BUSINESS NEWS ss proposals for reform of the Package Travel Regulations. Ian Taylor reports from annual London event
UK experts fear EU proposals for reform of PTD
EU proposals for reform of the Package Travel Directive risk making tour operators responsible for “all that went wrong” during the pandemic and the failure of Thomas Cook. That is according to Abta’s
Simon Bunce, who told the Travlaw event: “The EU is looking at everything and seeking to resolve all that went wrong by putting the
Andy Cooper
responsibility on tour operators.” He suggested: “They will put
the responsibility on operators for every problem that came up during the pandemic [and] restrict the amount [of customer money] an operator can take up front.”
Bunce said: “We’re
working on reform of the directive through ECTAA [the European travel agents’ and tour operators’ association].” Andy Cooper, former head of
the Federation of Tour Operators and now head of regulation and compliance at Kognitiv, agreed “the EU is tinkering with the concept of advance payments” and said: “It worries me [what will happen] when the European Parliament gets to this.” The Package Travel Directive is
the basis of the UK Package Travel Regulations, which are subject to a separate review by the UK Department for Business and Trade.
‘Array of refund options creates public confusion’
Consumer financial protection and provision of refunds need simplifying with “too many options” creating public confusion, say senior industry figures, but there is disagreement on how to fix the problem. Travlaw partner Krystene
Bousfield highlighted the issue last week, telling the Travlaw event: “There are too many options for consumer protection and they overlap. It’s confusing for consumers and onerous for business. “If your flight is cancelled, you
have five options for making a claim. You have insurers saying, ‘Go to your package provider’, and package providers saying, ‘You have Regulation 261 protection [for air passengers]’.” Bousfield also suggested the courts
“are so consumer-friendly” that a legal claim “is probably going to come out in their favour” if someone is injured on holiday or wants a refund. Alistair Rowland, speaking as
travelweekly.co.uk
chief executive of Blue Bay Travel although he is also chair of Abta, argued: “There is a lot can go wrong if you’re an organiser. You can’t expect consumers to understand [protection]. It’s a merry-go-round. “The consumer doesn’t know the
difference between Atol and Abta, they just know it’s a guarantee.” He suggested that a ‘hierarchy’ of
those responsible for paying refunds depending on the type of booking and payment should be made clear to consumers, suggesting: “It should be transparent for consumers. ‘What did you book? How did you pay? This is what you should do.’” Rowland insisted: “I don’t
mind what the hierarchy is as long as there is one and it’s clear.” However, Abta’s Simon Bunce
disagreed, arguing: “I don’t think a hierarchy solves it. You need to have clear parameters for who is on the hook [for a refund].” He suggested that businesses appearing higher in
Alistair Rowland
a ‘hierarchy’ of those liable to pay refunds would require increased financial security, raising their costs. Rowland noted the cancellation
of flights to Mauritius due to a cyclone warning in mid-January and said: “We had people in Mauritius and a lot of people didn’t fly. As an organiser, you have to do the right thing. We had to move 50 people and put them up for three nights. We have a right of redress from the airline [for the cancelled flights], but am I really going to force that?”
Travlaw lawyer says some DBT ideas ‘laughable’
A leading industry lawyer has suggested the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) is “having a laugh” with some of its proposals for reform of the Package Travel Regulations (PTRs). Travlaw partner Krystene
Bousfield praised the department for its engagement with the sector since issuing a Call for Evidence on reform of the PTRs last September. But speaking at the Travlaw event, she said: “They’re having a laugh with some of the stuff in there, seeing if we’re paying attention.” Proposals in the Call
for Evidence included the introduction of a price threshold and removal from the regulations of lower-priced packages. The proposal has been widely criticised and Bousfield suggested it would be dropped, saying: “The DBT has ruled it out because of the reaction.” Alistair Rowland agreed,
saying: “There are some odd things in there. Why would you have protection only for holidays of a particular value?” Simon Bunce suggested the
proposal for a price threshold was “a tester to see the appetite of the industry for moving away from regulation”. He noted: “The response has been pretty unanimous.”
Krystene Bousfield
1 FEBRUARY 2024
55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
