BUSINESS NEWS PTRs reform: Trading Standards criticises some key proposals for change. Ian Taylor reports Partial bonding ‘makes no sense’


Trading Standards has come out sharply against several government proposals for reform of the Package Travel Regulations (PTRs), including those to allow more flexibility on provision of insolvency protection and to relax territorial restrictions on insurance providers. In a detailed response to Department for


Business and Trade (DBT) proposals in a consultation launched in April, Bruce Treloar – lead officer for holiday and travel law at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) – noted the government has dropped some “totally unworkable suggestions” from an earlier Call for Evidence and “not produced anything new”. But he said a proposal to allow trust accounts


to be mixed with bonding to protect non-flight packages “makes no sense at all”, arguing: “Bonding has high set-up costs and if you pay that minimum fee to organise it, you might as well bond everything and free the money that would otherwise be tied up in the trust account.” Treloar argued this is the “overwhelming


opinion” he had heard from “discussions with business” and said: “Keep it as it is.”


Linked Travel Arrangements ‘should be axed’


Linked Travel Arrangements (LTAs) “should be removed” from the regulations and not modified, according to Trading Standards. CTSI’s Bruce Treloar noted “there


have been no LTA prosecutions or civil actions” since 2018 and said: “Consumers are confused [by LTAs] and the majority of businesses don’t understand them.” He suggested the confusion


extends to regulators over linked bookings online when those made within 24 hours constitute a package if the purchaser’s name, email and payment details are shared but an LTA if they are not – noting these are “similar scenarios


travelweekly.co.uk ‘Most businesses don’t understand LTAs’


with totally different protections”. Treloar said a CTSI consumer


poll in June 2023 found almost one in five believed an LTA offered more protection than a package, and a survey of industry stakeholders found none believed organisers knew when they created an LTA or understood the obligations. The DBT has recognised the need


for LTA reform. However, it proposes to retain the category but “limit the ways in which an LTA can be created”.


He described a proposal to remove territorial


restrictions on insurance providers as “a nightmare for enforcers of the PTRs”, insisting: “We see no reason to change the current requirements.” At present, insurance providers must be


based in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, and Treloar said: “CTSI opposes any attempt to allow overseas insurers to provide this cover


The CTSI backs clarifying organisers’ rights to redress over refunds


as, when problems occur, enforcing insolvency protection requirements against insurers based outside the UK would be difficult. “Only a company that is Financial Conduct


Authority regulated and registered at Companies House can be checked adequately by enforcement.” Treloar suggested there would be “even more


risk” if an overseas insurer were “unwilling or unable to step in at the point of [a travel organiser’s] failure” and urged: “This idea should be rejected.” However, the CTSI is in favour of clarifying


organisers’ rights to redress from suppliers if required to refund customers when a supplier is responsible, noting “some third parties will refuse to refund the organiser, often claiming they are not required to” despite the current “express right to seek redress” in Regulation 29 of the PTRs. Treloar argued “a clear statement of the


right to recovery is needed” and said the DBT “should consider the rebate being paid to the package organiser within a shorter period” than the 14 days proposed. Trading Standards is responsible for local


enforcement of consumer law, including the PTRs.


Domestic packages ‘should stay within the PTRs for consistency’


The CTSI opposes removing UK domestic packages from the PTRs, coming out against a Department for Business proposal to exempt domestic packages which exclude travel arrangements. The DBT argues


ude


the exemption would “encourage provision of arrangements that involve


d n


accommodation and other tourist services,s, such as excursions or admission to events”.


But CTSI’s Bruce Treloar


(pictured) said the institute considers these packages “should remain in the PTRs” so that


“consumers continue to receive the protections offered” and because “a consistent position for domestic and international packages may be ef t org


benefiit organisers that offer both t pes


both types of packages”.


He noe noted that Citizens Advicedvice complaint statistic


ti tics provided about dom (3,501) – rel pack


2025 s owed more onsum r complaints bout domestic holidays


consume (3,501) – r ated to UK


ckage h lie holidays, self-catering accommodation, hotels, B&Bs and guesthouses – than to holidays abroad (3,177).


1 MAY 2025 47


12 months to March 2025 sh


to theCo the CTSI for the 12mon


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