ATAS Complaint Appeal Committee (ACAC)

Ref 23-1114
ISSUE:   The complainant paid a $1,538 deposit to an ATAS Partcipant to book and confirm a $17,999 cruises cheduled to due to depart on 16 November 2023.   At the time of booking an invoice and T&C were provided to the complainant stating that deposits paid were non-refundable.  The complainant’s wife required specialist medical treatmentand they did not know how long it would take to get an appointment, therefore the complainant’s chose to cancel their cruise.   The provider of the service, confirmed to the complainant that as per their terms & conditions they would be imposing only a 50% cancellation fee and the remaining 50% would be returned to the ATAS Particpant.  The ATAS Particpant  advised the complainant that as per their terms & conditions accepted and outlined on the invoice, the deposit paid to them was non-refundable and no refund would be provided.  The complainant was dissatisfied with this outcome and was seeking a refund of $760 from the ATAS Particpant.  The complainant also raised concern regarding dengue fever being present in South America, the ATAS Partipcant's response was to seek advice from a Doctor. 

OUTCOME:  Appeal Dismissed
The Committee is satisfied that the appellant had access to documents that made it clear that the deposit paid to the particpant was non-refundable and there has been no breach of the Code relating to the ATAS Particpants retention of the deposit.  The Committee confirmed that the ATAS Participant is not a doctor and travel agents are not required to provide medical advice – nor should they.  The ATAS Particpant's advice was appropriate in the circumstances and was not a breach of the Code.

Ref 23-0637
ISSUE: The customer was travelling on a Dutch passport.  The customer was denied uplift on her flight back to Australia as she did not hold a return resident Visa to re-enter Australia. The customer incurred an additional four nights accommodation in London while she obtained her re-entry Visa to return to Australia. The customer claims in 2019 she had her passport renewed and submitted an application at that time for a return resident Visa. Prior to travel, the agent took photocopies of their passports and checked that they had six months validity on their passports, which is a requirement for travel. The customer feels the agent did not take strong enough action to satisfy that she had a return Visa for Australia. 
The customer claims that the agent did not ask her about whether or not, she had her re-entry Visa to Australia. The customer was seeking a written apology and reimbursement for the additional expenses incurred in London these being accommodation and meal costs. 

OUTCOME:  Appeal Dismissed.
The committee found that The member did all that was expected of it. The member took copies of passports, verified they were current for at least 6 months and made sure the name on the ticket matched the name on the passport. 
 

Ref 23-0272
ISSUE: The Appellant booked a self-guided cycle trip with an ATAS Participant. The Appellant maintains that the ATAS member made no suggestion that anyone other than the ATAS Participant was the originator of the product. Upon arrival at the first hotel there should have been documentation (maps, guidebooks, baggage tags etc) waiting, this was not the case when the appellant checked in. Following a phone call to the supplier, the documents were emailed through to the hotel and printed off for the appellant. The documentation provided was incomprehensible, and the appellant purchased a guidebook at his own expense for $28.64 & downloaded a map for $7.00. The appellant was not reimbursed for these costs. The appellant experienced several issues with the equipment and services provided by the supplier, especially in the first 4 days of his journey. In the first 4 days the appellant was provided with 5 different batteries and 3 different bicycles. The appellant complained to the ATAS Member multiple times whilst on the trip and received limited assistance.

OUTCOME: The Committee has determined that the ATAS member will pay the appellant the sum of $622.64, this is in addition to the $ 595.00 already paid.

Ref 23-0205
The appellant booked an airfare and tour via the Agent.  The tour was a prize provided by the supplier won by the appellant. The prize had a nominal value of $3,685.00.  The travel was proposed for June 2020.  Due to the pandemic the travel did not proceed, and future credits were by arrangement with both the airline and the tour operator.   On 9 April 22 the appellant visited a branch to get an update on his credits.  The appellant claims that at that meeting he was told that air and tour credits were to be used to rebook by December 2022 and travel by December 2023.  Minutes after leaving the branch the appellant received an email from the Agent with a copy of the tour operator credit stating that the credit had expired in Dec 2021, the initial expiry date.  He went back into the office and spoke to the staff member.  The appellant claims that despite the email advice, he was told by the Agent that the tour credit was valid for rebooking until the end of 2022.  On 23 November 2022, the appellant attended a branch and attempted to use his tour operator credit and was told that they had expired on 31 December 2021.  The Agent offered the appellant a $500 credit by way of consolation.  The appellant wants the tour operator travel credits to be honored or $3,685 be given towards future travel.

OUTCOME: The Committee notes the $500 offer by the participant to try and resolve the matter. It is not necessary for the Committee to form a final view on the reasonableness of the offer.  This is because when the appeal was being considered by the Committee, the tour operator offered to honour the $3,685.00 credit, subject to some conditions.  Those conditions are not unreasonable, and the offer should be seriously considered by the appellant.  As the Committee is of the view that the offer by the tour operator is an adequate resolution of his complaint, the Committee does not propose to make any further findings.

