TravelMole
Agent

Passenger protection levy back on agenda to replace ATOLs

Friday, 18 November 20053 min read

The concept of a passenger levy to fund a consumer protection scheme is to be discussed with the industry in a review of ATOL bonding ordered by the government.

The review comes after the government last month rejected proposals by the Civil Aviation Authority for a £1 levy which would have also involved scheduled airline passengers.

The Government and the CAA yesterday announced agreed terms of reference for a review of ATOL bonding. It will focus on reducing the cost of current bonding arrangements – a move that is sure to be welcomed by tour operators.

Work will commence immediately, with a six-month deadline set to identity a solution followed by swift implementation, the CAA said.

The CAA has been ordered to review whether the current bonding system for ATOL holders could be replaced with a “less burdensome” way of meeting tour operators’ customer refund and repatriation obligations.

CAA consumer protection group director Richard Jackson confirmed: “We have been asked to look at reforming the ATOL bonding system and replacing it with a fund based on a customer levy.

“This is a major exercise and not straightforward, but our aim is to find a solution that brings real de-regulatory benefits to licence holders, while maintaining consumer financial protection.”

The CAA will consult licence holders and “other key stakeholders” on its proposals and aims to identify a solution within six months.

The authority said it would focus on reforming the bonding system – rather than wider aspects of ATOL licensing – “with a particular emphasis on reducing the costs to ATOL holders that arise from the current bonding arrangements”.

This would involve considering “moving from bonds to a single per-customer transparent levy to build up a fund, encompassing the Air Travel Trust Fund, for meeting ATOL holders’ refund and repatriation obligations.”

The principal areas for consideration are:

  • an enforceable collection mechanism;

  • the size of the fund and the period of build-up;

  • transitional arrangements;

  • whether in the absence of bonding, changes to CAA’s financial monitoring of the industry are required.

Report by Phil Davies