I agree that the passport validity rule for Singapore, which is shared by a number of other countries, looks arbitrary. Like a number of other governments, the Singapore authorities appear to have a fixation about people staying beyond the expiry date of their passport – even though, as in your case, most plan to stay for only a few days before continuing with their journey.

If you booked through a travel agent that belongs to Abta, the travel association, then they have failed in their obligation to provide you with the necessary “passport, visa and other entry and transit requirements for the journeys to be undertaken”. If this is the case then I suggest you invite the agent to pay for the costs incurred. Say it is your view that, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, they have failed to act with reasonable care and skill.

But if you booked the trip direct with British Airways, I am afraid to say that you agreed you would have a valid, in-date passport acceptable to Singapore’s immigration officials. It is always the traveller’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the rules.

I agree that in a perfect world an airline would alert passengers to their obligations. But given that a typical flight from Heathrow to Singapore will have dozens of different nationalities on board, some of whom will possess more than one passport, it would involve immense complexity. So instead the assumption is that the traveller or their agent will undertake due diligence on the requirements. Airlines conduct a simple check at the departure airport to assess whether the passport you present meet the conditions in force, and I am afraid turn away those who do not comply.

Every day, our travel correspondent, Simon Calder, tackles a reader’s question. Just email yours to s@hols.tv or tweet @simoncalder