NEWS TRAVEL WEEKLY BUSINESS CONTINUED FROM THE BACK


[its] contractors, but this case suggests a hotel might not be.” She said: “It completely goes


against established case law [and] against the principle of the PTRs. I think it will be overturned.” Travlaw senior counsel


Stephen Mason told Travel Weekly: “It was conventional


wisdom that a tour operator is responsible for the people who work at a hotel. But according to the Court of Appeal, where the supplier – the hotel – has done nothing wrong, the tour operator is not liable. “The hotel had references


for the employer who raped Mrs X and the references were fine. They had no reason to think he would behave like this, therefore ‘the supplier did nothing wrong’. “The ruling surprised


everybody. If it stands, it massively limits the instances where a tour operator would be liable when things go wrong.” Leading industry barrister


Sarah Prager has noted that if the ruling is upheld, “the vast majority of ‘routine’ accident claims would fall outside the statutory regime”. Mason said: “My bet is the


Supreme Court will reverse or modify the Court of Appeal decision. The decision was split two to one, which increases the likelihood of a reversal.” In a dissenting view on the


Appeal Court judgment, Lord Justice Longmore argued: “The whole point of the regulation is that the holidaymaker should have a remedy . . . and it should be left to the tour operator to sort out the consequences with those whom it has contracted.” But Mason said: “If the


Supreme Court decides the Court of Appeal got it right, it would be good news for the industry.” The Supreme Court hearing is due to begin on May 1.


Travlaw Big Tent 2019: Brexit uncertainty, protection confusion and


‘Atol is an odd insurance that is no longer needed’


Atol has “no meaning to the average traveller”, is “not good value” and is “not needed any more”.


That is the view of consumer


travel journalist Simon Calder, who told the industry audience at a Travlaw event in London earlier this year: “In collapse after collapse, we’ve seen the first line of defence of the CAA [which runs the scheme] is: ‘You booked with a credit card, talk to them.’ “Atol has a residual purpose


for the very small proportion of people who are on holiday when [a company like] Monarch goes bust. The CAA will phone up the hotel and say, ‘Don’t kick them out, we’ll pay the bill,’ although anecdotal evidence suggests that didn’t work [in the Monarch case]. “So Atol might be useful in a


narrow range of circumstances, if


Consumers don’t understand LTAs, says lawyer Azam


Linked Travel Arrangements “don’t make sense” to consumers, who “probably assume they have a package”, says an industry lawyer. Travlaw partner Farina Azam


said: “The phrase Linked Travel Arrangement [LTA] means nothing to a customer. It creates confusion. If someone books an LTA they probably assume they booked a package. There should be a statement making clear you don’t get package rights.”


70 travelweekly.co.uk 25 April 2019


AZAM: ‘It should be made clear you don’t get package rights’


Azam told Travel Weekly: “It’s


mainly airlines [selling LTAs]. You book a flight and a pop-up asks, ‘Do you want accommodation or car hire?’ It’s a targeted ad. Click on the link and you’re sent to a third party. If you book within 24 hours, it becomes an LTA.”


“[Atol passengers] are paying for the cowboys and bottom feeders – it’s not very good value”


you’ve not paid with a credit card or you happen to be abroad when a company collapses.” Calder insisted: “I see Atol as a niche product that has almost no meaning to the average traveller.” He described the scheme as


“this very odd bit of insurance people are paying [when] the chances anything is going to happen are very, very low”. “In effect, they are paying for the


cowboys and bottom feeders – it’s not very good value.” The government set up an


CALDER: ‘I hope to see the review say ‘Atol isn’t needed’”


Airline Insolvency Review in the wake of Monarch’s collapse in October 2017. The review is due to recommend possible changes to airline-insolvency procedures, with Abta demanding a levy on all flights to pay for future failures. But Calder dismissed demands


for a levy. He said: “I hope to see the review say ‘Atol isn’t needed. We’re going to get rid of it – and we are certainly not going to put a £1 levy on a Ryanair flight.’ There is absolutely no chance Ryanair is going out of business.”


She said: “We tell clients they


need to give notice with the targeted email, saying ‘If you book within 24 hours it creates an LTA and this is what it means.’” But she noted the first seller


“probably wouldn’t know a [second] booking was made” unless informed by the second retailer, “so the only way to comply would be to protect everything”. Azam said: “There is also confusion around the financial protection for LTAs. The facilitator [of the link] only has to protect the payment they receive. An airline will collect the flight payment but not a car-hire payment. It’s not something consumers understand.”


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