 Poster: A snowHead
|
In a tiny section of the reams of paper we get sent from the CAA is a VERY important little bit of “proposed” changes to the ATOL scheme. It’s hidden away in Annex F – section 26. The proposal is to cancel the right to a refund for customers of ATOL holders when their flight/holiday/etc is cancelled due to failure of the ATOL holder, if the departure date is after the date of the failure - in other word 99% of customers
This is typical government speak for “if your TO has gone bust, ain’t life tuff, and no you can’t have your money back. Yeah I know you used to be able to get a refund but not anymore.”
But the good news is that MP’s have voted to relax the rules on MP’s expenses, so that’s alright then.
What a stupid idea. We have objected via the forms they sent us, but I doubt they’ll take our objection in consideration.
So how do the gov suggest that this situation should be resolved (in other words to keep it as it is now – where if you book with an ATOL bonded TO, you’ll get yo7u cash back if they go bust. Well (of course) the “proposed” changes say that ATOL holders will be encouraged to provide separate private cover. But hang on a mo. Hmmmmmm.
Oh yeah. There is also the “proposal” to introduce the require for full ATOL bonding for Flight Plus holidays. These are holidays where the accommodation, transfer, flights, etc, etc (and anything else you can think of) our sold / provided separately by a single person/company or by various people/companies.
And, of interest to certain people ? there will be a requirement for other, whether for profit or not, organisers to obtain bonding. Note that they want to change the word Agent to “Organisers”?? Saying nowt about that but ....I don't think (maybe wrong but I doubt it) that this will apply to a group of mates who going skiing every now and again but, it will almost certainly be expanded to include organisers who run there types of club/group trips (where for profit or not) on a regular basis... who knows.
Ok, at the moment these are just gov proposals and they are asking TO’s for feedback. But has any ever heard of the CAA (or any part of the gov for that matter) changing its mind when they see another bunch of people they can grab cash off, due to a few people objecting. We'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
After all we can't have the DIY sector getting bigger than the TO sector can we  |
I don't for one minute think that the CAA is looking to make any money from the people busily packing away their gaffer tape and IKEA sandwich boxes and other vital ski trip equipment.
I would think this is just a method for the gov to take in more, from people/companies that did not previously require bonding, and pay out less, to people who would normally have been entitled to a refund.
EDIT - words are important . Note the change of supplied to provided.
VERY important.
eg. If you arrange a coach transfer then could not have been said to have supplied it unless you paid the bus co or own the bus, but (according to Mrs_W, lawer) you are providing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| there will be a requirement for other, whether for profit or not, organisers to obtain bonding. Note that they want to change the word Agent to “Organisers”?? Saying nowt about that but ....I don't think (maybe wrong but I doubt it) that this will apply to a group of mates who going skiing every now and again but, it will almost certainly be expanded to include organisers who run there types of club/group trips (where for profit or not) on a regular basis... who knows. |
You mean the sort of group where members have, for example, pre-season, birthday and end of season trips'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Speaking of words being important
| wayne wrote: |
| I don't think (maybe wrong but I doubt it) that this will apply to a group of mates who going skiing every now and again |
It should have been
| wayne wrote: |
| I don't think (maybe wrong but I doubt it) that this will not apply to a group of mates who going skiing every now and again |
Guvnor,
I imagine (again may be wrong) there will be some form of exclusion for school groups, etc. in the same way as there was when the adventurous activities act came out. My personal opinion is that most schools tend to run good ski trips for the kids and they should continue to do so, but thats been covered in another thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Wayne, I was thinking more along the lines of 'friendly ski clubs'.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm... troubled times for TOs as punters begin to clock that they aren't really that well protected? I can imagine club trips or large private parties being a nightmare to the extent that they aren't even worth bothering with if the worst case pans out and they require full bonding as well. I doubt that insurers will be slow off the mark in offering "top-up" TO failure insurance at a price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guvnor,
Oh, the Snowheads bashes.
I have just checked this with our account supervisor at the CAA (I didn't mention any names)
No  's does not need an ATOL bond, nor do any of the proposals change this.
As long as people book AND PAY FOR (capitals, so that's important) their own flights - or at least as long as the organiser of the bash doesn't.
Why? simple. They are not the organiser of a UK based tour. Ok, admin may sort out the accommodation but this is not covered by the ATOL bonding scheme.
The only problem I can see is with the so called "lardy busses". As the wholes trip (that Admin sorts out) starts and finishes outside the UK they would not be covered under our regs, but (as an example) under Italian rules they would be classed as a tour – transport and accommodation. I honestly don’t have a clue about the French regulations, so can’t help here.
Of course there is the moral obligation for Admin to provide everyone on the bashes with free Jelly Babies at the top of some steep slopes but that's another topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Wayne, Lardybus is not organised or paid for by Admin. It is a separate arrangement that another SnowHead organises and pays for. Money for this doesn't even go to the SnowHeads account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hells Bells,
There you go SH's does not need an ATOL or anything else.
I have chatted with G loads of times and he knows what he's doing, so no worries.
But, my point about Jelly Babies still stands.
It all revolves around where the tour starts, so some clubs will need to look at the (new) regs to ensure they are doing everything correctly.
The new regs will fully incorporate 90/314/EEC (which are not that much different from our own regs anyway)
So some schools (depending on how they operate the trips) and most ski clubs will be included within the new regs (most of them are already, even if they didn't know it)
See 90/314/EEC, Article 2, section 1, clause 3
and
90/314/EEC, Article 2, section 3
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Wed 3-08-11 11:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
The Lardybus tour wouldn't need an ATOL as it's missing the vital "Air" ingredient, however could possibly fall under the Package Travel Regs depending on how it is sold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
But has any ever heard of the CAA (or any part of the gov for that matter) changing its mind when they see another bunch of people they can grab cash off, due to a few people objecting.
|
Yes. But with HSE.
Completely OT... We were an interested party included in a change of legislation. In effect HSE as the official competent body propose what should become law, but then 650 odd MPs debate this, and make amendments, with no education whatsoever on the topic. So what was signed in to law and what HSE and all interested parties had agreed and compromised on was different. This royally screwed us over, and HSE were mildly furious too. SO working with HSE, we got an amendment thru, which was duly signed in to law. OK it's still a compromise, but you have to take what you can get.
I have no idea about what is or is not included on travel insurance policies, but I guess the plan is to have bonding there to avoid people getting stranded, and insurance to compensate for non-delivery of contractually agreed arrangements? But yeah, I expect to see a bit more marketing, pushing holiday protection insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowsteve wrote: |
| The Lardybus tour wouldn't need an ATOL as it's missing the vital "Air" ingredient, however could possibly fall under the Package Travel Regs depending on how it is sold. |
snowsteve,
Doubt it. Unless it's offered at an inclusive cost.
And, as far as I know, the bashes offer accommodation and transport separately AND offered to the end user separately and by different people
Hells Bells,
Just checked and it doesn't matter where the money goes or who sorts it out.
But it does matter (a great deal) who offers it to the end user though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Wayne,
| Quote: |
| n a tiny section of the reams of paper we get sent from the CAA is a VERY important little bit of “proposed” changes to the ATOL scheme. It’s hidden away in Annex F – section 26. The proposal is to cancel the right to a refund for customers of ATOL holders when their flight/holiday/etc is cancelled due to failure of the ATOL holder, if the departure date is after the date of the failure - in other word 99% of customers |
The cynic in me see this as a way to "encourage" customers to have adequate travel cover to avoid incidences like this and those on the news out of Indonesia. Whilst I feel sorry for these guys they had the choice and took the cheaper (ultimately more expensive) version. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-14188564
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
While obviously sorry about their personal situation re their son's condition this is a classic case of how people who don't need to claim smugly tell you how much money they've saved whereas those who need to claim tell you a sob story about having to sell their house.
I have much more sympathy for those people who have the insurance rug pulled from under them by AITO, ATOL, Equitable Life or whoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Wayne, your jelly baby requirement has already been in force for some time. To qualify, you just have to ski with me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
TallTone, Thought you were a boarder now, or is that just your Olympic event? evil:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
In a tiny section of the reams of paper we get sent from the CAA is a VERY important little bit of “proposed” changes to the ATOL scheme. It’s hidden away in Annex F – section 26. The proposal is to cancel the right to a refund for customers of ATOL holders when their flight/holiday/etc is cancelled due to failure of the ATOL holder, if the departure date is after the date of the failure - in other word 99% of customers
|
Wayne,
Wouldn't you be protected from tour operator failure if you paid for your holiday with your credit card? Most people are likely to pay for a high value item such as a holiday using their credit card and anything over £100 is usually covered.
I can see why they specify 'if the departure date is after the date of failure'. You still need a bond in place to pay for accommodation and the flights home of people who are stranded abroad due to a tour operator collapsing. Surely those who hadn't departed would just look to a refund from their credit card company.
The process of claiming from the CAA is long and laborious and their customer service skills aren't fantastic. My son and his mates booked their holiday with goldtrail last summer but they went bust the week before they were due to go. The process seemed to deter people from actually claiming and it took them eleven months to receive a refund.
My experience of claiming from my credit card was far better when speedferries went bust, they paid up within 3 months even though the amount I had paid was under the normal £100 limit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I can see a lot of small TOs struggling to make a name for themselves getting shafted with this - unless they can come up with an insurance policy with a big provider that covers it if they fail.
Probably as a result of pressure from the big TOs, struggling because the little guys are doing a better job of it, at a more competitive price, and looking after customers who keep coming back and share the positive experience.
Instead of fixing the real problem, crap customer service from big TOs - they decide to fix a small problem, competition from the little guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Jivebaby, yeah, I keep the tray for special occasions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
