Message from ABTA A disgrace.

happyandcontented

zagfles said:

happyandcontented said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

I wonder how many people whining that they can't have their money back for a service that the airline/tour operator/hotel can no longer provide through no fault of theirs, at the same time have the hypocrisy to expect their employer, or the government, to carry on paying them for work they can no longer do, or no longer do as well, because of the same reason?

Many have already been made redundant by their employer. Many businesses (including mine) have provided refunds or changed terms of contracts to benefit the consumer rather than the financials of the business. Many business owners are getting next to no support from the Gov and are still doing the right thing. 

Oh I'm sure some are. But others will be taking the "furlough", the self employed support, the business support packages, will be working at home even though their employment contract states they must attend a workplace, expecting full pay even though they can't provide full service, or be not working at all yet expecting 80% pay.

People and companies through no fault of their own are unable to provide their usual service, in some cases any service. If you're expecting travel companies to give a full refund for service they're unable to provide, fine, as long as you're not expecting your employer or the govt to pay you if you can't fulfil your employment contract.  

Not sure employment law and consumer law can really be compared. Surely if you are still employed you expect to be paid regardless of where you work. It is up to the business to decide whether to maintain employment. It isn't acase of the employee being hypocritical. 

Further, I would say that no one is suggesting the travel companies shouldn't receive help/support. What people are saying is they shouldn't use their customers' funds to leverage Government into assistance and let's not forget these companies are UK limited companies. There are clear processes to go through when you can't pay your obligations. These companies will no doubt be furloughing their staff to save 80% of their wages but still not paying back customers monies. Surely that would be the mother of all hypocrisies. 

Only if you think staff costs are the only costs. Maybe they should furlough all their staff, who'd process the refunds then? 

It was a point of principle - if in this crisis you don't cut others some slack when they can't deliver on a contract through no fault of their own, don't expect others to cut you slack when you can't deliver on your contract (employment or otherwise). 

The only way I think of comparing it is if you were an employee who has been made redundant despite there being processes in place to help the business not do that. Would you cut you just say 'hey ho' and  cut your employer "slack"? 

The other issue is many/most of us purchase insurance which protects us against businesses who can't pay their bills. The move by Abta etc prevents us from using such insurance (at this time).

Also annoying is many of these companies are happily posting away on social media saying things like..."what a great season it was before it ended...can't wait to see you all next season" etc whilst sitting on customers monies. It's all a little tasteless imo. 

Anyway, the good companies will shine through in these times (as some already have) and the rest will rightly so get an absolute panning for how they have handled the crisis. 

You really have been whooshed.

I have an employment contract that specifies I must attend a workplace. I can't fulfill that, so my company cuts me some slack and allows me to work at home, even though I can't do some aspects of my job here. They pay me the full amount for doing a partial job. That's a reasonable reaction to the current crisis. They aren't saying "we're not paying you as you can't provide what it says in your contract". That would be a petty unreasonable reaction to a crisis that wasn't my fault.

In the same vein, I've booked 3 upcoming events that have been postponed. I booked them for particular dates which suited us. Those have now been cancelled/postponed. I have accepted either vouchers or postponements to as yet unknown future dates, as I thought that was fair and reasonable. I am not saying "you can't provide exactly what you promised so I'm not paying you". That would be a petty unreasonable reaction to a crisis that is not their fault.

I am not quite sure why you keep flipping it around but it really doesn't even come close to reasonable analogy. At the very least you are suggesting we should be happy paying the same, like your employer, but getting less. Ignoring again how odd a comparison that is....as of now we haven't got anything so we are paying the same and getting nothing. As other people have said we are not here to keep the company solvent. 

Oh I do apologise. I though you were being offered vouchers/future dates, rather than "nothing". I must be mistaken.

Our problem is that the insurance company have made that nearly impossible as they have moved the goalposts. What would you do?

Can you not take vouchers and then book when all this is over?

We are tied to school holidays, and the resort we want to visit is not open in October which will be around the first time (perhaps) that we could risk booking. We are, therefore, looking at this time next year, a full 12 months, during which time the company will have £4k of our cash, which will not then buy the same holiday, as prices will definitely rise due to demand when this is all over. There is also the issue of them folding and us having to take the other much more longwinded routes to reclaim monies.

If we were to book and this issue has had a new wave then we would not be covered by our insurance policy.
Hand on heart would you take vouchers under those circumstances?

V1m_Fuego

happyandcontented said:

zagfles said:

happyandcontented said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

I wonder how many people whining that they can't have their money back for a service that the airline/tour operator/hotel can no longer provide through no fault of theirs, at the same time have the hypocrisy to expect their employer, or the government, to carry on paying them for work they can no longer do, or no longer do as well, because of the same reason?

