Holiday firms suggest they will break the law on refunds again

With hopes of a return to holidays abroad within weeks, some package providers that broke the law last year are still misleading customers over their right to a refund and other financial protections, according to a new investigation from Which?.

Ahead of the government revealing the ‘green’ list of countries that travellers can visit without the requirement for quarantine on their return, Which? mystery shopped six of the UK’s biggest package travel operators to find out if customers making new bookings will get their money back if lockdowns or quarantine prevent them from travelling.

Which? spoke to three agents each from Love Holidays, On the Beach, Teletext Holidays, Trailfinders, TravelUp and Tui.

Of the six companies, only Trailfinders and Tui consistently answered Which?’s questions in line with the law and in line with the company’s official policy.

Agents at all of the others either suggested to the consumer champion’s researchers that they were willing to break the law over refunds, or misled them about how their holiday would or wouldn’t be protected.

Which? asked the travel companies:

  • Whether customers would get their money back if the government banned international travel before they were due to depart;
  • Whether they would get a refund for both their flight and accommodation together if the holiday was cancelled by the provider;
  • Whether customers could cancel for a full refund if they are told they will have to quarantine on arrival at their destination;
  • And how they would be refunded under the Atol scheme if the company were to collapse.

When asked about the government banning travel before they were due to leave, only Trailfinders, TravelUp and Tui repeatedly gave assurances that they would be entitled to a refund. Love Holidays, On the Beach and Teletext were all inconsistent in their responses. 

Legally, customers may not be entitled to a refund if they cannot travel because of a national or regional lockdown. However, Which? only recommends booking with companies that have committed to paying out in this scenario.

While On the Beach officially told the consumer champion it would refund customers in the event of a travel ban, two of its agents said otherwise. Teletext also gave mixed responses and when Which? approached the company for clarification, it refused to comment.

Love Holidays told Which? that customers would only be able to receive a full refund in this scenario if their airline cancelled their flight – and while it agreed this was unfair, it would still deny full refunds on this basis.

By law, customers whose package holiday is cancelled by their provider should be entitled to a full refund within 14 days, regardless of whether the airline cancels the flight or not. However, some companies have been denying full refunds on the basis they have not been able to secure refunds from airlines for the flight portion of the booking.

Airlines require full payment for the flights from the package holiday provider in advance, meaning that when flights booked as part of a package are not cancelled, it can be difficult to recoup the money from the flight carrier.

When Which? investigated, only Trailfinders and Tui committed to reimbursing both flights and hotels within the 14 days legally required.

Trailfinders guarantees customers will receive a full refund if their holiday is cancelled by ‘ring-fencing’ customer payments, meaning when refunds were due, their money would be returned to them in full and without delay – a model not replicated by the other providers. All the other companies suggested that full refunds would depend on whether or not the airline cancelled the flight.

Love Holidays said it would wait to be reimbursed by suppliers before passing the money onto customers, even though it has already faced an intervention from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for withholding refunds from customers while it chased money from airlines.

Similarly, Teletext has also been investigated by the CMA for withholding refunds, and is now facing court action if it fails to refund over £7 million in customer payments.

Despite the company being under investigation at the time, an agent still told Which?’s undercover researcher that customers could expect to wait up to two months for their money back while it chased suppliers for refunds.

While TravelUp said it was refunding within 14 days “wherever possible”, agents told the undercover researcher it relied upon receiving refunds from suppliers, and that it charges customers an admin fee – a minimum of £50 – to chase their refunds for them.

The researcher also asked if customers would be entitled to their money back if they were required to quarantine on their arrival. Denying a refund on this basis is in breach of the Package Travel Regulations, as having to quarantine on arrival should be considered an ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstance’ that will significantly affect the performance of a package holiday, meaning customers should be offered the choice between a reasonable alternative or a refund. 

