Skiing Europe/Chris Reynard - Children's ski holiday left in ruins.

A snowHead

From AITO's own website

"Companies admitted to AITO are all vetted and fully bonded for client's protection, in compliance with UK and European regulations. They are also bound by AITO's own Code of Business Practice."

and

"Holidays with AITO members offer 100% full financial protection

Financial protection is something that we don't normally think about until something goes wrong, of course - and that's the time when we regret not having looked into it properly. It's a complex issue, particularly in the travel industry - but you can relax when you book an AITO holiday because AITO members comply with the highest standards of consumer protection. Every AITO holiday is backed not only by AITO's Quality Charter but also by full financial protection.

Quite simply, as set out below, if an AITO member becomes insolvent and ceases to trade, you will (depending on your holiday dates) either receive a full refund from the bond or other financial protection or will be able to complete your holiday as planned, with repatriation arranged at the end of your holiday."

Who knows whether AITO will view these statements as legally binding or if pushed claim they're really a marketing organisation and have acted in good faith in accepting "proof" of insurance so its not their responsibility. Certainly having seen this affair I as a consumer place zero value in AITO membership/designation for a company as clearly they have no effective screening process.

A snowHead

Just got:

1 July 2011

Sent by e-mail only

Dear Mr ++++++++++++++

Chris Revnard t/as Skiing Europe

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above insurance policy.
Following recent coverage in the Press about Mr Reynard's business and his previous business history, we have undertaken an investigation into the information that he provided to our underwriters in respect of policies issued to him.
Our investigations have now concluded and we have found that material information, relevant to the risks that we were being asked to insure, was not disclosed to our underwriters. Had that information been provided we would not have issued cover to Mr Reynard. Regrettably, therefore, we have informed Mr Reynard that the policies issued are void.
The decision to take these steps was made only after very careful consideration; therefore we regret that no cover is afforded for any claim that might subsequently be presented under any of our policies issued to Mr Reynard.
We are aware of the position Mr Reynard has created for some of his customers and empathise with them if they have suffered financial loss as a result.
We would, respectfully, refer any claim related enquiries you may have to Mr Reynard who may have alternative safeguards in place to assist you further.

Yours faithfully,

Claire Dunkley Claims Manager
AmTrust Europe An ArnTrust Finanbal Comoany

AmTrust Europe Limited Market Square House • St James's Street, Nottingham NG1 6FG • +++++++++++++• Fax:+++++++++www.amtrusteurope.corn Rea No: 1229676 Member of the Association of British Insurers Authorised and r

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

For those who doubted my information earlier this week it is now in black and white........

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

outofpocket,

It is a pity that AmTrust didn't apply such "careful consideration" when underwriting the risk in the first place. I look forward to hearing their explanation as to why they don't believe that the FSA rules do not require them to undertake such due diligence before taking on such risks rather than afterwards, particularly when the the customers of the insured rely on such insurance for their financial protection and there is a legal requirement for such insurance to be in place. I would also hope that the FSA will be interested in hearing their explanations. In the meantime perhaps they should provide a list of all those whom they insure where third parties might rely on there being insurance in place - and in particular where they are insuring tour operators and offering professional indemnity insurance. Given they are a significant player in professional indemnity insurance, perhaps AmTrust would be prepared to comment as whether a failure to undertake proper due diligence when taking on risks would be the sort of risk that their own policies might cover and whether they have such insurance on themselves.

You'll need to Register first of course.

dibblette - I am aware of that - but this is a stream regarding a school being let down! I would have thought that volunteer organisations would have checked out who they were giving their money to even more so - at least the schools have the LEA "approved list" as an excuse! My sympathies to you all who may have lost money but my advice - please check out the company you are handing money over to first - please - and stop the likes of Mr Reynard from getting the travel industry a bad name

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

The Association of British Insurers Guidance with regard to non disclosure is that policies should only be avoided, when the disclosure was "Deliberate or without any care" and that this "Only applies where the non-disclosure was deliberate or without any care.", "In the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, the customer knew, or must have known, that the information given was both incorrect and relevant to the insurer, or the customer acted without any care as to whether it was either correct or relevant to the insurer" and "non-disclosure would have resulted in a different underwriting outcome" The ABI also say that "The overall principle is that the severe remedy of avoiding a policy from outset should be confined to the most serious cases of non-disclosure"

I am presuming that AmTrust have at least followed ABI guidance in reaching their decision to void the policy. If so the Devon fraud squad may wish to consider further if they haven't already done so.

