I refer to the article entitled ‘Fantasy Tours Issue Update’ by the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA), (The Sunday Times of Malta, September 15).
The Consumers’ Association is pleased to note that Fantasy Tours was compelled to observe 12 decisions of the Consumer Claims Tribunal (as indicated by the MCCAA itself on November 4, 2012).
The association notes that public warning statements are wider in scope, and not as insinuated, namely to oblige Fantasy Tours to follow tribunal decisions. The warning statement alerted all consumers that the tribunal had on several instances established that the services of Fantasy Tours were not reliable. Despite this, last month, over 200 consumers had their prepaid holidays cancelled. In the meantime Golden Travel Club Ltd filed for bankruptcy and the affected consumers altogether risk losing over €400,000.
It is therefore abundantly clear that one can hardly rejoice and say that the public warning statement was successful.
The MCCAA’s update gives the false impression that it got involved after the Consumers’ Association directed consumers to lodge their complaints with the authority.
It must be recalled that on August 8 the MCCAA indicated that the authority was involved in discussions in view of the fact that, in terms of the Package Travel Regulations, Fantasy Tours was supposed to be insured for the eventuality of insolvency which provided for compensation to those affected. The MCCAA itself had advised those concerned to contact its offices, indicating the claimed amount, and following a decision it was to contact them and see how they will be compensated.
The Consumers’ Association then felt it appropriate to direct those concerned to register their claim with both MCCAA and the police. A third player would have created unnecessary confusion.
The association, however, sensed that ‘regulatory hiccups’ might hinder consumers’ quest for a quick remedy. It moved cautiously asking for clarifications, with a view to use this unfortunate experience to address legal lacunae.
It wrote to the chairman of Malta Tourism Authority on the August 9 asking whether the indemnity insurance policy covering Fantasy Tours would have indeed covered instances of insolvency and consequently will consumers be compensated; why those parts of the law setting up the compensation scheme were never put in force; and why the MTA, in spite of the warning issued by the MCCAA, issued a licence/or permitted Fantasy Tours to continue its operations.
In view of the MCCAA’s statutory powers it is pertinent to ask what further measures it took following the publication of its warning statement in October 2012. Did the MCCAA carry out its own investigation in terms of the Consumer Affairs Act, especially in view of the fact that in November 2012 it claimed that since 2008 it had received 150 complaints about Fantasy Tours? What was the level of coordination with the MTA at that stage?