Fight rages over Abta protection

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Chris Gray


Abta has been told to target its retail members rather than bed banks if it wants to tackle risky business models. The association was urged to look to retailers as chief executive Mark Tanzer, speaking at the Travel Convention, defended its plans to make all members responsible for money collected on their behalf.

The move is designed to stop customers losing out in the event of an agency failure, and Abta says it will encourage retailers and suppliers to adopt less risky business models.

But Chris Photi, senior partner at White Hart Associates, writing on ttglive.com, said that Abta was unfairly portraying bed banks as “big bad wolves”.

Photi said bed banks had adapted an “unbelievably flexible and workable” model that allowed Abta’s retail members to “abdicate responsibility for the consumer”.

Those members should look at their protection and terms with suppliers, he said.

Somewhere2stay managing director Stuart Jackson agreed that the issue was not one for the bed banks, which just supply the product agents need, but for the association’s retailers, which choose the commercial models they work by.

“If Abta wants to tidy this up to show the association stands for something, retailers also have to distribute and sell in such a way that honours the Abta badge,” he said.

Jackson will start talks with his retail partners next week on options including leaving Abta or changing commercial terms with retailers.

Tanzer said Abta’s move was a “strong statement of principle”. But he insisted it did not constitute a judgement on the merits of one business model over another.

Abta board member John de Vial said Abta’s rule change could encourage a less risky approach to the deals retailers strike with suppliers.

He said: “Should Abta members be able to appoint someone as a distribution point and then not take responsibility? We think that’s wrong.”

TC 2009: McEwan calls for Speakman debate (8 Oct 2009)



Comment on this Story


2  Responses to this Story

1.  Posted by Paul Sawbridge, On 08/10/2009 15:00

David Speakman is absolutely spot on in his assessment of the way ABTA has tried to replace real consumer protection with nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Unfortunately this is not the only symptom of the malaise which has befallen ABTA in the last few years. The pipeline money protection it offers to operators has suffered a similar fate. Retail members whose cheques bounce are no longer considered in breach, operators are expected to take responsibility for money paid to retail members even when it has been demanded months in advance of the time it is due to the operator and companies whose membership is terminated when ABTA is already aware that they are in breach of operator payment terms are not considered to have failed.

It seems that not only has ABTA retreated to the point where it is little more than a government lobbying machine, but too much contact with the politicians has also resulted in ABTA executives learning to speak their twisted language.

Successive governments have avoided grasping the nettle of consumer protection for the past twenty years but now that ABTA has also decided to duck its responsibilities, it is time to implement Speakman's call for trust fund protection for all funds paid in advance of the delivery of the service.

Paul Sawbridge, Managing Director, Alfa Travel Ltd ABTA V2560


Top
2.  Posted by Peter Cansick, On 08/10/2009 13:40

So a fight rages over ABTA protection does it ? It's a shame that such a fight didn't take place at ABTA Towers when the vote was cast last week. As I recall there were around 25 or so people attending in person and according to one correspondant 'only' 200 or so votes in favour of the motion. If the bed banks and all those so vociferously against this issue had bothered to attend ( or even vote ) then the result may have been a bit different. It's likely that the motion would still have been carried but at least we would have had some interesting dialogue between the affected parties on the day that may just have influenced the way we voted. In the event we had just one vote against ( by a very embarrassed delegate who doubtless had been told which way to vote ) and one abstention. It's all very well ranting in the press about this issue after the event but if you feel strongly about anything at all and you have the opportunity to influence the outcome with your vote then you must do so at the time and not complain about it afterwards if it's not actually what you wanted, It's called democracy !!


Top

Before leaving a comment, please read our rules for commenting online. Please note that comments made on ttglive.com may be reproduced in TTG, including your company and job title.

  RSS feeds
Subscribe to TTG RSS feeds here

 

Bookmark this story 

Share it on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, MySpace and more 
 


What are these? Find out here

 

 




Contact Us  |  Find Us  |  Feedback  |  Subscriptions  |  Accessiblility  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Site map  |  Media Centre  |  Privacy policy  |  UBM Information Ltd  

UBM Information Ltd. Place of registration: England and Wales. Registered number: Company number 370721.
Registered address: Ludgate House 245 Blackfriars Road London SE1 9UY.