In a recent edition of the Travel Trade Gazette a letter was written by a travel agent under the title – ‘Protection crisis is harming the good guy’s reputations’.  It is important to consider the key points that this agent raised.  They argue that if you sell insurance or other financial products you have to be accredited or certified.  They also highlight regulatory requirements if you sell food or are involved in certain building work.  The writer of the letter then states – “So surely the ruling should be if you want to sell holidays and travel to the consumer, you must be bonded.  No bond, no business.  Too many companies come and go, owing thousands of pounds to consumers.  They offer ‘cheap’ holidays, often making pennies and wonder where it all went wrong.  This then tars us with the same brush.  The good guys are bonded, offer protection, have better knowledge and care about the consumer.  They are not there to make a quick buck”.

This astute agent reflects what many decent members of the travel industry think – the consumer must be protected, by doing so, it also saves the reputation of the travel industry.  However, his letter goes much further than what most in the industry seek – he highlights the prospect of regulation of its members, in other words, rather than a code of conduct guiding the principles of an industry, perhaps the correct route is to place the issue of trading within a regulatory environment – a safe environment for both sides of the economic equation!  We are currently a long way from that goal, the industry is caught between the argument of increasing the ATOL charge from £1 to £3 or extending it across all airlines; the logic is how long would it take to increase the levy beyond the £3 proposed limit?

In making these points, they are saying; we are going to carry on trading as we are, without any checks or balances and it is YOU, the consumer that will pay for our failure to ensure that those who seek to trade in holidays, in an industry that takes millions of pounds each day, are fit and proper and financially viable. 

Judging by the number of failures in recent years, it is clear that the present system of checks and balances are no longer viable if the consumer is to be truely protected, or for that matter, for the travel industry’s reputation to be restored.

This surely is the point made in the travel agents letter – that the industry needs a form of regulation to restore that confidence?  If the consumer is expected to pay more for protection, then there has to be something offered in return – regulation of the travel industry!

As if this issue was not enough for the consumer to contend with, there is still a growing debate before parliament and the courts on the definition of what constitutes a ‘package’.  This debate is not only important for financial protection issues, but for the potential liability that exists in holiday contracts.  It strikes me that whatever or wherever this debate is taking place, it is time for reflection on these matters until the EU Commission publishes its proposals for the new Package Travel Directive – anything else serves only to confuse the industry and the consumer.  We will be watching this debate carefully and are already gathering documentary evidence which will demonstrate just how the consumer is suffering detriment either in financial protection or liability terms.

This is a critical moment for holidaymakers!

Tags: ATOL, Holiday Finacial Protection

This entry was posted on Friday, July 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 am and is filed under Holiday Financial Protection, Political Lobbying, The Crows Nest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.