Don't we need just a bit more evidence and/or proof before we accept the contents of that rant as being absolute fact? I'm willing to bet that the circumstances are slightly more complicated than stated, for all parties involved.
BA don't appear to have done anything illegal - they appear to have applied the precise terms and conditions of the contract. This behaviour is not viewed as being caring or understanding, in part because it doesn't provide a result that sgainford wants or likes - In younger people, this is known as a tantrum. The BA decision to apply the charges may, or may not (and it is arguable) have been a sound business decision: The market will find them out in the end, as it always does, and is surely doing so when sgainford decides to take future business elsewhere.
I think that sgainford had a tough break, and deserves our sympathy: I'm sure that it was maddening and that we would all be equally cross. At the same time, I would need to be certain that the problem doesn't become a case of "...everybody else's fault but mine".