Only Tui and Trailfinders said they would provide refunds for customers in this scenario. Agents at all the other companies Which? spoke to said customers would only receive a full refund if the airline cancelled their flight.

However, official responses from Loveholidays, On the Beach and TravelUp all contradicted the advice their agents had given on the phone, insisting that customers would be due a full refund if they cancelled because of instruction to quarantine on their arrival.

The consumer champion also questioned agents about how holidays were protected under the Atol scheme. Atol protection ensures customers will receive the option of a full refund if their provider goes bust before their package holiday takes place or while they are abroad.

Nearly every agent answered correctly when asked if their package holidays were Atol protected. But some agents provided misleading information when asked whether Atol protection applied if a flight and hotel were booked one week apart. 

In this situation, while the flight might be covered by Atol if booked through a tour operator, the hotel and transfer would not be. But all three agents for Teletext Holidays incorrectly implied customers booking their flights and accommodation separately would be fully covered. 

Which? is urging those considering a package holiday this summer to do their research, and read the terms of a company’s flexible booking policy carefully before booking.

All Which? Recommended Providers have committed to offering full refunds in the event of coronavirus related disruption, and all abide by the Package Travel Regulations. Consumers should avoid companies that cannot guarantee to offer a full refund in the event of further disruption.

The consumer champion is also campaigning for major travel industry reform to ensure greater protection of travellers’ money and enforcement of their existing consumer rights when they book a holiday or a flight. 

The CAA has launched a consultation on reforming Atol protections and the protection of customer money which the consumer champion will be submitting evidence to. Meanwhile the CMA is also currently investigating refunds in the package holiday sector, and it should not hesitate to take enforcement action against any companies that continue to break the law on refunds when mass international resumes.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “Holiday companies are quick to offer promises that you can book with confidence this summer, but unfortunately many of them won’t be so quick to refund your money if coronavirus prevents you from travelling – and that’s if they refund you at all.

“Whether you can book with confidence ultimately comes down to who you book with. Many of the companies that broke the law last year have suggested they may do so again, so regulators must be ready to take strong action against any operators found to be misleading their customers or breaking the law.

“Travellers considering a holiday this year should only book with companies that guarantee in their flexible booking terms that they will be able to get all of your money back if lockdowns, quarantine and other disruption should strike.”

Very lastminute?

Some Lastminute.com customers still haven’t received all their money back for cancelled holidays, despite the online travel agent committing to the regulator that all refunds would be paid by the end of January, Which? has revealed.

After months of breaking the law on holiday refunds, Lastminute.com was investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in December and it agreed to pay all outstanding package holiday refunds that were cancelled on or before 2 December by the end of January 2021. 

Despite this, Which? has seen reports from several customers through social media who still hadn’t received a full refund after the deadline had passed. 

At the time of the CMA’s intervention, the UK’s seventh largest travel agent owed more than £7 million in refunds for holidays cancelled on or before 2 December. Although it seems to be paying back customers for the hotel portion of their trips, Which? found evidence that it had not returned the cost of cancelled flights to some of its customers by the deadline.

Some online travel agents have reported difficulties in securing refunds from airlines to pass on to their customers, meaning many people have reported only receiving partial refunds for their cancelled package holidays. 

However, under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Regulations 2018, if a package holiday is cancelled by the provider, the customer is legally entitled to a full refund within 14 days. A package holiday is a combination of at least two types of travel or travel-related services made through the same source in a single booking, most commonly flights and accommodation. 

The commitment made by Lastminute.com to the CMA was to refund all money to customers for both accommodation and flights. 

Sheryl McLeod, one of the customers Which? heard from, told the consumer champion she booked a holiday for two adults and two children to Barcelona for July 2020 through Lastminute.com.

She told Which? that in June an agent from Lastminute.com advised her the flights and hotel were cancelled and there were no alternatives, so the trip would be cancelled and refunded.

