Continued from page 56


first challenge was to bring together a disparate industry to speak with one voice before channelling that voice to engage with politicians of both parties. “I will look back with a


great feeling that we made something happen and made a real difference,” he said. “We are the party of red,


white and blue, not red and blue, and what is good for the economy and good for jobs is recognised on both sides. “It has been important to


build trust – if we are going to step out (with criticism), we have given them notice.” Among his other major


achievements, Dow cited intensive lobbying which led to the introduction of trusted traveller and pre- clearance programmes, as well as significant inroads in facilitating travel from China pre-pandemic. He also praised the


increasingly influential work of Tori Emerson-Barnes, US Travel executive vice-president for public affairs, noting her upbringing within a family of politicians and crediting it for her extensive understanding of the workings of Washington. However, he admitted he


will not miss the pace of those workings as he steps down. “Coming from a corporate


background, the thing that has always frustrated me is how long it takes to get things done,” he said. “We started talking about Brand USA in 2008 and it got done in 2010; it took two years to get it reauthorised.” He added: “You have


to learn to understand bureaucracies, and one thing I have had to learn over these past 17 or 18 years is patience.”


Cancellation appeals bring clarity to rights to refunds


Ian Taylor


Law firm Travlaw has highlighted two county court decisions on Covid-era cancellations that clarify the rights of travel firms and travellers following appeals. Both cases involved refund claims


against Loveholidays owner We Love Holidays. The first case last autumn of


Dennison v We Love Holidays involved a refund for a package holiday the claimant cancelled due to quarantine restrictions on arrivals to the UK. Loveholidays paid a partial refund,


but referred the claimant to Ryanair for a flights refund, which the airline refused because the flights operated. The claimant won a full refund,


with Travlaw senior counsel Stephen Mason noting the judge decided “the mere fact the claimant would have to quarantine on return entitled her to a full refund”. Travlaw appealed on behalf of We


Love Holidays and Mason said: “The case turned on Regulation 12 (7) of


Which? calls for ‘brazen’ airlines to be held to account


Consumer group Which? called for an overhaul of travel refund rules last week and demanded airlines be held to account for poor treatment of passengers. Which? accused airlines of


“brazen rule-breaking” and “potentially breaking the law” through “unfair” and “misleading” terms and conditions, citing


54 7 JULY 2022


the Package Travel Regulations, which states travellers can cancel [with no fee] in the event of unavoidable or extraordinary circumstances at the place of destination that significantly affect the performance of the package or carriage of passengers.” The appeal judge found the earlier


ruling wrong since restrictions on return to the UK did not come under Regulation 12, therefore normal cancellation terms applied. Mason described it as “a very important decision for the industry”.


The second case of Kirk v We


Love Holidays involved a booking to Kos. The original hotel booked was closed, but Loveholidays offered a comparable hotel nearby. There was no advice against travel, flights were operating and other hotels remained open, but the claimants sought a refund “due to the pandemic”. Loveholidays refunded the accommodation, but not the flights. The judge at the initial hearing


ruled the claimants were entitled to a full refund because the hotel was closed and the PTRs allow for a refund due to “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances at the place of destination”. Mason said: “The judge ruled the place of destination was the hotel.” Travlaw senior associate Nick


Stephen Mason


Parkinson said: “Is a hotel really the destination? We went to appeal. The appeal judge ruled the hotel was not the place of destination. We Love Holidays was entitled to make a change as is standard industry practice. It brought some welcome clarity.”


examples of extortionate fees, misleading claims, and the “blacklisting” of passengers who seek chargebacks on credit cards. It accused some airlines of


“ignoring their legal obligations” to help passengers with rerouteing and rebooking and urged the government to grant the CAA stronger powers, including the ability to fine airlines, something already outlined in a Department for Transport consultation. Which? also called for a code of conduct for airlines, which the government has said it is working on. The consumer association


called on ministers to drop plans to weaken compensation rights for UK domestic flight delays and cancellations, warning these could cut average payments by £163. Which? policy director Rocio


Concha Galguera said: “Consumer rights and laws are meaningless if not enforced. Some airlines are ignoring legal obligations and ripping off customers, with little fear of any consequences.” The CAA said it would review


the evidence and added: “We have regularly called for stronger consumer powers, including the ability to impose fines on airlines.”


travelweekly.co.uk


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