ABTA issues travel insurance warning

Post your comment

Your Comments (8)

, be the first to post a comment.
Your email:

Your comment title:


Your comment:

Email other comments made to this story

5 characters

• B ut who pays...?
  
  

  Of course, Mike is quite right in what he says - but how would an agent fare if he were to be prosecuted under the PTR for simply saying, "Remember, you need travel insurance..." when the customer was a "special case" who needed some kind of cover that an ordinary policy would not provide? Of course, we could say that this would be the responsibility of the organisation that eventually sold the cover, not the agent - but the agent, by virtue of his special knowledge, should know far more about the customer and his or her special needs. Will the generalist broker ask the kinds of questions that the agent would: "Do all the travellers reside in the UK?". "You told mne you are keen on climbing - are you thinking of doing any on this trip?". "I know you're keen on hang-gliding - will you be flying on this trip?" All of these actually cropped up in my agency and I was able to arrange special cover - how many general brokers would have done so? So, to protect customers, before letting them go to buy their cover elsewhere, agent will need to undertake a proper investigation and will not be able to recoup the cost of this work through a sale.

  By Richard English, Wednesday, January 7, 2009
• Insure & Go with us
  
  

  Hi All I can understand your concerns regarding the FSA (it was a not easy for us in 2005) and people not travelling with insurance and also a loss of income. We have been working along side agents and have come up with varying solutions which fit with inside the FSA rules. So please contact me to chat about our systems

  By Perry Wilson, Wednesday, January 7, 2009
• No real conflict
  
  

  Richard makes some very pertinent comments, as always. However, there isn't really a conflict between the requirements of the PTRs and trhe new FSA regulations so long as everyone is careful. The PTRs place obligations on principals ('the other party to the contract') to provide consumers with 'information about an insurance policy which the consumer may .....take out' ..to 'cover the cost of cancellation ....or the cost of assistance ... in the evnt of accident or illness ...' That is still the case and, so long as the advice is of a general nature and does not amount to specific advice about the merits and appropriateness of a particular policy or supplier, for example, the new regulations will not cause a conflict to arise between them and the PTRs. Our own Code of Conduct (which is being amended to refeclt the new regulations) also requires Members to 'draw clients' attention to the availability of insurance cover'. Again, unless members are appropriately authorised, this is simply a requirement to provide general advice about the need to take out cover. ABTA lobbied hard to retain the exclusion previuosly granted to the travel industry and we provided the Treasury with substantive evidence to support the industry's case. Our position has not changed. That is that the travel industry are not guilty of misleading consumers and there is simply no evidence to support the case that the travel trade have caused consumer detriment by being allowed to sell travel insurance. Far from preventing this alleged consumer detriment, the removal of the exclusion and the regulation of travel agents and tour operators will, in our view, cause consumer dteriment. This is because consumer choice will be restricted (no doubt reducing competition and causing prices to rise) and will inevitably lead to more people travelling without insurance cver (around 19% of UK travellers already do so) and will also lead to some consumers failing to take out cover at the time of booking and thus reducing the cover available for cancellation. Of course, travel comapnies have the option of becoming directly authorised by the FSA or becoming an Appointed Representative of someone who is, becoming and Introdcer Appointed Representative or an Unregulated Introducer but none of these is without cost, all of which will, no doubt, be passed on to consumers. It remains our view that the imposition of the regulations will do nothing to help consumers and are completely unnecessary. Its just another example of the UK government 'gold plating' EU legislation. It will be interesting to see the effect.

  By Mike Monk, Wednesday, January 7, 2009
• Naybe someone could tell me...
  
  

  Of course, it is now illegal under UK Law, as personified by the FSA, to sell travel insurance unless you are registered with them (not necesarilly trained or competent, just registered). But under European Law (under the Package Travel Regulations) it is illegal for travel agents to fail to provide information about travel insurance - which obviously means going through all the stages of a sales conversation about insurance in order to be able to give the correct information. So, whose Law will take precedence should some travel agent, in trying to adhere to the EC legislation, actually is unwise enough to take money from the enquirer whose travel insurance needs have been established as required by the EC legislation?

  By Richard English, Tuesday, January 6, 2009
• Well said Richard, you speak for us all...
  
  

  Well said Richard, very succinctly put... It is a natural process to buy travel insurance at time of booking to ensure the right product is purchased, however the new legislation in the hands of FSA will no doubt put a lot of travel agents off selling. The 'spiel' we have to read out and get signed is twice as long as the ABTA code of conduct procedures, which were simpler, easier for the public to understand and didn't take the shine of the 'dream' of booking a holiday. Sadly I now think more people will travel without insurance, which will be the reverse of the intention of the new rules! Ah well, I have been long enough in the industry to know the wheel keeps on turning!

  By Doreen McKenzie, Tuesday, January 6, 2009
• Extra work for groups
  
  

  We organise school group packages and the insurance was included. This gave comprehensive cover for school groups and cost the school a negligible amount. They now have to pay more and organise their own insurance adding to the workload for teachers in organising a trip. Thus we have lost a service that we provided at cost to help schools.We realise that individuals need some protection from inflated policies but in our case the clients have lost out.

  By David Price, Friday, January 2, 2009
• Insurance industry willing to help
  
  

  The insurance industry is very willing and able to help travel companies in continuing to offer this valuable service to travellers. None of my existing travel clients have decided to stop selling travel insurance but I am sure there are plenty that have considered regulation by the FSA and decided not to continue selling travel insurance. There are a number of alternatives to direct FSA regulation for travel companies, tour operators and booking agents; such as 'Appointed Representative' or 'Introducer' status. Get in touch with a specialist travel insurance broker and they can provide further information on the options available.

  By Mike Ellis, Friday, January 2, 2009
• So that's all right then...
  
  

  It's good to know that the full majesty of the mighty FSA has now come down onto those evil travel agents who have been, for years, miss-selling travel insurance so badly that the numbers of justified complaints over the past ten years have now reached triple figures and compensation levels are into the hundreds of pounds. Clearly it is not before time that the unruly and unreliable travel trade is broght into line with the other financial services providers - you know, people like Northern Rock and AIG whose masterly operations and stern FSA control has meant that only a few thousand people have lost more than &#pound;50,000 a head. As a taxpayer and traveller I am so pleased that the thousands of pounds I have had to pay to bail out the regulated financial service provders have not been wasted and the inconvenience that I now have to suffer by being unable to buy travel insurance policy with my holiday is, surely, a small price to pay for the FSA's sterling work.

  By Richard English, Friday, January 2, 2009