Sheryl then heard nothing for months and struggled to speak to someone at Lastminute.com. In September she was told by email that her refund was ready and she accepted the option of a cash refund. For months afterwards Lastminute.com claimed it was finalising her refund. Then, on 27th January, she was sent £932.49 – more than £300 short of the £1274.68 she was owed in total. 

Sheryl tried to chase up this discrepancy over the phone, but she was met with an automated message to log into Lastminute.com to access her booking. When she accessed her account online, the trip was listed under ‘past bookings’, with no mention of the missing money, or anything to help her apply for it.

Claire Barder is another Lastminute.com customer who told Which? she hadn’t received a full refund for her cancelled holiday before the CMA’s deadline.

Despite receiving confirmation of a refund for her cancelled package holiday to Barcelona, which was meant to take place in July 2020, Claire was only given a refund of £431.75 – nearly £600 short as it did not include the flight portion of the trip.

Claire was told in an email that her total refund was worth £1,010.23. However Lastminute.com told her that because of Ryanair’s policy, she would need to fill out a form on the airline’s website to apply for this refund, despite Lastminute.com committing to the CMA that it would be responsible for refunding the total cost of the cancelled holiday.

Only after Which? approached Lastminute.com were both customers told they would receive their money back for the outstanding portions of their refunds.

Which? has shared its findings with the CMA, and is calling for it to take appropriate enforcement action against the online travel agent.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “Despite being given ample time to return all outstanding refunds to customers – as well as clear instructions regarding its liability for refunding both accommodation and flight costs – Lastminute.com has failed to meet this commitment to the regulator.

“This is perhaps unsurprising to its customers, given it was voted the UK’s worst accommodation booking site in our latest survey, faring little better when it was ranked for flight bookings.

“The CMA was right to intervene to demand action from the online travel agent, but after failing some of its customers once again, tougher measures need to be taken. The CMA should uncover how many customers were not refunded in time and take appropriate action against Lastminute.com, sending a clear message that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable.”

A spokesperson for Lastminute.com responded: “Firstly we’d like to start by saying that the refund process has been a very complex and difficult process due to the length and severity of the ongoing pandemic and frequent changes in the travel advice rules. These conditions not only impact us but the entire travel industry.

“Throughout this very challenging year, our customers have remained our number one priority, and we at lastminute.com continue our commitment to dedicating our resources to helping them with their requests, whether it’s involuntary or voluntary cancellations, re-booking to new destinations or booking new holidays.

“Each customer request is unique, and often requiring a human touch-point and we’ve been working hard to get the money processed back through the system and into our customer’s pockets as quickly as possible. In the cases you have highlighted, we can confirm that the refund has been sent to the customers also for the flight.”

“We confirm our full commitment and dedication during the last months in order to refund and support all our customers and meet the deadlines agreed with the Competition and Markets Authority. We will discuss our obligations on the 10th of February directly with the Competition and Markets Authority as agreed with them.

“Customer satisfaction is our number one priority and we keep listening and learning even from the feedback generated by a very small number of readers involved in the Which? survey. Every comment counts. We have already refunded more than 49,000 customers and completing any open refunds remains our top priority in these unprecedented crisis.”

A Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) spokesperson said: “CMA action led to lastminute.com committing to pay out over £7m to customers waiting for money back.

“They must now report to us on how they are complying with the commitments they signed up to and the deadlines agreed. Should it become clear that they have breached these undertakings we will consider further action.”

Government to crack down on nuisance call companies

Companies making unwanted marketing calls to be hit with fines of up to £500,000

phone keypad

‘Have you been mis-sold PPP insurance?’

‘If you could replace any of the windows in your home …’

‘Have you heard about the government’s boiler replacement scheme’

‘Injured in an accident that wasn’t your fault?’

Consumers plagued by nuisance calls and texts will benefit from changes to the law which will make it easier for those firms responsible to be hit with fines of up to £500,000.

The law currently requires the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to prove a company caused ‘substantial damage or substantial distress’ by their conduct before action can be taken. Following a six-week public consultation, the Government is now removing this legal threshold, giving the ICO the power to intervene in more cases. This change will come into effect from 6 April 2015.

The Government also confirmed it will look at introducing measures to hold board level executives responsible for nuisance calls and texts. This follows a report from the Which?-led taskforce last December, which called for a review of the rules in order to act as a stronger deterrent to rogue companies.

Digital Economy Minister Ed Vaizey said: “For far too long companies have bombarded people with unwanted marketing calls and texts, and escaped punishment because they did not cause enough harm.

“This change will make it easier for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take action against offenders and send a clear message to others that harassing consumers with nuisance calls or texts is just not on. We’re also going to look at whether the powers the ICO have to hold to account board level executives for such behaviour are sufficient or we need to do more.

The Government is committed to tackling the problem of nuisance calls. In July last year, the rules were changed to make it easier for Ofcom to share information with the ICO on companies breaking the law. This is already helping in the ICO’s efforts in taking more action. In addition, the Government is looking to introduce mandatory caller line identification (CLI) so that all marketing callers will have to display their telephone numbers.

Which? executive director, Richard Lloyd, who chaired the Nuisance Calls Task Force said: “We welcome the Government making good on its promise to change the law so it’s easier to prosecute nuisance callers.

“These calls are an everyday menace blighting the lives of millions so we want the regulator to send a clear message by using their new powers to full effect without delay.

“It’s also good news that the Government has listened to our call and is looking into how senior executives can be held to account if their company makes nuisance calls.

Justice and Civil Liberties Minister Simon Hughes said: “Being pestered by unwanted marketing calls and texts can bring real misery for the people on the receiving end. We have already increased the level of fine available to punish rogue companies. This new change in the law will make it easier from now on for the Information Commissioner to take quick and firm action against companies who give so much grief to so many people.”

Nuisance calls and texts remains a significant concern for consumers – in some cases they are not only annoying, but can also cause distress especially amongst vulnerable people in society. The latest data and research shows that:

  • Around four out of five people surveyed by consumer group Which? said they are regularly cold-called at home, with a third of them left feeling intimidated.
  • There were 15,642 complaints related to nuisance calls and texts made to the ICO in November 2014, of which solar panel accounted for 2,377, whilst for PPI the figure was 1,830.
  • In total there were over 175,000 complaints related to nuisance calls and texts made to the ICO for 2014.

Currently the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has powers to take enforcement action against companies who flout the existing rules on direct marketing. Since January 2012, the ICO has taken enforcement action against nine companies for nuisance calls and text messages, hitting them with fines totalling £815,000.

Separately, Ofcom has powers to deal with abandoned and silent calls by taking action against offenders that persistently misuse a network or service resulting in annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. Since 2012, Ofcom has fined seven companies totalling £1,618,000 for abandoned and silent calls.

Edinburgh West MP Mike Crockart Mike is the founder and Co-Chair of the All Party Group on Nuisance Calls and he has worked closely with the regulators, consumer groups and the Government to ensure consumers are protected from nuisance calls and spam text messages.

He spearheaded the campaign to reform the laws, saying: “I am fed up of nuisance calls to my landline and mobile as well as unsolicited texts. People shouldn’t have to put up with this menace which puts many vulnerable and elderly people at risk of fraud just as much as if the crook or pushy salesman was turning up at their door.

“I am calling for the Information Commissioner’s powers to be strengthened to take in all forms of unsolicited contact and for there to be a single, simple point of contact for any individual wishing to protect their privacy from unwanted calls, texts, faxes and emails.”

The Lib-Dem MP urged members of the public to join a campaign to encourage the government to take action to curb the activities of the nuisance call companies. It seems those voices have been heard – and now we’ll have to wait to see (or hear) what effect the latest government action will have on the nuisance callers. Will the phones go quiet?

Now, who do I call about double glazing …