A family had to spend $6456 on urgent, alternative flights when the mother and daughter were prevented from boarding an onwards flight to Iraq during transit.
It followed hearings in November last year, and January this year, and after the airline, which was initially joined to the claim as a second respondent, was removed from the claim.
Differing views
Malthus said each party offered a different view about what happened.
The father said the travel agency was recommended to handle the booking in 2024, to make sure he got necessary assistance, and to avoid “exactly the type of difficulty” that later arose.
The agency argued initial interaction was based around the father obtaining an itinerary, which would enable him to obtain travel visas to Iraq for his family members.
The agency’s representative told the tribunal that when the father confirmed a visa had been obtained, the agency took copies of the travellers’ passports.
The father was then told his family’s New Zealand passport documents recorded refugee status, which the agency staff were unfamiliar with.
It meant they were unable to offer advice about visa or travel requirements.
The father left the travel agency with a slightly modified itinerary, then confirmed the booking the next day.
Prevented from boarding
Difficulties arose when it was discovered that transit visas were required for their flight during a stopover in an unnamed country, and the man’s wife and daughter were unable to board.
The father had to “urgently rebook flights”, which went through a different country.
He then went to the tribunal seeking compensation from the travel agent for the cost of the alternative flights.
The agency denied liability, and while it was sorry for the family’s losses, it confirmed it was not asked to provide visa assistance for the booking.
The agency also said its inability to give visa advice was consistent with standard information contained at the end of the itinerary document. It said visa requirements varied depending on the passport held, and travellers were advised to ensure they arranged any or all necessary visas required.
The father argued he made it clear he sought the travel agent’s professional assistance, because “it was obvious that transit visas were a necessary part of the travel offering he received” from the agency.
Malthus concluded that while each party appeared genuine in their recollection of events, despite their best efforts to communicate clearly, the tribunal acknowledged it was more likely than not some key nuances of their conversations might have been “lost in translation”.
She noted the man had been language-assisted by a friend during the booking process, and also by an Arabic interpreter during the hearings.
‘Costly and unfortunate outcome’
Malthus acknowledged it had been a costly and unfortunate outcome for the family, and despite denying liability, the travel agency had spent considerable time trying to resolve an outcome with the airlines involved.
She said where there had been a failure of a guarantee under the Consumer Guarantees Act, remedies did become available to a consumer, but because no failure was proven in this case, there was no basis to award compensation.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.