Many have already been made redundant by their employer. Many businesses (including mine) have provided refunds or changed terms of contracts to benefit the consumer rather than the financials of the business. Many business owners are getting next to no support from the Gov and are still doing the right thing. 

Oh I'm sure some are. But others will be taking the "furlough", the self employed support, the business support packages, will be working at home even though their employment contract states they must attend a workplace, expecting full pay even though they can't provide full service, or be not working at all yet expecting 80% pay.

People and companies through no fault of their own are unable to provide their usual service, in some cases any service. If you're expecting travel companies to give a full refund for service they're unable to provide, fine, as long as you're not expecting your employer or the govt to pay you if you can't fulfil your employment contract.  

Not sure employment law and consumer law can really be compared. Surely if you are still employed you expect to be paid regardless of where you work. It is up to the business to decide whether to maintain employment. It isn't acase of the employee being hypocritical. 

Further, I would say that no one is suggesting the travel companies shouldn't receive help/support. What people are saying is they shouldn't use their customers' funds to leverage Government into assistance and let's not forget these companies are UK limited companies. There are clear processes to go through when you can't pay your obligations. These companies will no doubt be furloughing their staff to save 80% of their wages but still not paying back customers monies. Surely that would be the mother of all hypocrisies. 

Only if you think staff costs are the only costs. Maybe they should furlough all their staff, who'd process the refunds then? 

It was a point of principle - if in this crisis you don't cut others some slack when they can't deliver on a contract through no fault of their own, don't expect others to cut you slack when you can't deliver on your contract (employment or otherwise). 

The only way I think of comparing it is if you were an employee who has been made redundant despite there being processes in place to help the business not do that. Would you cut you just say 'hey ho' and  cut your employer "slack"? 

The other issue is many/most of us purchase insurance which protects us against businesses who can't pay their bills. The move by Abta etc prevents us from using such insurance (at this time).

Also annoying is many of these companies are happily posting away on social media saying things like..."what a great season it was before it ended...can't wait to see you all next season" etc whilst sitting on customers monies. It's all a little tasteless imo. 

Anyway, the good companies will shine through in these times (as some already have) and the rest will rightly so get an absolute panning for how they have handled the crisis. 

You really have been whooshed.

I have an employment contract that specifies I must attend a workplace. I can't fulfill that, so my company cuts me some slack and allows me to work at home, even though I can't do some aspects of my job here. They pay me the full amount for doing a partial job. That's a reasonable reaction to the current crisis. They aren't saying "we're not paying you as you can't provide what it says in your contract". That would be a petty unreasonable reaction to a crisis that wasn't my fault.

In the same vein, I've booked 3 upcoming events that have been postponed. I booked them for particular dates which suited us. Those have now been cancelled/postponed. I have accepted either vouchers or postponements to as yet unknown future dates, as I thought that was fair and reasonable. I am not saying "you can't provide exactly what you promised so I'm not paying you". That would be a petty unreasonable reaction to a crisis that is not their fault.

I am not quite sure why you keep flipping it around but it really doesn't even come close to reasonable analogy. At the very least you are suggesting we should be happy paying the same, like your employer, but getting less. Ignoring again how odd a comparison that is....as of now we haven't got anything so we are paying the same and getting nothing. As other people have said we are not here to keep the company solvent. 

Oh I do apologise. I though you were being offered vouchers/future dates, rather than "nothing". I must be mistaken.

Our problem is that the insurance company have made that nearly impossible as they have moved the goalposts. What would you do?

Can you not take vouchers and then book when all this is over?

We are tied to school holidays, and the resort we want to visit is not open in October which will be around the first time (perhaps) that we could risk booking. We are, therefore, looking at this time next year, a full 12 months, during which time the company will have £4k of our cash, which will not then buy the same holiday, as prices will definitely rise due to demand when this is all over. There is also the issue of them folding and us having to take the other much more longwinded routes to reclaim monies.

If we were to book and this issue has had a new wave then we would not be covered by our insurance policy.
Hand on heart would you take vouchers under those circumstances?

This is precisely why I will not accept vouchers. There are far too many unknowns, ranging from travel company going under after taking a voucher before travel is permitted, to further lockdowns in future that aren't covered by a voucher.  Full refund the the only viable resolution, even if that means we have to pay more at a later date.

The whole reason I pay for travel insurance is to mitigate unknowns  I do t want to have to deal with companies trying to weasel their way about, after happily taking my premiums.

happyandcontented

Ryanair appears to be the sticking point in our package refund, they have not yet refunded the TA. I am wondering whether that is actually my problem though?