After all it is free

Ratt,

Perhaps AITO should have been the first ones interested in stopping the likes of Mr Reynard from giving their own industry a bad name?

It is hard to see how customers can be held to be responsible for the product. Is the poor reliability of the Land Rover (I am told by another thread they are bottom of the league) the fault of those that buy them?

snowHead

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Well one thing is for sure, I'm not letiting this go.....

- Civil courts
- The Police
- Trading Standards
- AITO
- FSA
- ABI

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

outofpocket, do you have travel insurance for your family ?

snow reports

Chris Bish, CR/Schools are responsible for the product sold to parents as defined in the Package Holiday Regulations and neither of them (in certain circumstances) seem to be able to recompense the individuals who purchased the holidays

You know it makes sense.

Moved from a seperate thread to here

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have kept out of the CR/SE thingy as the whole thing just seems a little strange.

But from a TO’s perspective can I just add a few things to all that’s been said.

You can accept it or not – I’m not going to add to this:

Unless the schools refund the money parents paid they are “extremely” unlikely to get anything from anyone else unless the parents wise up.

The amounts being talked about mean that it can (and will) be dragged through the courts for years if necessary by those who may have some liability.

The police aren’t worried about getting parents money back, that’s not their job.

There never was any chance of the parents getting their money back from the TO's insurance Co.
As I have pointed out before the insurance wouldn’t have paid out anyway if there was any doubt about “stuff” anyway – and as the schools raised the doubt in the first place it seems they may be held responsible for voiding the insurance (yeah I know, perverse ain’t it, but you got the TO's insurance Co off the hook so they owe the head teacher a drink at least); so the fact that the insurance has been voided is academic.

But – the fact that there was no insurance does (surprisingly) open up a more likely “possible” avenue for parents to get their cash back, as it removes the problem of inter-insuring; where one insurance Co will not pay out as they hold less liability than another. The schools/parents/ MUST have had personal/group insurance, so get reading the small print. It’s likely that this is your best bet.

Basically people can complain all they want if they only thing they are looking for is an eventual feeling of justice, if someone is prosecuted for their loss. If that’s all you’re after then fine....keeping writing letters. But if you want your cash back then:
a] Find out where it is (if possible but not likely) and try and grab it.
B] Find out if your personal insurance will kick in if it can be proved that the kids were not able to go on the trip – the insurance Co “will” try and get round this but it’s your best option. Note: it's the NOT ABLE that is the important section, not just decided not to, but "could not" (I hope your see the difference). Most policies will pay up in this case but you have to be able to "prove" it.

********************************************************
Your (not the TO but "your") insurance policy WILL have a date by which you should have made the claim and if you spend too long on snowHead

's trying to score points then you'll miss that deadline - get the claim in NOW - even if it's not paid out for ages you MUST get the claim in
********************************************************

As an example – from the Dog Tag policy advertised on snowHead

A. Cancellation cover applies if you have booked a trip to take place within the period of insurance but you are forced to cancel your travel plans because of circumstances outwith your control and of which you were unaware at the time of booking the trip.

So, if a head teacher, for whatever reason, cancelled the trip that means the kids were NOT ABLE to go, see what I mean. The only BIG problem here would be if the school or the LEA took out the policy, as it was them that cancelled, so no claim could be made. If your family has a yearly policy, then check this as well.
If it was a personal policy for the kids then it doesn’t really mater whether the head teach should have cancelled the trip – in the same way as it wouldn’t matter if you were booked onto a cruise ship and the engine packed in, You were NOT ABLE to go, so you should get a payout, if you get your cliam in on time ??