Ref  22-1054
ISSUE: The Member provided incorrect advice regarding the Complainant's airline credit and failed to provide the Complainant with a copy of their terms & conditions. The Complainant had mobility issues and was provided an airline connection that was not fit for purpose for a disabled traveller. The Member amended the transit time and absorbed airline fees for this time change. The Member offered the Complainant a $184.60 Refund and a Future Travel Credit of $391 per person.  The Committee finds breaches of Clauses3.2 (vii) and 3.5 of the ATAS Code of Conduct.  

Ref 22-0783
ISSUE: The complainant booked and paid $7,040 for airfares that were subsequently cancelled due to the Covid-19 outbreak.  The air tickets were put into a future travel credit with the airline.  The agent provided evidence of putting the Complainant on notice of the expiry date of the credit.  The Complainant failed to use the credits prior to the expiry date advised by the Member and the value of the credit has now been forfeited.  The Committee is of the view that the Agent did not breach any provision of the ATAS Code of Conduct.  Therefore, the Agent does not have to refund the $7,040 claimed by the Complainant.   The Committee recommends that the Complainant raise the matter with the ACCC and Etihad Airways having regard to the 2020 understanding.   The Committee recommends that the Agent provides reasonable assistance to the Complainant in making a complaint to Etihad Airways or the ACCC, including promptly providing details of the communications between the Agent and Etihad Airways when asked to do so by the Complainant. 

Ref 22-1004
ISSUE:  The complainant did not receive all the products as per his tour description.  The Member offered a $500 Future Travel Credit per person and a $500 Refund per person.   It is the view of the Committee that he e ATAS member breached Clauses 3.2 (viii) ( Due care and skill)of the Code of Conduct.   In the circumstances, the Committee is of the view that the member should refund $1,000 for each passenger (a total of $2,000).  The Committee does not agree with the Appellant that the Appellant should receive a $2000 refund per person. Some of the benefits offered as part of the PPP were provided but it does seem that LE did not ensure that all were provided. The Appellant has rejected the offer of $ $500 cash refund per person plus a $500 credit person. The Committee is of the view that credits or part credits are not a proper remedy in such a situation. 

SANCTION:  Refund of $1,000 per passenger (total of $2,000)

Ref# 19-0214
ISSUE: The itinerary stated “Virgin Australia” and the Complainant could not identify where to check in as the flight was Code share with “Delta Airlines”. The Complainant missed their flights as by the time they worked out where to check in they had missed the bag check in.

OUTCOME: The Committee was satisfied that the provisions in Clause 3.2(a)(vii) of the Code which states that Agents will act with due care and skill and Clause 3.2(a)(iii) which provides assurance about ‘service quality in the provision of information in a plain and easy-to-understand form’ were not met.

SANCTION: Reimbursement of costs to the sum of $3,407.

Ref# 18-0936
ISSUE: The complainant booked and paid for a holiday online and received confirmation details. The complainant identified 10 days later that the dates booked were incorrect and not the dates they were seeking. The booking was non-refundable due to the short cancellation period and the complainant sought a full refund.

OUTCOME: Appeal dismissed.

Ref #18-0620
ISSUE: The complainant had requested a particular aircraft type for a flight. The airline within their terms of carriage, later changed the aircraft type on that flight, resulting in the complainant having to pay to amend flight so as to fly on the original aircraft type requested.

OUTCOME: Appeal dismissed.

OUTCOME: The ACAC upheld the decision of the ATAS Compliance Manager.

Ref #18-0215
ISSUE: Complainant sought to cancel and get a refund following the Mexico earthquake however the Agent did not cancel the trip and proceeded. Complainant alleged that tour was impacted and sought refund for faulty product and for agent to change terms and conditions where a natural disaster occurred. ATAS Compliance Manager found no breach by the Agent.

OUTCOME: ACAC upheld the decision of the ATAS Compliance Manager and found no breach had occurred.

Ref #17-0927
ISSUE: Had the Agent breached the Code for failing to disclose ‘all relevant information in a plain and easy-to-understand form’ in relation to advice regarding visas contained in the terms and conditions.

OUTCOME: The Committee found that the Agent had breached the section as they had provided general advice in regard to U.S. visa requirements but no relevant information under the heading ‘Travel to Canada/Mexico’.

SANCTION: Agent to reimburse applicant sum of $2916 for additional costs and for the terms and conditions to be amended and expressed in a plain and easy-to-understand form.

Ref #17-0922
ISSUE: Tour guide had failed to pick up the complainant; the complainant had missed out on time in departure city; and complaint was about Agents response and handling of complaint. Appeal was based on complainant seeking increase of refund that had been offered.

OUTCOME: The appeal was dismissed.

Ref#17-0529 Appeal by Complainant.
ISSUE: Was the term “pristine beaches” misleading and thus a breach of the Service Quality Promise?

No breach was found and finding s of the Compliance Manager were upheld.

Ref#17-0339 Appeal by Complainant.
ISSUE: Was the failure to advise that the sale price was limited to a 24-hour window a breach of the Service Quality Promise?
The Committee found that the travel intermediary had breached its obligations relating to the service quality promise, however as no financial loss was suffered no rectification of costs was ordered.

