NEWS YOU NEED TO KNOW 4
CAA: Mistakes could slow down Atol applications
Lucy Huxley
lucy.huxley@
travelweekly.co.uk
The Civil Aviation Authority has issued a warning to travel companies to take care when entering financial information to get their Atol licences renewed, claiming many are making mistakes and “slowing the process down”.
The authority circulated a notice
on Tuesday, urging companies to “submit accurate Atol applications before the deadline [September 30]”. A spokesman said: “There have
been some instances of companies providing incorrect financial information. Without this accurate information, there may well be a delay in the renewal process.” He said there was a real chance
some companies may not get their licences in time if they did not submit the right information. He warned they would have
to stop selling Atol-protected holidays; stop accepting payments for existing licensable bookings; instruct agents that they should not accept new bookings or any payments; stop advertising licensable business and remove
all references to Atol on websites and other promotional material. “In addition, there would be
a breach of the Atol Regulations if businesses continued to hold bookings for customers that have entered into licensable transactions,” the notice added. “This means businesses would
have to notify all customers due to travel after September 30 that they cannot provide their travel arrangements and provide a refund of all monies paid.” More than 250 Atol-protected companies out of 1,200 have not
5 STORIES HOT More than 250 Atol-
protected companies have yet to submit a renewal application
yet submitted an application. Head of travel and leisure at accountants White Hart Associates, Chris Photi, said he had encountered technical issues with the new portal, such as putting in overseas addresses. “We’ve had a few crashes and it’s a lot of palaver for new applicants who have to put in a lot more information the first time they do it. “I’d stop short of saying it’s not
fit for purpose, but say it’s not fit enough for purpose.” Any company seeking assistance
for Atol renewals can email
atolonline@caa.co.uk.
5 Cook couple’s deaths ‘unexplained’
Phil Davies
phil.davies@travelweekly.co.uk
Tests carried out in the UK on a British couple who died while on a Thomas Cook holiday in Egypt have reportedly been unable to establish the cause of their deaths.
John and Susan Cooper, from
Burnley, died on August 21 at the Steigenberger Aqua Magic hotel in the Red Sea resort of Hurghada. The Egyptian authorities
said they had died as a result of
E. coli infection. Inquests into their deaths opened at Preston coroners’ court on Tuesday. Lawyers for the couple’s
daughter, Kelly Ormerod, said an initial examination of the couple’s bodies after they were returned to the UK last week had failed to establish a cause of death and further tests were being carried out. Ormerod, who was on holiday
with her parents and her three children, said she does not believe they died as a result of E. coli. Her solicitors, Smith Jones,
said: “We can confirm that a Home 6
travelweekly.co.uk 20 September 2018
Office post-mortem has been carried out on John and Susan Cooper. “Unfortunately, notwithstanding the ‘positive’, though contradictory, assertions of the Egyptian authorities, the results of that post-mortem were inconclusive, and the pathologist was unable to ascertain the likely cause of death in either case. Further toxicological screening and other relevant tests will now be carried out as a matter of urgency to aid that process. “Kelly and her family remain committed to establishing the true cause of John and Susan’s deaths
and holding those responsible to account.” James Adeley, senior coroner
for Lancashire, said it might take months to analyse the findings. He added that the results would be compared with those obtained by the Egyptian authorities. Hugh Pennington, an E. coli
expert, said the bacteria was “extremely unlikely” to have killed the Coopers unless they were infected by a virulent new strain. Cook said it is reviewing the
autopsy results. › Talk Back, page 21
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 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
