SIGN UP

Low Cost Holidaymakers Likely To Get Just £7.78 Refund

Avatar Image
mikey4444 | 11:38 Tue 19th Jul 2016 | News
13 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36834408

"It was not registered with the UK government-backed Atol scheme, which would have compensated them in full"

An object lesson here, to choose a holiday firm that is registered with ATOL it would seem.... We have had enough warnings on this subject, you would have thought the public would have got the message by now.

Answers

1 to 13 of 13rss feed

Avatar Image
"ATOL doesn't spring to mind," OG. It's been around since the 70"s and even adverts on today's tv adverts state, ATOL, protected. Shame for them, but they should have checked.
11:52 Tue 19th Jul 2016
I guess too much to remember. Looking for a holiday, checking prices, ATOL doesn't spring to mind. Pity it can't be obligatory to be a member before trading in the UK and offering vacation related products/services.
The other problem is people dont want to pay tge additional credit card charge that may help insuch situations.
"ATOL doesn't spring to mind," OG. It's been around since the 70"s and even adverts on today's tv adverts state, ATOL, protected.

Shame for them, but they should have checked.
I also think that people get confused between ATOL and ABTA and this Company was registered with the Spanish Govern de les illes Balears which they probably thought was just as good.
Can someone tell me why a UK travel company wouldn't be ATOL registered, is it purely down to cost. Do firms who do not have an ATOL scheme but may be registered like Low Cost Holidaymakers in a different country offer holidays substantially cheaper if they are not ATOL protected. If not why would anyone not choose a travel firm that wasn't ATOL protected?
Question Author
5 mins spent on the 'net before making the booking would have told people all they needed to know.

Its tough for the ones that can't afford to spend their way of this debacle, but I find it difficult to find much in the way of sympathy.
So LCH only lodged £1m in case they went under, they sound like a very dodgy company to me , especially as they were taking bookings pretty much upto the day they went bust.
Question Author
Barney...the answer to your last question may lie in the olf proverb ::

"A fool and his money are soon parted"
It seems they were ATOL protected upto 2013 when they moved the business to Spain, the money they lodged (£1m) seems totally inadequate to cover the firm going under. They seem like a bunch of crooks .
People should be more aware, it's not the first time this has happenedone.
if you pay by credit card then the card company should be liable to refund you.
not sure what the tie-up with Ryanair is - what's the reason that LCH clients can't check in online - a situation that allows Mr O'Leary to shaft them for an extra £45 each?
If it looks too good to be true.........

The ATOL scheme is in place to protect people from themselves. Apparently we all have to try harder on their behalf now.
You're all grown up, live with your choices.

1 to 13 of 13rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Low Cost Holidaymakers Likely To Get Just £7.78 Refund

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.