Since they have arrived back in the UK, they have addressed their complaints with the tour operators head office and been advised that the hotelier denies any wrongdoing.

Finding themselves trapped in a ‘litigation’ cul-de-sac, and being over £2000 short of pocket, they tried to advise other holidaymakers of their plight via a review on Trip Advisor; in addition, they have also advised the tour operator/hotelier that they will report the matter to the BBC Watchdog television programme.

What do you think has been the reaction?  This brave company/hotelier have:

1. Threatened the pensioners with Lawyers, and
2. Accused them of extortion.

This couple have advised that right now they are very frightened indeed!  What a state to get customers into – what kind or morality exists in these companies that appears to think that this kind of loutish behaviour is acceptable against pensioners, or for that matter, against any Consumer?

I say shame on a Travel Industry that would permit such behaviour and fail to aid their customers!

I also say shame on the Majorcan hotelier for the cavalier manner in which he has treated this couple; a great advert for intending holidaymakers to Majorca wouldn’t you say?

I regret to say once again that the actions against these holidaymakers are tantamount to corporate bullying, a subject we have long reported on as the number of this article suggests!

It would seem that the one area that has triggered this ‘corporate’ behaviour is the fact that these holidaymakers placed a review on Trip Advisor.  The reaction and subsequent insidious behaviour, confirms what we have been saying about the world of travel reviews and the threats against Consumers for some time.  In this case, we will be aiding the holidaymaker’s to resolution of their claims and we shall also guide these same Consumers toward Codes of Conduct, from whichever profession those who are threatening this couple emanate from!

Perhaps the answer to this developing Consumer scene can be found in three areas:

1. Gas and Fire Safety in hotel accommodation. Our friends have advised that the Travel Industry is sponsoring an event next Tuesday in Brussels, attended by some MEP’s, whereby they seek to extend support for their stated aim of improving regulation in this area (I believe in this instance the focus is on Fire Safety).  Now we have no problem with this goal, except that the Travel industry are seeking to shift the entire responsibility/liability onto the property owners.  Many will say that this is right and to a point we would agree, however, many Consumers buy their holiday product from various members of the Travel Industry and therefore rely on their expertise and judgement that a property is safe.  Our view is clear, if you have a regulation that provides an obligation on a property owner, then that obligation should be cross-referenced with the obligations on liability contained within the Package Travel Directive (translated in the UK to the Package Travel Regulations).  What is curious about this event is the fact (leaving aside anything we could contribute to this debate), that some who were invited to the initial event some two years ago, have not been invited.  What is even more curious is the fact that at least one of those organisations led the way with the drafting of a Fire Directive for leisure accommodation some 10 years ago and presented their findings to the EU Commission.  Since that time, their proposed Fire Safety Directive has sat on the shelves of the EU Commission simply because the southern members of the EU vetoed its introduction.  Those organisations clearly had expertise then, they will have even greater expertise now, so why haven’t they been invited?  I would have thought that the Travel Industry, and for that matter MEP’s, would want to ensure that there is a balanced debate – so why haven’t other Consumer organisations been invited (we are aware of the guest list and know of the ‘expertise’ being relied upon!).  Our concern - Letter to Consumer Organisations – 12.11.09 - is that if the Travel Industry win this debate, future Travel Consumers so affected by this issue, will face the added frustration of having limited litigation options and having to face the real prospect of pursuing litigation in a foreign jurisdiction, all because of a successful ‘lobby’ campaign by an Industry!
2. The new ATOL Regulation - Next Tuesday, the Transport Select Committee will hear evidence from various parties about the new proposals to replace the current Air Tour Organisers Licence (ATOL).  This is the ‘insurance’ that Consumers ‘enjoy’ when they purchase a holiday which includes a flight, in the event that the provider or airline goes bust.  The most spectacular of those was the collapse of XL and Goldtrail, but there have been many more since 2008!  We hear much about the problems of the Industry and how difficult it is for them, but we rarely hear of the many Consumers (some of whom are still battling for the return of their monies) and how they have to cross the ‘Package’ argument and then have to deal with the CAA (or their agents), their Insurance companies or ABTA.  The Select Committee requested information and comment from interested parties about the proposals (this follows on from an earlier enquiry on this same issue by the Department for Transport).  We provided our own comment to the Select Committee which has been accepted into evidence - Transport Select Committee Inquiry ATOL – 19.1.12.  Whilst other voices are generally in support, we provided an alternate view.  We support reform of the present ATOL scheme, however, we consider the initial enquiry and Consultation to be flawed.  We have taken the view that in its present form, the proposals create yet another definition of what constitutes a ‘package’ and therefore will create an even greater detriment to Consumers. We have cautioned that it is better for the government to wait for the new draft Package Travel Directive before taking any further steps. In addition, we say that restoring confidence in the Travel Industry will not be achieved by tinkering at the edges, there has to be a radical overhaul of trader authorisation and monitoring of finances before any further changes should be made to the ATOL regulations (have we not learned any lessons from the financial industry fiasco?). It would seem that these substantial proposals have not struck a chord with the Select Committee!  Invited to speak are; ABTA, AITO, LowCostTravelGroup, Tui Travel, Board of Airline Representatives, European Low Fares Airlines Association, Virgin Atlantic, Dame Deidre Hutton & Mr Jackson of the Consumer Protection Group (CAA). No doubt the discussion will centre on how good the changes will be for Industry and how important it is to incorporate stand alone air tickets into this form of protection. We understood that the Minister was due to be quizzed by the Committee, but it appears that this has now been changed.  We are very concerned by these proposals for the reasons stated and we shall attend to hear the evidence presented and consider further how these proposals will affect Consumers.
3. The Deregulation of the sale of Travel Insurance - We are all aware of this government’s ‘bonfire’ of quangos – now the latest fad is a similar ‘bonfire’ to what they see as unnecessary regulation!  The argument is that such regulation impedes the flow of business, this being the argument of ‘red tape’!  Between 2006 to 2009, the Treasury Select Committee, HM Treasury and the Financial Services Authority carried out an extensive enquiry into the sale of travel insurance sold by travel companies or travel agents.  The argument was that the sale of such a financial product (this apparently being the last of all financial products) should be subject to a regulatory environment.  The Travel Industry protested very loudly about this proposed move (we have an interesting encounter outside the Committee room), claiming that this would reduce an income stream for the agents and would produce a detriment to Consumers.  The counter argument was that there was already evidence of detriment to Consumers with the principle issues involving Consumers being sold products not suitable to their needs or not being properly advised as to the nature and implications of their purchase.  We were called to give evidence before the Treasury Select Committee, where we provided a balanced view of the sale of travel insurance and indeed the Industry itself.  It was abundantly clear that the politicians and civil servants at the time saw a very good business case to regulate this product.  We were asked to provide two reports to the Select Committee - Travel Insurance for Holidaymakers - Travel Insurance for Holidaymakers – Supplementary Report - and further reports to HM Treasury and the Financial Services Authority.  In the end, we conceded that the regulation of travel insurance should be introduced through ‘light touch’ regulation, with a review in subsequent years to determine the effectiveness of that regulation.  Fast forward to 2012 and the ‘bonfire’ of regulation!  The Travel Industry have not wasted time in seeking a rematch on this issue. Unfortunately for Consumers, the Minister for Tourism, Mr John Penrose MP, agrees with the Travel Industry in his report ‘Seizing  the Tourism Opportunity‘, that travel insurance regulation should be abolished.  The argument follows that as many agents chose not to become regulated, this has led to a burden on the industry and a detriment to Consumers on choice!   The Industry claim that this is a fine example of ‘red tape’ – but if you choose not to be part of a regulatory system, how can you be affected by ‘red tape’?  It would be interesting to determine what exactly is involved in becoming regulated – would it be any more burdensome than say becoming regulated by the Ministry of Justice? I am going to stick my neck out and say very likely not!  It is interesting to note the Minister’s conclusions and I cannot help but wonder why he did not seek to consult with those who gave evidence to the Select Committee; could his enquiry and conclusion be said to demonstrate a balanced enquiry?  I can assure readers we will have further to say on this issue as we have discovered many more complaints against Insurance companies this year; will Consumers now also have to battle against part of the selling process that is unregulated?