Good luck to the parents, I hope you get your cash back (eventually)
****************************

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Wayne,

Everyone should look at their group and any family travel policies, in the unlikely event that they haven't done so already, and if they can make a claim they should. Unfortunately, what they are likely to find is that the group policy will not have the blanket wording like the family policies, and will detail the specific events where the insurance kicks in, and these will not include failure of the tour operator (which is perhaps not surprising given that such insurance is a statutory requirement). They will find in most but not all cases that family policies do not cover individual travel by children - unless such extra cover has been purchased.

I don't think that AmTrust's position is anything like as clear cut as you might wish to make out. One only has to ask why it is only now that they have taken this position - having previously led AiTO and many schools/groups to believe that the cover was in place despite the basic facts about CR being known and easily available. The FSA/ABI do have certain requirements/standards that have to be followed when accepting business particularly when 3rd parties are relying on the cover and the cover is a statutory requirement for the tour operator.

AiTO also have a clear duty to step in and sort out this mess - their spokesman has twice on National Radio made statements that they expected the insurance to pay out, they claim to have vetted CR and their website still includes claims that booking with their members offers complete financial protection and peace of mind. They are in danger of making themselves a laughing stock and being the cause of greater regulation of their own industry so that the consumer is given the protection that the law intended.

A snowHead

fatbob,

A snowHead

The sorry saga even features in this years Crystal report (page 8. )

http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/crystal/sir2011/

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I am amazed that this turn of events has occurred, and its great to see some actual useful information appearing from Wayne, Good job. Spent about an hours catching up on this from my last visit. Boredsurfin, that is a really interesting link you have there and makes for some good reading! i like the 'we actually help when things go wrong' comment! Something im grateful skiing europe didnt bother with when it went tits up for me, or i would be stuck in this situation.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I have been catching up on this sorry situation. I organised a ski trip for my school in 2009 with SE, we looked at a range of companies and had a whole series of reps/info come in. We contacted other schools from the local area that had used SE and consulted the approved list for the LA. The LA advisor was also consulted and no negatives/objections were raised about the company. With all the information coming back to suggest there were no issues with the company or its owners, we booked with a fair degree of reassurance.
As someone new to organising ski trips, I attended the Ski Course Organiser course held at SCBG offices in Wimbledon organised by SE, and met with the reps who would be in our resort. All of this was more reassurance about the credibility of the business.
My party did have a change of hotel, but this was some weeks prior to departure and we were able to inform all parents and amend any risk assessments in advance, this did not cause a major concern at the time as the accommodation was better located.
We were approached by CR around six weeks prior to departure for additional money due to adverse exchange rate fluctuations, we came to an agreement over this and we raised the situation no further.
The preview organised by SE was excellent, I visited the area, skied the region and was in an excellent position to complete a thorough risk assessment on return.
The weird thing is, in spite of all the reassurance given, the information received, the excellent preview, the fact the LA approved them, none of what has happened surprises me. I am just grateful that my party had an excellent ski trip and we were not as unfortunate as the many on this forum. If I had followed my gut instinct and not gone along with all the reassuring voices, I would not have booked with SE. I am probably not the only teacher who has felt this way when organising a major school visit, but for those criticising teachers for booking with SE, please realise that hindsight has made everyone wiser in this situation. It could have been my school in this situation and unfortunately it is a lesson that will be repeated again.
You can guarantee that I'll be onto companies house the moment I am booking the next trip!!!

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Wayne, thanks it was good advice.

My policy is past its sell-by date of 31 days after holiday return to make a claim on the policy.

Shame as I spoke to the insurer and it would of paid out now the business insurance is not in place at SE.

You'll need to Register first of course.

noskitrip, now I am no expert but that almost sounds as if you ought to have a claim against AM Trust, as they withdrew their cover (said it didn't exist) after the date meaning that you could not claim on your own insurance or possibly against AITO for failing to adequately protect you and check up on SE, however no doubt this is where things will get seriously messy

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

noskitrip, Can I ask why you did not try and claim on your insurance when it all went wrong? It might be worth reading the small print about being insured or not if other cover was in place, which it should have been. You have only just found out you did not have other insurance?