My contract is for a full package with the TA not for flights/hotel. The hotel has refunded them, but yet, I am being asked to wait for the whole refund (I suspect now they are playing the waiting game until laws/regs are changed in their favour) why are they not refunding in stages? Or in full and waiting themselves for the complete refunds to be issued by Ryanair?

I would be happy to take the partial refund and apply the flight portion as a deposit for a holiday next year but I don't want them to have all my monies for over 12 months.

Is there a protocol or law affecting this type of circumstance?

MaebyJade

zagfles said:

Some have reduced them, EasyJet are selling loads of flights in the autumn onwards for about £30

This goes to prove the point more no? Flights are reduced, accommodation probably the same but if you look at package holidays, they have gone up. The holiday companies are increasing their prices to make better margin to cover prior losses. I asked if I could delay my holiday to the same time next year and was told no because the prices would probably be different. Exact same holiday, exact same time of time but at an inflated price. It's a free market, they can put their prices up if they want however, when they are refusing to refund customers it's no longer fair.   

bagand96

happyandcontented said:

Ryanair appears to be the sticking point in our package refund, they have not yet refunded the TA. I am wondering whether that is actually my problem though?

My contract is for a full package with the TA not for flights/hotel. The hotel has refunded them, but yet, I am being asked to wait for the whole refund (I suspect now they are playing the waiting game until laws/regs are changed in their favour) why are they not refunding in stages? Or in full and waiting themselves for the complete refunds to be issued by Ryanair?

I would be happy to take the partial refund and apply the flight portion as a deposit for a holiday next year but I don't want them to have all my monies for over 12 months.

Is there a protocol or law affecting this type of circumstance?

It depends what you have booked exactly, and who with? If it is a true package holiday then you are correct that their arrangements with their suppliers are not your concern. 

AgentOso1

happyandcontented said:

Ryanair appears to be the sticking point in our package refund, they have not yet refunded the TA. I am wondering whether that is actually my problem though?

My contract is for a full package with the TA not for flights/hotel. The hotel has refunded them, but yet, I am being asked to wait for the whole refund (I suspect now they are playing the waiting game until laws/regs are changed in their favour) why are they not refunding in stages? Or in full and waiting themselves for the complete refunds to be issued by Ryanair?

I would be happy to take the partial refund and apply the flight portion as a deposit for a holiday next year but I don't want them to have all my monies for over 12 months.

Is there a protocol or law affecting this type of circumstance?

This is my very point with my TA. They are insisting they need TUI to refund them first. From my point of view my financial transaction was with the agent, not TUI.

zagfles

happyandcontented said:

zagfles said:

happyandcontented said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

JasonUK123 said:

zagfles said:

I wonder how many people whining that they can't have their money back for a service that the airline/tour operator/hotel can no longer provide through no fault of theirs, at the same time have the hypocrisy to expect their employer, or the government, to carry on paying them for work they can no longer do, or no longer do as well, because of the same reason?

Many have already been made redundant by their employer. Many businesses (including mine) have provided refunds or changed terms of contracts to benefit the consumer rather than the financials of the business. Many business owners are getting next to no support from the Gov and are still doing the right thing. 

Oh I'm sure some are. But others will be taking the "furlough", the self employed support, the business support packages, will be working at home even though their employment contract states they must attend a workplace, expecting full pay even though they can't provide full service, or be not working at all yet expecting 80% pay.

People and companies through no fault of their own are unable to provide their usual service, in some cases any service. If you're expecting travel companies to give a full refund for service they're unable to provide, fine, as long as you're not expecting your employer or the govt to pay you if you can't fulfil your employment contract.  

Not sure employment law and consumer law can really be compared. Surely if you are still employed you expect to be paid regardless of where you work. It is up to the business to decide whether to maintain employment. It isn't acase of the employee being hypocritical. 

Further, I would say that no one is suggesting the travel companies shouldn't receive help/support. What people are saying is they shouldn't use their customers' funds to leverage Government into assistance and let's not forget these companies are UK limited companies. There are clear processes to go through when you can't pay your obligations. These companies will no doubt be furloughing their staff to save 80% of their wages but still not paying back customers monies. Surely that would be the mother of all hypocrisies. 

Only if you think staff costs are the only costs. Maybe they should furlough all their staff, who'd process the refunds then? 

It was a point of principle - if in this crisis you don't cut others some slack when they can't deliver on a contract through no fault of their own, don't expect others to cut you slack when you can't deliver on your contract (employment or otherwise). 

The only way I think of comparing it is if you were an employee who has been made redundant despite there being processes in place to help the business not do that. Would you cut you just say 'hey ho' and  cut your employer "slack"? 