As these three areas demonstrate, the situation for holidaymakers is becoming more perilous.  It is clear that dogma overrides sensible regulatory principles and that Industry is riding supreme with their political friends.  Whilst this small minority ride rough-shod over Consumer Rights they should remember that the very people that they ‘de-regulate’ against are the very same people that place their ‘X’ on the ballot paper – it follows, the more people that become affected by these scenarios, the more they will rage against those that have created these conditions.  We have to wonder, where are the courageous politicians and media during the Consumer’s hour of need? Stand-by for much more information on the real Consumer Detriment in the next few months – I promise you, the story of ordinary people will be compelling!

How times change!

So what constitutes a package?

Under Regulation 2 of the Package Travel Regulations (these regulations were made following the introduction of the Package Travel Directive in 1990), it states that a package arises when:

1. A journey of 24 hours or more,
2. Or includes overnight accommodation, and consists of at least two of the following elements:
3. Transport, Accommodation or Ancillary Services.

The Regulation goes onto state that:

1. Separate bills/accounts for each service will not make it anything other than a package
2. Any request made by a Consumer on how the package should be put together shall still make it a package!

Quite clear then?

Not quite; the problem is that the CAA several years ago mounted a legal challenge against tour companies that did not hold ATOL licences; those companies claimed that they did not sell packages, that they were simply acting as agents!

The principal case was in my view fought on quite abstract lines and did not deal with the reality of what a Consumer faces.

This point was recognised by the court and was followed up by the now famous guidance note to what constitutes a package, produced by the government in January 2008.

In that guidance, they reflected what the court said; that each case would be decided on the facts, the information given to the Consumer and if the Consumer’s perception was that they thought that they had bought a package – then a package it would be!

So lets examine what Consumers actually buy.  Most Consumers who contact us state quite clearly that they have always bought package holidays and that they would never buy so-called DIY holidays.

If you examine the plethora of travel websites, you are often faced with the choices of – accommodation only – flight only – flight and hotel.  Most Consumers choose ‘flight and hotel.  They do so because they believe that they are buying a holiday – a package – a bundle – something that is put together for their ease and convenience by the company whose site they are exploring.

If we take a typical route of Consumers, it is often the case that once you have entered your chosen destination, you will be offered a flight.  Most websites offer a choice of flights and times – some offer different airports.  The Consumer will choose their flight and are then presented with a range of hotels and board basis.  Once the Consumer has chosen the hotel, they are then directed to another page offering ‘bolt-ons’ – transfers, baggage, travel insurance, extras and so on.  Once they have made their choices, they are then directed to a summary page of the holiday they have chosen together with a summary of the price and total to be paid.

At no stage is there a warning, advising the Consumer that if they choose this product, that they will not have the full Consumer Protection of the Package Travel Regulations if they became ill or injured, or if they needed assistance.

They are presented with a ‘tick-box’ which indicates that they have read and understood the terms and conditions of that company.  The Consumer has no concerns that they are buying anything other than a package and believe that they are fully covered by the protections of law if something should go wrong.

We know that many Consumers simply tick the box, never believing that they are quite possibly opening themselves to difficulties and in extreme cases, financial hardship.