After all it is free

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

noskitrip, you seem to have done a bit of digging on this issue, so (in general) had you acted immediately in claiming on your own insurance (rather than waiting for other ways of schools getting the money back on your behalf) would you have had a better chance of getting an insurance pay-out? - did any others of your parent group go down this route of claiming against their personal insurance ?

snow reports

rayscoops,

rayscoops, difficult situation if noskitrip, had claimed instantly then they would not have had an obvious claim as at that time it was thought that CR / SE had insurance and so that should have paid, likewise I'm not sure how clear it was to the organisers at the school plus parents and kids that no accommodation had actually been booked so no claim there either.

I suspect this will end up being a big Fraud case with little or no chance of funds ever being recovered as CR has probably hidden these payments away under someone else's name.

You know it makes sense.

D G Orf it is tricky but the parent simply had a trip booked with a school that had been cancelled by the school - whatever happened above and beyond that level is a bit irrelevant and for the other parties to sort out. What harm would it be if such an insurance claim failed anyway ?

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

Shimmy Alcott, it sure is a mess - multiple insurances, local authorities, acadamy school owners (btw who funds acadamy schools and who is responsible for its debts Puzzled

) travel industry governing bodies, etc and still the 'little person' is out of pocket on this - as always the case it seems these days.

A snowHead

I wasn’t going to add to my post above but, I will, as I been informed that my post could have been miss-leading, by someone who actually does understand all the legal stuff.

Mrs_W (who is a lawyer and works in a firm that mainly works for insurance companies) has pointed out the DogTag policy I referred would not have paid out in these circumstances as they specifically don’t pay out in the event of your TO going belly up. Her advice for anyone who has lost money in this case is to simply move on as you’re almost certainly not going to get anything back unless the school/LEA or your own insurance company hands over the cash, but she understands that for some people this will be difficult.

So if you have a DogTag policy, then move on and forget it. If you have another policy then read the small print and get your claim in.

PS Mrs_W says Hi to all the nice people she met at the ESOB this year.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Wayne, TO has not gone belly up though Puzzled

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Exactly, and whether folks get their money back or not, I'd like to see SE/CR brought to book by the police or anyone. Otherwise, where is the lesson to others to behave any better. If you take peoples money and don't deliver, or act fraudulently along the way, then its a police matter to procecute, yes? But it seems its easier to process traffic violations where the perpetrators are 90% honest and just make errors of judgement. Someone needs to get SE/CR into a court and have a judgement made.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

snowjoe, Putting aside all other meanderings on the subject here what you say is everybody's wish, unfortunately it will be down to the police to put a case to the CPS and then their evaluation of whether they are cast iron sure that they have him banged to rights, past experience with the CPS on this basis is not good. The whole thing is a mess and it is the parents and kids who ultimately will lose out.

You'll need to Register first of course.

leedsunited,

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

Stephen101, the AM Trust insurance relates to the failier of a TO, a claim for a cancelled holiday by a school would not seem to relate to this Puzzled

What the CPS say about the decision to prosecute

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

achilles,

If you look at link you kindly provided - it can be seen that for the evidential test a realistic prospect of conviction is usually defined as "more likely than not" - this is in theory a 51% chance of success which is rather less that the "cast iron" level suggested by leedsunited, I am aware that for certain types of cases that the probablility level would be varied by the CPS - but I have my doubts that CR would fall into such a category. I would expect little problem in meeting the public interest test.

rayscoops, given that you do not have access to the wording of the particular policies it is all pretty academic as to what they actually cover and don't cover. All I can say is that in my case I know that people with appropriate skills looked through the various policies and I have no reason whatsover to doubt their assessments or to believe that they were involved in any conspiracy to mislead/misinform parents or to cover up what you claim are the illegal acts of teachers etc.etc. But I suppose you are in a better position to second guess their conclusions and judgements without have the same access to the actual fact pattern or documentation - could you please explain why this is the case?

Help!!

Skiing Europe/Chris Reynard - Children's ski holiday left in ruins.

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste