Legal Quiz

Nozza Packages is a short-haul operator which sells packages exclusively. It has fairly extensive booking conditions.

One of these says that Nozza Packages may cancel the package up to seven days before the agreed date of departure and that, aside from repayment of the holiday money, the customer will not receive compensation if the reason for cancellation is because the number of holidaymakers taking a particular package is less than the minimum number required by Nozza Packages.

There is a further condition which provides that where something goes wrong with a package, for which Nozza Packages is liable, the customer, provided there has been no personal injury, will receive a maximum amount of compensation, which amounts to a refund of the holiday price.

Nozza Package receives a letter from its local trading standards officer claiming that its booking conditions are subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 and that the two conditions referred to above are void as a result of these regulations.

Is Nozza Packages’ booking conditions subject to the 1994 regulations?

Is Nozza Packages’ cancellation provision void?

Is Nozza Packages’ limitation of compensation void?

Question one: Generally, no. The 1994 regulations do not apply to standard booking conditions designed to comply with or reflect other legislation and provided, therefore, that Nozza Packages ‘booking conditions are designed to comply with or reflect the Package Travel Regulations, the 1994 regulations should not apply.

Question two: No. This reflects Regulation 13 of the Package Travel Regulations.

Question three: No. This reflects Regulation 15 (4) of the Package Travel Regulations.

Mr N Picker books a coach tour for 15 nights across Canada with Bus-U-Well, a tour operator.

The tour involves visiting various cities in Canada but has one distinct feature which is an overnight ferry transfer.

On the day the coach tour is supposed to go on the ferry, Bus-U-Well is told by the ferry company that, wholly unexpectedly, the ferry has had to be withdrawn from operation.

At short notice, Bus-U-Well makes alternative arrangements which involve a much longer driving on the coach than initially anticipated.

Mr N Picker is most unhappy about the alternative arrangements and tells the rep. He claims that the ferry transport was a particular highlight for him and that its withdrawal has ruined the holiday for him.

He also claims that the alterations mean that he should have been entitled to be repatriated to the UK and that he is entitled to a total refund of his holiday costs together with compensation for loss of enjoyment.

Question 1

Is Mr N Picker entitled to be repatriated to the UK?

Question 2

Is Mr N Picker entitled to any compensation?

Question 3

If there is any entitlement to compensation what is the effect of Mr N Picker’s claim about the significance of the ferry transport?

Question one: No. There is an obligation upon the tour operator to make reasonable alternative arrangements and provided these are made, the customer does not have the right to be repatriated as a result of a significant alteration while on holiday.

Question two: No, provided that the reason for the alteration was genuinely a force majeure event and provided that there is no real financial difference between the services actually provided and those which were to be provided.

Question three: In general, a customer is only entitled to enhanced compensation for failure of a particular event if the customer notifies the tour operator in advance of its significance or its insignificance should have been known to the tour operator.