Compare that process then from buying a holiday from a hard copy brochure. The Consumer will choose their country, the resort and from a range of hotels, their chosen accommodation.  They will examine the price panel and from the range of dates, they will choose the price they are prepared to pay.  Within the price panel there are choices on sea views, full board, half-board or all-inclusive and so on.  Each of these extras are items that you will add to the price.  the price panel will usually indicate which airport you can fly from and it will direct you to the flight section in the brochure.  From that flight section you can choose to fly from your local airport at different times or for that matter, different airports.  Each flight will usually attract a further supplement.  In some brochures, you can also choose how you wish to be transferred to your destination.  Holidaymakers present their choice to the agent and it is booked subject to any changes that need to be made.  the Consumer is provided with the terms and conditions and has no concerns that they are buying anything other than a package and believe that they are fully covered by law if something should go wrong.

So, what exactly is the difference between the so-called new way of buying holidays on the internet and buying from a brochure?  Exactly nothing!

In both methods of booking, the Consumer has no real knowledge of the various companies that are gathered together to make the package – they believe that they have one contract – that being with the internet travel provider or the owner of the hard copy brochure.

It is important to nail the lie that underpins this area – UK Consumers know a package when they see one and unless it displays clear ‘health warnings’ on the lack of Consumer Protections, the clear logic is that it simply has to be a Package Holiday!

I have said it before and will say it again, this is simply the Travel Industry wearing a new coat with the old pre-1992 rules of business stuffed into its pocket.

It is time for UK politicians to get engaged with the detriment suffered by their constituents and for the European Commission not to be persuaded by the siren voices of the Travel Industry, that they somehow deserve special treatment (yes chaps, we know what you have been up to!).  Time to create a good regulated travel product – that should build confidence at a time when it is needed most!

It was also abundantly clear from my travels that week, that there were those in the House of Commons who took the view that the said trials and tribulations were not a matter for government.  However, we learnt that the Prime Minister was briefed on the situation, presumably to develop an action plan?  The Economist summarised the dilemma for the Government and the company:

“For now, Thomas Cook is too big to fail. The banks have lent it too much money. If it were to go bust, the Civil Aviation Authority, which acts as travel operators’ insurer of last resort, would probably go under, too. Thomas Cook was planning to report its full-year results on November 24th, but it postponed the announcement until discussions with its creditors are complete. The bankers are likely to give Thomas Cook another, though maybe the last, lease of life”.

Thomas Cook is not the only company to come under scrutiny and difficulty.  In recent weeks there have been failures of travel companies and we can see from this latest TravelMole article, that the Civil Aviation Authority has withdrawn the ATOL license for a travel company on the basis that in the opinion of the CAA the company in question was:

“unable to meet its liabilities and obligations to its customers”.

For the trade, the lesson has to be; never at any previous stage has your product come under such close scrutiny, both from the public and the press.  As confidence collapses a reasonable company will responsibly manage its message to its Consumers and ensure that even though they may be in some difficulty, they must follow the premise that they should trade with openness, responsibility and respect for the end-users of their products.

For Consumers, the primary message must be: take care with the messages contained within the media!  Try not to get sucked into the almost rampant panic that has now become a fact of daily life.  Examine information from a wide variety of sources – then make your conclusions on any ‘Consumer’ situation!

From a travel perspective, Consumers need to also understand how their money is protected.

Whenever a holidaymaker is or has booked a Package Holiday they should look out for the following protections for their money:

1. ABTA Bonding. This has been controversial in recent years because the scheme’s protection has been reduced in certain circumstances.  Essentially, before an agent can become a full member of ABTA, they must provide a bond against failure, based on the value of their turnover.  If you are a principal, in other words a tour operator, then you must protect the elements of the package that does not include a flight.  The principal can either choose to get that protection from elsewhere or ABTA can provide such a bond under certain conditions.  It is quite possible for a tour operator to have provided two bonds to cover the operation of their business activities. It should be noted that in some cases where ’single sales’ are carried out, such as accommodation, then bonding is not required.  You should also be aware of the tendency in recent years for travel companies to use ‘non-bonded’ companies when putting together packages, which could mean that you do not have cover for that element.  In the event that the ABTA Bonded company fails, ABTA should recompense you for that failure, except where the agent/principal has failed to make the booking of your holiday!
2. AITO Assured. Until recently, AITO (the Association of Independent Tour Operators) offered a 100% guarantee to Consumers.  Unfortunately one of their members suffered a financial collapse and as a result the insurer withheld cover on the basis of an alleged material non-disclosure.  As a result AITO offer assurance that each of their members are ‘required’ to have financial protection in place for Consumers and that their members ‘are required to submit details of their financial protection arrangements to AITO on a regular basis’.
3. ATOL Licence. ATOL or Air Tour Operators Licenceis administered by the UK Civil Aviation Authority.  Travel companies selling air holidays or flight only tickets (note this does not apply to airlines) are required to have a licence.  The companies are required to comply with the licensing requirements of the CAA who state that, “[it carries] out checks on the tour operators and travel organisers it licenses”.  The travel company contributes to the fund and this money comes from your contribution at the point of sale of your holiday.  Some companies are required to place an additional bond with the CAA.  The scheme states that in the event that a holiday provider goes bust, the scheme will refund monies or allow for the continuation of your holiday if you are abroad.  As Consumers have discovered in recent years, this cover does not always deliver, particularly if it is alleged that you have purchased a so-called DIY Holiday (see the latest article from HolidayTravelWatch on Package Holidays!)
4. The ABTA Memorandum & Articles of Association. This is the founding document of ABTA.  Within the document at point 11, power is given to establish a Code of Conduct for the benefit of ABTA and its members.  In addition, point 11 provides for sweeping powers with its members if there are any concerns over the trading conduct of the member.  At 11 (6) it states that if Consumer Detriment is suspected, either through a breach of the ABTA Code of Conduct or breaches of accounts rules, then representatives of ABTA can enter any member’s place of business and obtain full cooperation from the staff.  ABTA can check all financial records, interview people associated with the business and where they believe that there is a threat to the Consumer or the good name of ABTA, they can terminate that membership or place conditions on the membership.  Obviously, if you have concerns about any company, then you should seek information from ABTA as to whether or not they have invoked their powers under their constitution.
5. Debit Cards. If you paid for your holiday by debit card, the rules for recovering your money from a debit card are different to when you pay by credit card. We understand that if you pay by Maestro card, the bank is not obliged to refund you under current UK domestic law or where there a bankruptcy arises. The only exception would be if you ordered goods or services online from a company whose website’s centre of operations lay outside the UK. If you paid by a Visa Debit card, then you will be able to claim your money back through the Visa Debit Chargeback Scheme. You can claim your money back if the goods are damaged or the products or services are not delivered. You must make such a claim with your card issuer within 120 days of you not receiving the goods or where the company has gone into administration. (We would strongly recommend that these issues are checked before taking action. The BBC have produced a good guide on this issue.
6. Credit Cards. If you paid for your holiday by credit card there is an argument that your credit card company should assist you to resolve this dispute under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. You should consider contacting them to lodge your complaint. This link relates to a template letter you could send to your credit card company to activate your complaint with them (this is provided by Consumer Direct).  (Check with your card issuer the time limits for claiming – if you are close to that limit, do not wait for the travel provider to respond!).  In the event that the credit card issuer refuses to help you, then you should use the complaints process within your credit card contract.  If they still refuse to assist you, then you should report them to the Financial Services Ombudsman.

