Asata has addressed a letter to government, recommending the suspension of consumer rights.
This forms part of the association’s ongoing efforts to lobby the SA government, which, Asata says, remains silent about the widespread violations of consumer protection laws occurring as airlines refuse to refund passengers for COVID-19 booking cancellations.
Asata has outlined a number of possible strategies to government, based on what countries around the world have implemented to address this issue, including the strict enforcement of refunds (United States), the establishment of a government-supported Travel Guarantee Fund (Belgium, Denmark), or the suspension of consumer rights to a refund (Italy, Germany, The Netherlands, and France).
In a recent letter to the President and various government and consumer-protection bodies, Asata recommended the latter – that government suspend consumers’ rights to refunds to safeguard the travel supply chain from bankruptcy caused by COVID-19.
“We are in favour of this approach because the consumer is not completely deprived of their right to a refund – it is merely delayed. This protects the travel service providers and it will not put further strain on government coffers. It is very similar to section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act,” says ceo of Asata, Otto de Vries.
Within this policy, the traveller must be informed that they have received a voucher and a proposition for a new package, which has to be similar to the original package and be the same price. If the traveller does not accept the new package, he or she must be offered alternatives. If the price of the alternative is lower, the traveller will receive a voucher equal to the remaining cost. If the price is higher, the traveller has to bear the additional cost. If the traveller has not chosen a package after 18 months, they are entitled to demand the full refund.
Asata will only support this avenue if the vouchers issued by SAA are secured by government in the event of the airline’s liquidation, Otto adds.
“If government is not willing to take steps to enforce the CPA in light of the crisis, it should adopt alternative arrangements to protect the consumer. Quietly condoning non-compliance with the CPA is not an option as it erodes trust in South Africa’s consumer laws and institutions.
“While the government considers our recommendation, travel agents should not be required to refund customers when the travel service provider refuses to refund the travel agent. Asata has requested a public statement by the National Consumer Commission that, under the current extraordinary conditions, travel agents are not required to make cash refunds when they have not been refunded by the airlines themselves,” he says.