HolidayTravelWatch Clinic - Significant Changes to Holidays | The Package Travel Regulations
Mrs W booked with a mainstream Tour Operator, which was subsequently taken over by a major Tour Operator. She purchased a Package Holiday to the Maldives, staying in Herathera. Mrs W, looking forward to her holiday, travelled without concern to Male. When she arrived on Male, she was advised by the Travel Representative that they would not be traveling to Herathera. Why? Because the island she had chosen and paid for was not ready! She was offered another destination, Kuramathi, some 500 miles further away from where she wanted to be! Mrs W endeavoured to resolve this difficult situation by requesting travel to another island, one that was closer than what was being offered. The Travel Representative advised her that this would not be possible. She was told that there was no availability anywhere else, only on the island that she was being offered. Mrs W was not deterred, she requested that she be flown back to the UK. The Representative advised her that that there were no flights available; she had no choice, she had to go to Kuramathi. Mrs W did not want to take this option, it was not the destination she had chosen, and the resort being offered, did not have the same facilities they had originally booked. She was advised by the Travel Representative that if they decided to stay, then it would be evidence that they had accepted the changes that were being made. Mrs W and her family decided that they would not accept the change, and given that they were not being offered a return flight, they decided that they would return to the UK using their own money, and purchased their return flights. Understandably, Mrs W and her family considered that they had been treated unfairly. They believe that as their chosen resort was not ready, the Tour Operator must have known of these difficulties for some time before they left the UK. Why were they not informed before they travelled to the Maldives? Mrs W decided that she would write to the Tour Operator to complain at how they had been treated. She received 2 acknowledgements followed by a formal letter of response. The family were offered £100 in compensation, and advised that there would be no further correspondence, the matter was closed! 2 further letters have not been responded to!Suggested Solution:
Given that this Tour Operator is one of the Major Players in the UK overseas Travel Industry, this behaviour in contract is completely unacceptable! It is obvious that Mrs W’s chosen resort became ‘unavailable’ some time before she was due to travel. We have seen from our lead article, that many holidaymakers are being seriously affected by changes to the holiday they thought they booked and what is being delivered at the last minute. In Mrs W’s case it is completely unacceptable that she and her family should travel all the way to the Maldives, only to be told that her holiday is no longer available. We then discover that an attempt is made to ‘pass off’ another holiday onto Mrs W as ‘compensation’ for her disappointment! Mrs W should have been contacted by the Tour Operator before departure, in fact, she should have at least been spoken to at the check-in desk at the airport. Where a ‘significant change’ has been made to the ‘essential terms’ of the contract, the Consumer should be given the option to accept those changes or to cancel the holiday without penalty (Regulation 12 Package Travel Regulations). Under Regulation 13 of the same Regulations, she should have been offered either, an upgrade to a superior hotel (if available), or a downgrade with the price difference being refunded to the Consumer, or a full refund of their holiday cost as soon as possible. Under the same section, we suggest that they should have been offered compensation for the contract failing (there are some exceptions, overbooking is not one of them!). However, Mrs W found herself in the Maldives, after the aforementioned rights should have been exercised! From Mrs W’s perspective, the offer of the alternative was not acceptable because she did not consider that it had the same facilities or location she had booked. Where a ‘significant proportion’ of facilities are not available, then the tour company must make a reasonable alternative available; if it is not accepted by the consumer, then they must return the Consumer to their original point of departure (Regulation 14 Package Travel Regulations). The Tour Company in question is clearly operating outside the scope of the Regulations and certainly beyond the provisions of the ABTA Code of Conduct, to which they have subscribed! Mrs W is receiving guidance on how to deal with her travel problem and to bring to ABTA’s attention the clear breaches to ABTA’s own Code of Conduct!
This article first appeared in the Travel-Zine of HolidayTravelWatch; Get’Away - Your Route to Travel Rights - Issue 6 - May 2008
Tags: holiday claims, holiday complaints, Significant Changes
HTW has noted that amongst the submissions to the Committee on Toxicity (COT) it has been suggested that the symptoms highlighted by crew and passengers were akin to the condition of hyperventilation.
HTW has for many years received reports from concerned holiday makers or independent travellers as to the safety of their aircraft, ship or boat, train or road transport.