The moral of the story for Consumers is this; check all claims of membership made by any travel company – check that all elements of the holiday you purchase is fully covered by the various schemes of protection – check that you receive written confirmation of your protection – be aware of the distinction some companies will make that you have not purchased a package holiday (consider the issues and then respond!).

As the saying goes – Keep calm and carry on!  We would add for Consumers, with the right information in your pocket!

We have previously commented on the issue of Travel Reviews.  In that commentary, we examined the nature and structure of travel reviews and how the Consumer was bound with quite draconian terms and conditions; we also commented on the proposals made by the company gathering hoteliers together for action – we observed on their demands that:

1. Improved management response facilities – no problem there!
2. Auto-deletion of reviews older than 2 years – no problem there except where a hotel consistently provides holiday illness complaints, should not that record be available for everyone to view?
3. Deletion of reviews where the problem has been resolved – what about mass illness cases that have run for several years, should not that record be available for everyone to view?
4. Qualification that reviewers are anonymous and unverified – No problem there, but how is verification going to be achieved?
5. Screen out keywords such as poisoning, theft etc – That is controlling the message and affects the very freedom of expression we take for granted – anyway if you are going to verify contributors what is the problem?  This is probably the most worrying proposal!
6. Stop the use of broadcast e mails highlighting best/worst hotels – We have never understood the value of these as they often refer to destinations most British Holidaymakers will never visit.
7. An improved response system for owners – We consider the response system questionnaire should mirror that of consumers found on most travel review websites.  We support the right to respond, however caveats should be posted next to such reviews highlighting, that disputes are never resolved through such portals and that consumers should seek independent advices!

What is interesting is that whilst the parties are engaged in a ‘litigation waltz’, Trip Advisor is now about to launch a hotline for property owners and are to run seminars on reputation management – Interesting!

But what about the Consumer, surely they have a right to comment; surely they have a right to be protected too?

This year we have received complaints from holidaymakers on the following issues:

1. Reviews submitted just simply do not appear – what has happened to them – why were they not published?
2. Holidaymakers have reported that they have been offered a ‘free’ holiday by hoteliers next year if they place a positive review on any website;
3. Other holidaymakers have reported that they have been threatened that they ‘have’ to make a positive review before they can leave a hotel;
4. Holidaymakers are subjected to threatening online behaviour from the ’supporters’ of a hotel or resort (we have experienced the same from such ‘groupies’ when putting ‘Call to Arms’ on our own website!);
5. Holidaymakers who have often placed ‘balanced’ reviews online are sometimes subjected to the ‘contrary’ view which seeks to ridicule their points of view;
6. Holidaymakers are subjected to, in serious cases of illness, a very slick and organised online response designed to isolate the illness complaint at source!

So perhaps before we get too caught up in the moral outrage presented by this program, we should reflect upon the wide range of holiday complaints submitted by Consumers each day and what they are saying.  I am sure that in any examination we would find many justifiable complaints that cut to the heart of the tourism debate; how do travel companies, local, tourist, health and fire authorities monitor and manage the tourist product – are the products fit for purpose?

Remember this as well, many tour companies will link you into positive reviews at the point of sale, but as soon as a negative review surfaces, it becomes a ’subjective’ view and one that is not verified (despite the fact that these same companies have teams of travel representatives, customer complaint forms, letters of complaint – which they often deny) – so remember, the issue here is not about this particular program’s subject matter, it is about the industrial use of reviews to a Commercial advantage by companies both big and small!

I am often challenged on regulatory matters, with my opposite numbers claiming that the Consumer is the best regulator!  Now I happen to think that perhaps the Consumer needs a helping hand, through regulation, to ensure a good and safe product.  However, if my opponents are correct, then surely portals like Trip Advisor support the notion of the Consumer Regulator – isn’t it a bit hypocritical to suggest that this route should be cut off – isn’t it a dangerous attack on free speech?

We are hearing from holidaymakers about a dreadful set of complaints from a hotel in Turkey.  This is a hotel that has cropped up on our radar on more than one occasion! The current crop of complaints include; many holidaymakers having to wait for up to 8 hours on arrival to be allowed into their rooms, children sleeping on the couches of the hotel reception whilst they wait for the rooms, flea-ridden cats allowed to roam the reception area, shower curtain had apparently grown moss on its edges, cracked sinks in bathrooms, toilet bowls were reported to be black, toilet handles coming off when the toilet was flushed, raw sewage coming up through the drains when toilets were flushed, problems with food and hygiene, holidaymakers reporting that they were suffering with diarrhoea and vomiting with some apparently being taken for treatment at the local clinic.  We understand that sometime in late July, a young woman jumped from a balcony after apparently being raped – it appears that she suffered with multiple injuries.

