Travlaw’s Matt Gatenby & Stephen Mason analyse the government’s Call for Evidence on the Package Travel Regulations (PTRs)
The long-awaited Department for Business and Trade (DBT) review of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 was launched last week with a Call For Evidence that will be followed by a more consultation in the first part of 2024.
These are our initial insights at Travlaw:
Linked Travel Arrangements (LTAs): These are either going to be simplified or on the way out. LTAs never worked well and caused head scratching among businesses and customers. Our concern is that the proposals to simplify LTAs look complicated and may not reduce the confusion. Removing LTAs may be the direction of travel. A point to bear in mind is that LTAs were not meant to initiate a new type of product but intended to shut off a potential loophole in the definition of a package and ensure some customer protection. Removing LTAs would risk re-opening that loophole.
Exemption of lower priced packages: This is a surprising suggestion, one not previously mooted. The proposal is for a price threshold below which the PTRs would not apply. The aim appears to be to reduce the cost of travel. It could mean you are protected if you can afford a £10,000 holiday but lose your money if you paid £500. It remains to be seen whether anyone would welcome that, but it might be difficult to implement.
Insolvency protection: Atol reform is already underway, and it makes no sense for the Atol and PTR processes to be this separate. But here is an opportunity for the industry to have much-needed input on this. The government is seeking ways to increase flexibility across financial protection, but it will depend on the market providing products. More choice for businesses can only be positive. But there remains the issue of double protection offered by credit cards and chargebacks.
Other tourist services: There is a proposal to change the definition of ‘other tourist services’ to shift the relevant test from the value of a service as a proportion of the package price to whether it is an ‘essential feature’. While there is an argument that this does not need fixing, the proposal could make things simpler.
UK domestic packages: The DBT was expected to propose exempting domestic packages that do not include travel from the PTRs and that seems to be the plan. However, there is an option to remove domestic packages from the regulations altogether. The question is whether this is meant to apply to all such packages in the UK. In reality, a UK company offering a UK trip to French students would have to offer protection under France’s interpretation of the Package Travel Directive.
Information schedules: Changes here aim to make the information provided to customers more consumer friendly. We don’t foresee many businesses objecting to that so long as the requirements are sensible. Changes to business travel: the proposal here is to change the definition of a traveller to exclude business travellers from the PTRs and remove the need for a ‘General Agreement’. This feels like another ‘it’s not broken, don’t fix it’ situation. But the government is saying ‘We want your views’.
Redress from third parties: The government has finally acknowledged the difficulties organisers have in obtaining redress from suppliers when they have to refund customers. That is overdue. However, there is no proposal here – just “tell us more about your concerns”.
Covid 19: The issue of 14-day refunds is addressed, albeit phrased around whether there should be a mechanism to extend this deadline in extenuating circumstances. Few travel businesses would say ‘No’ to that. Here is an opportunity to give feedback on your experiences in the pandemic.
Final thoughts: The document can’t be described as landscape-changing, but there are areas in which it could have a significant impact. There is no mention of the status of Foreign Office (FCDO) advice, on which the industry could really do with some guidance, although the press release which accompanied the consultation alludes to improving the situation around “significant disruption” and “unforeseen circumstance”.
The window for giving feedback on the Call for Evidence is 12 weeks.
Matt Gatenby is senior partner and Stephen Mason senior counsel at travel law specialist Travlaw. See www.travlaw.co.uk for more insight on the law relating to travel.