A Rectification order was sanctioned to review internal processes when communicating with clients to ensure that all relevant and important information is provided when a quote is provided. Further to this, operating procedures must also be reviewed to ensure that when staff members are away ill from operation that alternative arrangements are in place to ensure that pending customer enquiries are appropriately dealt with and in a timely manner.

Ref#16-0722 Appeal by Complainant.
ISSUE: Had the Agent failed to provide the complainant with the requested service and breached the Service Quality Promise?

No breach found and findings of Compliance Manager were upheld.

Ref#16-0856 Appeal by Complainant.
ISSUE: Had the Agent failed to disclose relevant information and breached the Service Quality Promise?

ACAC found Agent had failed to disclose all relevant information in a plain and easy to understand form. The Agent failed this obligation as it advised a refund would be “approximately $2500” yet this amount changed to $1803.72. The notification did not contain any advice that the amount of “approximately $2500” was subject to change and the Agent is thus contractually bound to the statement. The Committee determined that the term “approximately” allows only a 10% window either side of the stated figure.

The Committee ordered a Rectification Or

Ref #16-0826 Matter was referred to ACAC by Compliance Manager.

ISSUE: Had the Agent disclosed the terms and conditions to the complainant and had the Agent acted with respect and courtesy?

OUTCOME: Participant was required to write a written apology to the complainant and provide a report to ACAC detailing actions taken as required by the Improvement Notice.

ACAC Chair (Interim) - Hank Spier

Hank Spier is the principal of Spier Consulting, Legal and Spier Consulting P/L, respectively a legal practice and a legal consultancy specialising in regulatory processes and strategies.

Formerly Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission for some 17 years until late 2000. Hank has been a part time member of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and continues to support the ACCC as a consultant in relation to overseas capacity building for competition and consumer institutions.

He has been heavily involved in the development of trade practices law for many years, both in Australia and in developing countries.

Hank remains active across the industries as Chair of the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia Tribunal, which oversees the Disciplinary regime and complaints alleging misconduct against Association members and imposes sanctions where appropriate.

Hank brings a wealth of knowledge to the ACAC committee with his experience in advising a substantial number of private clients in trade practices issues, including mergers, cartel protection, codes of conduct, collective bargaining, misuse of market power and dispute avoidance and resolution.

Philip was the lead ombudsman for banking and finance at the Financial Ombudsman Service and AFCA for 11 years and worked for 17 years at the Ombudsman’s office.

Philip has a very deep understanding of external dispute resolution and fair decision making which would greatly assist the work of the committee. Philip met regularly with key stakeholders including representatives of Financial Counselling Australia, Consumer Action and Financial Rights Legal Centers as well as individual consumer representatives.

A dispute resolution specialist and lawyer with over 30 years’ experience in ombudsman schemes, private practice and government. Expertise includes privacy, consumer law, banking, retail credit, telecommunications, operations management, investigations and compliance. Jillian was worked at the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman In 2012 I was appointed TIO’S first Principal Investigator and in 2016 was given additional duties, taking on Systemic issues, reviews of decisions and Continuous Improvement.

In 2020 I was made Assistant Ombudsman and led the Dispute Resolution area with a team of 110 professionals who resolve escalated disputes between consumers and telecommunications providers (approximately 13,000 each year) and handle objections to statutory land access rights proposed by carriers.
 

Industry Representative - David Greenland

A recognised industry leader, David has an enjoyed a wide and varied career in the travel & tourism industry spanning 36 years. His roles have seen him work in multiple markets, but most particularly the Asia Pacific region.

In early 2024 he completed a ten-year tenue as Managing Director Australia for corporate travel specialists, Reed & Mackay. During this time he was also Chairman of CT Partners, Australia’s largest and most influential independent travel buying network consisting of 31 corporate and leisure travel agencies. He has also served two terms on the Board of the Australia Travel Industry Association including one as Deputy Chairman.

Today David provides advisory services to travel companies in Australia and around the world.
 

Alternate Industry Representative - Melvyn Almeida

Commencing my professional journey as a Management Trainee with British Airways in Mumbai, India, I subsequently assumed the role of Chief Reservations Officer for Bahrain & Qatar during my posting in Bahrain. Over a decade, I contributed significantly to both British Airways and the GSA Company, YBA Kanoo, where I managed Reservations, Sales, and Marketing for the Middle East, representing 32 airlines.

In 1987, I emigrated to Sydney, Australia, and joined Concorde International Travel, a consolidator now known as Hello World. Concurrently, I served as the Managing Director for Passenger & Cargo for Australia/New Zealand at World Aviation Systems, the company's GSA Division, representing 27 airlines.

In 2007, I assumed the position of Managing Director at AMA Australia within Consolidated Travel Group/Airline Marketing Australia, working closely with Spiros Alysandratos, Owner, and CEO. I represented the company on the IATA APJC Committee and served on the AFTA Board as Spiros' alternate until December 2022.