One holidaymaker we have spoken to not only reports that they suffered with gastric illnesses, but also reported that her children were ‘slapped’ by a Turkish guest. Another Turkish guest was seen vomiting into the hotel swimming pool on two occasions; the staff did nothing to evacuate the pool and commence cleaning the pool.  This holidaymaker made a formal complaint to the police about the assaults on her children but was thwarted by being asked to pay for up to 12 witness statements, at a cost of 70Euro a statement.  It was clear that she could not afford these charges (if the Turkish Government is so keen to ‘welcome’ tourism, they need to rethink this practice) and so had to stop her complaint; the result was that the Turkish hotel and individual Turkish guest just laughed at her.

What was interesting about this holidaymakers case is that she had researched the hotel after booking and found a similar list of complaints.  She expressed concern to the tour operator’s representative in the UK and was concerned that the product she bought was not only not fit for purpose, but that it had significantly changed from that which she believed she had bought.  The representative was not having any of it; she could not change the holiday – everything was fine!  Our holidaymaker was very concerned for her personal safety and related the story she had read about the rape incident; the response from the tour operator’s representative was:

“She probably asked for it anyway”!

Correct me if I am wrong, but we are in 2011? Do we really have people occupying responsible positions who think that women or for that matter men & children, actually ask to be raped?

It is interesting isn’t it; the Travel Industry are very keen to use the internet to promote its wares and take great steps to dominate the message.  However, isn’t it disgusting to think that someone ocuppying a responsible position should seek not only to ignore a holidaymaker’s plea, but to justify an action of rape as being the fault of a woman?

Amongst other things, the holidaymaker has been advised to access the transcript of the telephone conversation via the Data Protection Act, and if that supports what was said to the holidaymaker, to pursue the Managing Director/CEO to sack this individual for this disgraceful attitude!

Tour Operator’s tell us that they carefully monitor the internet for ‘issues’ that may affect their customers holidays.  I can think of no greater issue than the personal safety of a woman, man or child when such reports as these become apparent. So how about some real monitoring Travel Industry; exercise a duty of care to all your holidaymakers to protect their safety and ensure that no employee dismisses such complaints with total disregard?  It is time to put people before targets and profits don’t you think?

Throughout this 2011 summer holiday period, HolidayTravelWatch has been shocked at the nature of the holiday complaints it has received.  Many of the complaints made are a reminder of the mid-1990′s, when Consumers began to complain en-masse about standards found in their Package Holidays.  The Organisation continues to receive a high volume of hygiene and illness complaints, coupled with the fact that when things go wrong on the holiday, the Consumer is abandoned by tour companies who make the false claim that a DIY Holiday has been sold and therefore Consumers have no rights under the Package Travel Directive.  The complaints are wide and varied and cover hotels and cruise ships.

Complaints received from one hotel include:

1. Bare & exposed electrical wiring in shower areas;
2. Urine & faeces found in bedrooms;
3. Faeces found in the swimming pool (staff refused to remove it – this was done by a holidaymaker);
4. Algae in swimming pools;
5. Swimming pool water turned swimming costumes green;
6. Insect infestation;
7. Strong sewage smells on the complex;
8. Dog excrement outside hotel restaurant;
9. Food was lukewarm;
10. Food covered in flies;
11. Holidaymaker’s suffered severe gastric illness;
12. Tour company did nothing to correct failures and demanded 600 Euros to be moved to another hotel.

Complaints from cruise holidays include (these are principally from European & EU Atlantic Cruises – they do not include Nile Cruises):

1. Out of date safety certificates displayed on cruise ship;
2. Strong smells of sewage;
3. Public toilets described as being ‘dirty’ or ‘smelly’;
4. Sewage entering cabin via bathroom;
5. Toilets not flushing;
6. Showers overflowing into cabins;
7. Extensive problems with piping;
8. Flooding on decks;
9. Faulty air-conditioning;
10. Luke-warm or cold food;
11. Chicken described as being pink;
12. Undercooked fish and eggs;
13. Alcoholic drinks reported to be like ‘paint stripper’;
14. Drinking water reported to have strange taste;
15. Glasses & crockery reported to be dirty;
16. Alleged ‘norovirus’ used as ‘catch-all’ excuse for large outbreaks of illness;
17. Holidaymakers being presented with hand-sanitisers as they boarded raising suspicions of problems;
18. Holidaymakers being advised of illness problems when ship has put to sea;
19. Crew members observed to be ill;
20. Queues of sick holidaymakers waiting outside ships’ medical facilities;
21. Passengers being diagnosed as suffering from ‘motion sickness’ and it ‘was all in the head’;
22. Denials made by crew on board ships that an illness problem existed;
23. Some Holidaymakers advised that ‘holidaymakers brought illness on board’
24. Allegations that guests were not being ‘honest’ in the reporting of their symptoms;
25. Allegations of ‘excessive’ medical bills being presented;
26. Many passengers reported to be confined to cabins;
27. Inconsistent ‘confinement to cabin’ policy applied across several ships;
28. Reports of ambulances waiting at quay-sides waiting to ferry sick holidaymakers to hospital;
29. Clear reports of ‘mass’ illness being reported to tour operators/cruise companies either apparently being ignored or denied;
30. Passengers reporting exposure to fumes on board ships;
31. Passengers reporting respiratory illness;
32. Passengers reporting sexual assault or inappropriate advances;
33. Teenage passenger followed to cabin by crew member and subjected to inappropriate behaviour;
34. Complaints against a crew member for indecent assault was dealt with by way of a ‘letter of apology’ from the assailant (one passenger states that she felt violated and remained uncertain of her security for the remainder of the cruise)!
35. Passengers consider that cruise companies are failing to take complaints of sexual assault seriously;