The other issue is many/most of us purchase insurance which protects us against businesses who can't pay their bills. The move by Abta etc prevents us from using such insurance (at this time).

Also annoying is many of these companies are happily posting away on social media saying things like..."what a great season it was before it ended...can't wait to see you all next season" etc whilst sitting on customers monies. It's all a little tasteless imo. 

Anyway, the good companies will shine through in these times (as some already have) and the rest will rightly so get an absolute panning for how they have handled the crisis. 

You really have been whooshed.

I have an employment contract that specifies I must attend a workplace. I can't fulfill that, so my company cuts me some slack and allows me to work at home, even though I can't do some aspects of my job here. They pay me the full amount for doing a partial job. That's a reasonable reaction to the current crisis. They aren't saying "we're not paying you as you can't provide what it says in your contract". That would be a petty unreasonable reaction to a crisis that wasn't my fault.

In the same vein, I've booked 3 upcoming events that have been postponed. I booked them for particular dates which suited us. Those have now been cancelled/postponed. I have accepted either vouchers or postponements to as yet unknown future dates, as I thought that was fair and reasonable. I am not saying "you can't provide exactly what you promised so I'm not paying you". That would be a petty unreasonable reaction to a crisis that is not their fault.

I am not quite sure why you keep flipping it around but it really doesn't even come close to reasonable analogy. At the very least you are suggesting we should be happy paying the same, like your employer, but getting less. Ignoring again how odd a comparison that is....as of now we haven't got anything so we are paying the same and getting nothing. As other people have said we are not here to keep the company solvent. 

Oh I do apologise. I though you were being offered vouchers/future dates, rather than "nothing". I must be mistaken.

Our problem is that the insurance company have made that nearly impossible as they have moved the goalposts. What would you do?

Can you not take vouchers and then book when all this is over?

We are tied to school holidays, and the resort we want to visit is not open in October which will be around the first time (perhaps) that we could risk booking. We are, therefore, looking at this time next year, a full 12 months, during which time the company will have £4k of our cash, which will not then buy the same holiday, as prices will definitely rise due to demand when this is all over. There is also the issue of them folding and us having to take the other much more longwinded routes to reclaim monies.

If we were to book and this issue has had a new wave then we would not be covered by our insurance policy.
Hand on heart would you take vouchers under those circumstances?

It was a general principle - if due to the current situation which clearly wasn't their fault, they can't give me want I paid for, but they can give me something similar, maybe not exactly what I wanted, maybe not even quite as good, then I would take it. In the same way I expect to be treated if I can't do what I'm contracted to do (employment or otherwise). Make the best of it, allow give and take.

Scrambling for refunds in case they go bust is the same logic as panic buyers - get in there before there's nothing left, and in doing so, making it more likely the company will go bust and leave others out of pocket. Besides credit card or maybe insurance may cover them going bust (depending on terms etc).

People are going to lose money through all this, some people will lose their jobs, some companies will go bust, some customers will lose out, some peoples' pensions have been decimated by the falls in the stockmarket. Normal rights and freedoms are being restricted, I can't visit my friends/relatives, I can't play sports, I can't go on holiday. You can't expect people or companies to act in a normal way through this.

stephandbrian

We booked our trip over 1 year ago and like so many others, it was cancelled as Cunard cancelled the cruise and South Africa closed their borders.
The company we booked our trip through are now prevaricating in respect of a refund, as are BA.(We paid extra to BA to sit together and they don't seem to want to reply to our request!)
The travel company are quoting ABTA who are saying that refunds should be processed by 31st July 2020, despite the fact that the 2018 Package Travel Regulations state we are entitled to a refund within 14 days.
What right have ABTA got to instruct the travel company in regards to a date of refund?
Also, we understand that there are suggestions that travel companies are asking the government to extend refund delays for up to 2 years - by offering refund vouchers which cannot be 'cashed in' for 2 years after the issue date. How can this be right and fair?
We appreciate that everyone has issues but we feel ABTA is altering rules before the government has made any decision.
Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?

[Deleted User]

There doesn't seem to be any mention of those, like us, who were on holiday and had it cut short by the situation- 4 days into a 16 day tour when it was halted. I think in those circumstances we should get a (pro rata) cash refund. Indeed, we have a letter from the provider promising this with 28 days so I'm on countdown to 17 April when time's up!

SevenOfNine

Looks like ABTA have made their own decision on what a traveller will have to accept by way of a credit travel voucher, INITIALLY with a refund after 31July, not bothering to wait for government intervention then, just a law unto themselves. Even refusing to inestigate complaints against their members in relation to coronavirus refunds.

https://www.abta.com/news/coronavirus-outbreak