Super Break collapsed last Thursday (1 August) after parent Malvern Group ceased trading.

Malvern had been seeking a new owner for the 49% of its business owned by Cox & Kings (India), which has been battling financial issues of its own.

The operator had some 20,000 forward bookings concerning 53,000 customers when it went under, the vast majority of which were domestic packages or accommodation-only bookings.

However, while Super Break’s overseas holidays were protected under the Atol scheme and its domestic rail and coach packages via its Abta bonding, Abta revealed the operator had chosen not to protect its accommodation-only bookings with the association, leaving agents to face some of the financial consequences of Super Break’s demise.

This was despite Super Break seemingly advertising full protection on its brochures via Atol and Abta, with a number of agents telling TTG they saw the Abta stamp as a mark of full protection. Abta has since warned agents not to assume accommodation-only bookings are protected.

Operators are not legally obliged to protect accommodation-only bookings like they are with packages, and Abta long ago changed its rules to allow operators and other travel providers to remain members despite not protecting accommodation-only bookings.

Aito chairman Derek Moore said the responsibility to communicate ultimately rested with operators like Super Break. “I have read with interest the fact agents are complaining that Abta did not make it clear hotel-only bookings were not covered in the event of Super Break’s failure,” said Moore. “That would be difficult for any trade association to do.

“I would argue Super Break should have done so itself via its booking conditions and via its sales team – but it’s a challenging message to explain clearly; it’s only when things go wrong the relevance of 100% bonding becomes blindingly obvious.

"It’s sad it often takes a collapse of an operator or an airline to make people – both within and without the industry – realise the importance of the 100% bonded message.‎ Perhaps it will now be clearer to agents and consumers why Aito emphasises that all holidays booked with an Aito operator are covered, even accommodation-only bookings.”

Moore he would like to see the government revise its legislation to make this message clearer, but said with ministers failing to enforce other aspects of package travel legislation, it was ultimately a case of “buyer beware” when it came to issues “people don’t understand until the roof collapses on their head”.

“Aito has in the past lost potential members who did not want to bond such single-element holiday bookings,” Moore added.

“Aito insists as a condition of membership despite such bonding going beyond current legislation. The unpalatable bottom line is ‎it costs money to offer full financial protection and, if some holidays seem to be cheaper than others, there is often a good reason – corner cutting.”