General Holiday Complaints:

In addition to the aforementioned complaints, HolidayTravelWatch has also received complaints regarding:

1. Large scale burglaries from hotel rooms;
2. Hotel staff behaving in a threatening manner when complaints are made;
3. Holiday companies failing to assist holidaymakers in need in resort;
4. Holidaymakers ‘isolated’ following complaints made with hotel staff and holidaymakers either avoiding or refusing to speak with them;
5. Reports of sexual assault;
6. Accidents;
7. False Imprisonment;
8. Salmonella;
9. Campylobacter;
10. Shigella;
11. Significant changes made to holidays;
12. Overbooking or no bookings made;
13. Building works;
14. Failures in Financial Protection;
15. Claims that holidays are not covered by the protections of the Package Travel Directive leaving the holidaymaker being potentially on their own.

Frank Brehany, the Consumer Director for HolidayTravelWatch states:

“I really did expect that after the flurry of cases in the late 1990′s, we would have seen a real improvement in the holiday product.  It is a stain on the Travel Industry that complaints of this nature still exist in 2011″

He adds;

“It is now obvious to any observer, that there is a real need for our legislators to take the urgent and necessary action to improve Travel Consumer Rights and Safety; I consider that it is necessary to:

1. Strengthen the new Package Travel Directive on the issue of so-called DIY holiday sales to prevent real detriment being suffered by holidaymakers;
2. Strengthen the new Package Travel Directive to ensure higher health and safety standards;
3. Strengthen the new Package Travel Directive to provide maximum financial protection to holidaymakers;
4. Introduce an EU Vessel Sanitation Program;
5. Introduce Personal Safety Legislation on cruise ships in EU waters;
6. Introduce Child Safety legislation covering hotels and cruise ships”

He concludes,

“If the UK Consumer experience is anything to go by, I am certain that their experiences are replicated by holidaymakers throughout the EU.  If the EU Parliament is serious about creating a true EU-wide sustainable travel product, then policy creation needs to have Consumer needs at its heart.  I sincerely hope that those within the EU Parliament and Commission will pay heed to these complaints and bring a balance to the process of consultation and the creation of laws that benefit all”

As if the powers to be didn’t already know, but it is beginning to become clear that UK airline passengers are not being afforded their rights under EC Regulation 261/2004! The recent upheaval caused by Hurricane Irene, has brought into sharp focus the level of disruption that can be caused by a weather event!  We hear that up to 10,000 UK holidaymakers may be stranded in the US as a result of flight cancellations and delays following the hurricane.  The question however is this; what are the airlines doing to ensure that their passengers are cared for?  This BBC News report interviewed one stranded British holidaymaker in New York City.  In the interview (which was broadcast on 30/8/11), the holidaymaker stated the following:

1. She had to call the airline on several occasions before she was able to get through;
2. It was clear that she is travelling with a major UK based airline;
3. She has been advised that the first available flight is on the 10 September 2011;
4. The airline have advised that they are laying on extra flights;
5. She expressed fears of being stranded;
6. The hotel she was staying in was full and she had to depart;
7. She was in the process of moving on to another hotel;
8. She had to find space in a hotel nearby;
9. She had to determine how many nights she could stay in the new hotel;
10. She was having to sort out her accommodation on a day to day basis.

We can only presume that she is paying for this extended stay and has very probably been told to keep all her receipts and she will be reimbursed when she returns to the UK!  How many times will many of our Consumer followers have heard that statement only to discover afterwards (I am minded of the Icelandic Volcano scenario) that the reality is very different?

So, given this chaos, is there actually anything a Consumer can expect in the way of Rights?

EU Flight Rights:

The answer to this will depend on whether you have an air ticket with an EU Community Air Carrier; this is the basis upon which EC Regulation 261/2004 rights are formed.

In the above example, this lady can rely on the Regulations because this particular airline is based in a Member State of the EU and as such must have an ‘Operating Licence’ granted by the Member State under EC Regulation 2407/92.

Under EC Regulation 261/2004, the Rights are stated as between the passenger and the Operating Community Air Carrier.  Under Article 2 it clearly defines the carrier as one that has a valid operating licence granted under EC Regulation 2407/92 and is carrying the passenger under contract.

Under Article 3 of 261/2004, it clearly provides obligations on passengers as to when the ‘rights’ will come into play; they will do so:

1. If you are departing from an airport in a Member State where the Regulations are applied, or
2. If you are flying from outside the EU into a Member State airport, if your airline is an Operating Community Air Carrier (the rights will not apply however if you were given benefits, compensation etc. in that country outside the EU), and
3. You have to have a confirmed flight reservation (except in some cases of cancellation defined under Article 5), and
4. You must check-in at the stipulated time.

Under the preamble of 261/2004, it provides for the defence of ’Extraordinary Circumstances’ (mirroring the Montreal Convention) to limit or exclude obligations upon airlines.  Weather events are specifically stated within the preamble to the Regulations.

That said, we now have to determine this lady’s rights (let’s not forget those US or other citizens ‘trapped’ here in the UK who are also travelling with a ‘Community Carrier’ – their rights will be identical!).

In a flight cancellation scenario, Article 5 of 261/2004, provides the basis for flight cancellation rights.  The Article states that that the Rights that shall be given to airline passengers will include:

1. Being offered assistance as set out in Article 8 (I shall deal with those rights below);
2. Being offered assistance as set out in Article 9 (I shall deal with those rights below);
3. Have the right to compensation (set out in Article 7); though this Hurricane scenario is is negated by sub-section 3, if the airline can prove that the cancellation arose due to ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’.

