As the trial of Thomas Cook Reps, Richard Carson and Nicola Gibson, continues at Greek pace in Corfu, it is rather unfortunate that at least one major news organisation has changed Richard and Nicola’s job title from Holiday Representative to Health and Safety Inspector, which is a bit like calling a student who has a Saturday job in Clark’s a Podiatrist. It is clear whose side the media are on.
Meanwhile, Sharon Wood, the dead children’s mother said in court:
It was Thomas Cook’s job to check the gas appliances on a regular basis. It’s their responsibility to make sure everything is safe. They should have protected my children.
Wood was clearly briefed by her lawyers to come out with such an emotive statement, yet it does highlight how crazy the law is in relation to tour operators. So Thomas Cook are responsible for the safety in a property they don’t own or run? Strictly speaking, under the EC Package Travel Directive of 1993, the operator is legally responsible for the components of the package.
However, how can an operator be responsible for safety at a property when it has no control over staff employed, maintenance carried out and in most instances is probably not even informed of any reported problems. You could argue that all the above could be covered in the fine detail of contracts, but these are the same contracts that allow operators to counter-claim for any liabilities.
If the EC directive was more specific and more realistic both sides would have less opportunities to abdicate their responsibilities and the consumer would be offered real protection. For example, by decreeing that operators must do a health and safety inspection prior to the holiday being sold and at regular intervals thereafter the consumer would at least know what the operator was doing. The inspection must then be signed by a director and not just a rep or supervisor.
In another worrying development for operators Inghams was found liable in the skidoo case I wrote about here. Both cases could have worrying implications for the industry. If I was a rep again I wouldn’t want anything to do with Health and Safety unless I had far more comprehensive training than anything any operator currently offers. As far as tour operators are concerned, are they only going to sell excursions such as skidoo trips if they can vet all staff, have copies of training manuals and check all the equipment of a third-party supplier. Is that practical?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I think an accommodation owner should provide the equivalent of a “HIPS”. If the European Commission placed as stringent a regulation around the quality and “health” of accommodation as the UK government now places on a house owner who wants to sell their house, then operators could feel confident they are giving their clients’ hard earned holiday cash to suppliers who value the life of those who buy into their accommodation option. Easy to park accountability with the rep if you are a hotel owner; for what reason is the hotel not responsible for ensuring the product they are supplying to their “operator client” is safe? An operator will never have resources to check the H&S of an accommodation each and every day; in the same way that I don’t check my boiler emissions each and every day. As a home owner I would be accountable if my children died; my house is my responsibility and thus I am accountable for what happens within- I know faulty boilers can kill. An accommodation owner should surely be accountable in the same way and the European Commission, so happy to judge on the curve of a fruit, should surely have a remit enabling them to take more of a stand on ensuring hotel/ accommodation owners are regularly checking functionality that, if not optimal, is detrimental to life?