search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
NEWS TRAVEL WEEKLY BUSINESS CONTINUED FROM THE BACK


Abta also raised concern


about the regulatory exemption for corporate travel given a proposal for “the CAA to lay down requirements for the contents of agreements” between corporate travel firms and corporate clients. Bunce warned: “The CAA could potentially restrict the ability of travel management companies to rely on the exemption.” He also queried the require-


ments to provide information on financial protection to consum- ers, saying: “The intention is to give more information earlier in the booking process, but there is a lack of precise wording. We don’t want to see something in- troduced from July 1 that is not subject to detailed consultation. “The PTD is very prescriptive


about the information given to customers. If the CAA is looking to add further information, is that gold-plating? This needs to be thought through.” An extension of the CAA’s


enforcement powers is also proposed, with the regulator to gain unspecified civil – as opposed to criminal – sanctions. Bunce said: “We see some merit in that. We’ve seen a distinct lack of enforcement by the CAA when an Atol-holder fails and an agent lacks a proper agency agreement. But there has to be a proportionate and carefully controlled approach.” Abta has raised two further concerns, about new reporting requirements for holders of Small Business Atols (SBAs) and the introduction of online Atol Certificates. Bunce said: “The SBA holder


is going to have to change what they do, [and] now is not the time. We don’t want people falling foul of terms they have not seen.” On online production of Atol


Certificates, he said: “Who pays for it? How will it tie up with companies’ existing systems? It will be a massive piece of work.”


Sharing economy: MPs call for ‘level playing field’. By Ian Taylor


MPs: Safety rules should apply to sharing platforms


MPs have demanded urgent action “to clarify” the safety assurances of accommodation platforms such as Airbnb and demanded “a level playing field” on standards.


The All-Party Parliamentary


Group (APPG) for tourism and hospitality issued an interim report on the findings of an inquiry into the sharing economy last week. Committee chairman Gordon Marsden, MP for Blackpool and shadow minister for higher education and skills, told an English Tourism Week conference: “New businesses are not compliant with regulations to keep visitors safe. Health and safety enforcement agencies find it difficult to check these businesses. Sharing-economy customers are potentially less protected.” Reporting on the findings of


the committee, Marsden told the conference: “It’s important to ensure new distribution models


‘The likes of Airbnb should not grow at expense of safety’


The interim report on The Sharing Economy by the All-Party Parliamentary Group of MPs may make uncomfortable reading for Airbnb and similar platforms. The MPs call for standardised health-and-safety regulations across accommodation providers and platforms. Their report notes: “Customers


[of platforms] . . . are less protected if things go wrong than they assume.” It concludes: “Growth


62 travelweekly.co.uk 29 March 2018


safety regulations before posting listings on sites.” Marsden noted: “The platforms


say data-sharing regulations prevent them sharing data.” But he said: “There is increasing


evidence of professional operators using platforms as a low-cost route to market. An increasing number of properties [on these platforms] are commercial in nature.” He added: “Ever-more


properties are being turned over to shorter term rents [and] many residents feel the impact.” Marsden said: “It is proposed


MARSDEN: ‘Sharing-economy customers are less protected’


are held to the same standards as older [businesses]. “The bulk of the issues stem


from the fact that leading sharing- economy platforms do not check hosts’ compliance with health and


that it isn’t necessary to regulate the sharing economy. [But] if that is the case, the government should deregulate the B&B sector. Consumers should be protected.” The committee has made six


interim recommendations, based on the principle that “businesses offering accommodation should compete on a level playing field”. A final report is due in May.


must not be at the expense of consumer safety.” The MPs suggest “problems


around regulatory compliance stem from a failure of enforcement”. The report says: “Leading sharing-economy platforms do not check if hosts


are compliant with regulations such as gas and fire safety before allowing them to post a property. A checklist provided to hosts does not reach the standard expected by current regulations and sharing-economy businesses do not undertake checks.” The MPs found it “of particular concern that sharing-economy companies deny responsibility for customer safety”. They argue: “If traditional booking agents for self-catering properties can be held liable for not checking the safety of properties, we see no reason why sharing-economy platforms cannot be held liable.”


GILEAD LIMOR


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