It is important to note that the Regulations only specifically exclude access to compensation – NOT the right to care!

In examining Article 8 Rights we can see that this lady (or indeed US or other citizens ‘trapped’ in the UK – Travelling with an EU ‘Community Carrier’) should have been offered the following rights as a choice:

1. Reimbursement of the flight ticket or part of the ticket and where relevant, ‘a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity’;
2. Re-routing under ‘comparable transport conditions’ to the final destination at the earliest opportunity, or re-routing at a later date at the passenger’s convenience;
3. Package Holidays are included in the first option;
4. Any flight offered in return, via another airport, must have the transfer to that airport paid for by the airline.

Article 9 Rights provide for a ‘Right to Care’.  In the news report, this is probably the most important right for the lady ‘trapped’ in this scenario (this also applies to US or other citizens ‘trapped’ in the UK and travelling with a ‘Community Carrier’).  The Article states that these rights shall be offered free of charge to the passenger:

1. Meals and refreshments reasonable to the time of day;
2. Hotel accommodation where a stay of one or more nights is necessary;
3. Transport between the airport and the hotel;
4. 2 Telephone Calls, Telex, Fax or e mails;
5. The airline must also pay heed to the needs of those with reduced mobility & those accompanying them; they must also look after unaccompanied children.

It would be interesting to hear of whether the airline in this woman’s case, has actually provided her with a written notice detailing her rights under Article 14 (2) of 261/2004?

So those are the rights of those affected by the flight cancellations and are travelling with EU Community Carriers – but what of those UK or EU Citizens who have travelled with a US based airline – what are their rights in the USA?

Not surprisingly, very little!

USA Flight Rights:

The US Department for Transportation introduced new rules in April 2010, however, they offer very little in the way of assistance to those affected by US airline flight cancellations.  The information provided by the Department provides very little comfort and seeks to rationalise the difficulties faced by airlines versus the passengers needs!  The following is an extract from the Department’s website:

“If your flight is canceled, most airlines will rebook you on their first flight to your destination on which space is available, at no additional charge.  If this involves significant delay, find out if another carrier has space and ask the first airline if they will endorse your ticket to the other carrier.  Finding extra seats may be difficult, however, especially over holidays and other peak travel times.

Each airline has its own policies about what it will do for delayed passengers waiting at the airport; there are no federal requirements.  If you are delayed, ask the airline staff if it will pay for meals or a phone call.  Some airlines, often those charging very low fares, do not provide amenities to stranded passengers.  Others may not offer amenities if the delay is caused by bad weather or something else beyond the airline’s control.  Contrary to popular belief, airlines are not required to compensate passengers whose flights are delayed or canceled”.

I particularly love this passage:

“If the purpose of your trip is to close a potentially lucrative business deal, give a speech or lecture, attend a family function, or connect to a cruise, you might want to allow a little extra leeway and take an earlier flight. In other words, airline delays and cancellations aren’t unusual, and defensive planning is a good idea when time is your most important consideration”.

The flow from this is that ‘most’ airlines won’t charge you for a re-booking (though some clearly do), do some leg-work and see if you can transfer to another airline and ‘ask’ your airline for personal assistance (I can really see that one working!) and finally, US delays and cancellations are not ‘unusual’ so before you travel make sure you have carried out some ‘defensive planning’!

As you can probably gather, the situation for air passenger rights in the USA is somewhat dire and it would seem that the US government was stung into action and recentlyintroduced additional rights.  Disappointingly, those rights are not extensive (they add nothing to the flight cancellation scenario) and seem more concerned about an aircraft being delayed on the tarmac rather than dealing the root of the problem – that airlines will do everything they can to avoid a responsibility toward their passengers and politicians are not prepared to confront a widespread failing to Consumers!

So, I have great pity for the woman in the BBC news report; it is clear that she is not being given all the relevant legal information and I suspect that there is no impetus on EU based airlines to positively react to EC Regulation 261/2004, whilst the EU enforcement authorities stand idly by!  After all why should they, there are no real sanctions against EU airlines by comparison to the recent US legal update, which can charge an airline up to $27,500 per passenger for keeping a plane and its passengers on the tarmac for more than 3 hours!  Imagine if EC Regulation 261/2004 had teeth!

This summer has again demonstrated the fragility of the travel market and how easily Consumers can be caught in a terrible trap; anxious to re-capture their lost money and battling a system that seems intent on defining the expression ‘Package Holiday’!  We often tell of how Consumers complain to us on the problems they face, but I was struck by what seems to be a lone voice on the UK Government’s e petition site.  This petitioner is calling for for transparency on the information given to Consumers at the time of booking their holiday.  His argument is that if a company is required to provide detailed financial information, that information will provide confidence to Consumers as to who is or is not the best company to do business with.  If you examine the e petition site, you will see that there are some other petitions dealing with the same topic that have been rejected because they have been deemed to be similar to other petitions in existence.  If this measure were introduced, it would in my view send a message to the ‘fly by night’ mentality of travel companies; that being in business is about being responsible.  Given the rash of holiday company failures throughout 2011, we have already made a similar call for action, so why does the Government not act?

We are coming into the final stages of the Government’s ‘Flight Plus’ consultation - this is intended to replace the now discredited ATOL scheme.  That consultation is due to conclude on 15 September 2011 and will affect all aspects of travel and has the potential to bring some order to the chaos for Consumers until at least the new Package Travel Directive is published!  I would encourage all Consumers to contribute to this process and if you feel that you cannot do this yourself, send me your story and I will submit it on your behalf as part of our contribution.

If you considered that dealing with so-called DIY Holidays and the ‘agent’ argument when things go wrong was difficult, consider then this latest wheeze from the UK Travel Industry in order to evade legal obligations (I just love by the way the DfT making the point that some of this activity could be in contravention of the Unfair Trading Regulations – why then doesn’t the enforcement authorities prosecute?)!  The idea is that you do not buy the holiday from the ‘agent’, rather the ‘agent’ acts as your ‘agent’ and buys the holiday on your behalf – confused?  You will be, particularly when something goes wrong with the holiday and they duck out of their responsibility to you claiming that they were only doing your bidding and that it’s all down to you!  That sounds suspiciously like Regulation 2 of the Package Travel Regulations - where it is classed as a Package even if the holiday has been put together by the order of the holidaymaker?

So, as you can see, plenty of Machiavellian activity still taking place which could cause great detriment to the Consumer – do yourself a favour and sign that holidaymakers petition and contribute to the ‘Flight Plus’ debate – don’t let this Industry walk all over you and your family!

We have been following the path of Hurricane Irene and note its passing the north coast of the Dominican Republic and heading to Turks & Caicos and the Bahamas.  We extend our best wishes to all in those affected areas and hope that they recover quickly from any damage they may suffer.  In recent years we have commented extensivelyon the issue of ‘risk destinations’, which we define as an area affected by a natural or man-made disaster.  In past years, holidaymakers to the Caribbean have found themselves unwittingly caught up in an extreme weather event, not realising that they are travelling to the area at a time when such events are not only common, but expected!  Holidaymakers we have spoken to have told of the terror of being barricaded inside hotel rooms or corridors and to find afterwards that the resort they are in is devastated!  In some cases, holidaymakers have been expected to continue with their holidays, in the midst of the aftermath of a hurricane, with no running water, open sewage and little or no food!  Not only have holidaymakers suffered with a lack of information at the time of booking their holidays as to the ‘hurricane season’, but some have received little or no assistance.  As if that were not bad enough, intending holidaymakers have been diverted to neighbouring islands only to be transported to these affected resorts several days later; is it any wonder that holidaymakers feel compelled to complain?

To help holidaymakers caught up in this scenario, I shall set out a brief guide on your rights or actions that you should take:

What do I do if I am caught up in a hurricane area?

1. Do not panic; always follow the advices of the local civil authorities first, the hotelier and if available your tour operator!
2. Ensure that if you have injuries, that they are attended to – ensure that you seek medical assistance via the local civil authorities;
3. If you are ‘trapped’ in your hotel, seek the assistance of your tour operator to have you evacuated;
4. If they cannot be contacted, contact the local British Consul in the country you are visiting – they will guide you further;
5. If the tour operator does not respond positively to your request for removal, you should invoke Regulation 14 of the Package Travel Regulations;
6. Regulation 14 states that if a ‘substantial’ proportion of the package holiday cannot be delivered, then the tour operator has to find a solution to put it right.  If the solution offered is not acceptable to you (and you must have good reasons – a devastated hurricane area would be one!), then they must fly you back to your departure point as soon as possible.
7. In the event that the tour operator will not accept your Regulation 14 rights, then contact your travel insurer for assistance or failing that, the British Consul.
8. Make sure in these circumstances that you take plenty of photographs and video testimony of other holidaymakers!
9. If you have complaints about the way you were dealt with in resort, then you should seek independent advices as soon as you return to the UK.

What do I do if I am about to travel to a hurricane devastated area?

1. Ask the tour operator for an immediate written report on the state of the resort you are travelling to;
2. If they refuse and they are members of ABTA; complain to ABTA about their lack of response!
3. If news reports or the tour operators reports suggest devastation or disruption, advise them that you consider that a ‘significant change’ has arisen in your holiday contract;
4. A ‘significant change’ is an event that alters the essential terms of your contract;
5. ‘Significant change’ has not been yet defined by the courts, however, common sense would dictate that if the resort is devastated, no power, water supply is disrupted, threat of disease, poor communications etc, this could affect the enjoyment of the resort, therefore a change has occurred in your contract;
6. Under Regulation 12 of the Package Travel Regulations, a tour operator should advise you of a ‘significant change’ (there is nothing to say that you cannot advise the tour operator) and they must give you the choice of continuing with the holiday or to withdraw from the holiday without penalty (in other words, to give you your money back);
7. Under Regulation 13, the tour operator also has to give you certain choices if they advise that a ‘significant change’ has occurred (again, there is nothing to say that you cannot also advise that a ‘significant change’ has taken place in these obvious circumstances).  Those choices include; being offered another holiday of a higher standard (if available), a lower standard holiday – with the price difference being refunded to you (if available), or the return of your money as soon as possible;
8. Because this is a hurricane, we consider that they will claim that compensation is not payable because this is a force majeure.  This is a moot point given that hurricane predictive technology is quite accurate and therefore, can they really claim that this was an unexpected event given the season and the predictions?
9. You should also contact your travel insurer and advise them where you intend to travel and the extent of the damage as reported.  You need written confirmation from them that they will continue to provide you with cover;
10. If your travel insurer refuses to provide you with cover, then you need to advise your tour operator as a potential frustration of contract will arise;
11. Frustration of contract usually arises where some event ‘frustrates’ either party’s ability to carry out the contract;
12. In travel/holiday contracts there is usually a clause which requires you to have travel insurance; if your insurer refuses cover, then you are potentially in breach of your obligations and therefore potentially unable to continue with the contract;
13. If the tour operator provides an insurer in these circumstances, you have to ensure that the ‘new’ insurer will provide a like-for-like cover by comparison to your own insurer.
14. If the tour operator refuses to grant you these rights and you remain unhappy about travelling, then you should seek independent advices on what to do next!

These are all points that we have covered many times with holidaymakers; whilst we hear how good a response the Travel Industry has provided in these circumstances, what would be more impressive is if they would move away from the ‘normal booking conditions apply’ mentality and deal with these events with common sense and accept that Consumer Rights should be granted!