The UK holiday destination swaps that will save you hundreds
UK holidaymakers can save hundreds of pounds on hotel costs over the course of a holiday by swapping their location for similar destinations just a few miles away, Which? Travel has found.
With international travel restrictions in place around the world and the UK government warning against travel to a growing number of popular holiday destinations across Europe, many UK holidaymakers are continuing to book staycations to see out the end of the summer.
Which? Travel compared the average hotel room rates in towns in 10 of the UK’s most popular destinations, including Cornwall and the Cotswolds, before comparing these to other similar nearby resorts, to see how much people could save on their holiday by travelling just a few miles further.
The biggest saving was in Devon. An average of £59 a night could be saved by swapping one coastal destination for another just 20 miles away. The average cost of a hotel room in Salcombe was £209 a night. However, further down the coast in Dartmouth, holidaymakers could slash hotel costs by nearly 30 per cent, with a hotel room costing on average £150 a night. Over the course of a week, this works out as a saving of over £400.
Dartmouth received the second highest ranking in Which?’s recent survey of seaside towns and villages, achieving a customer score of 84 per cent and scoring highly for its scenery and tourist attractions. It also out-ranked Salcombe, which received a score of 71 per cent.
The shortest distance that Which? found people would have to travel to make a saving was just three miles – from Saundersfoot to Tenby. While a night in Saundersfoot could set you back an average of £155, a room just three miles south in Tenby costs an average of £112, saving £43 a night, or £301 over the course of a week. Tenby also fared well in Which?’s seaside survey, receiving a customer score of 79 per cent, while Saundersfoot received 71 per cent.
Some swaps meant travelling a bit further to make a saving. For example, holidaymakers looking for a Scottish city break could save an average of £25 a night if they travelled the 47 miles from Edinburgh to Glasgow.
Glasgow ranked highly in Which?’s recent survey of the UK’s best cities, scoring 82 per cent – just two percentage points behind Edinburgh (84%). It received excellent scores for culture, sights and attractions, as well as food and drink.
Additionally, with a return train ticket between the two cities costing less than £14 and the journey taking less than 90 minutes, the savings made by staying in Glasgow would cover the cost of a day trip to the capital with change to spare, meaning holidaymakers can enjoy the best of both cities.
Further savings could be made on a trip to the Cotswolds by staying in Gloucester rather than Cheltenham (average saving of £46 a night), a beach break in East Sussex by swapping Brighton for Eastbourne (average saving of £56 a night), and on a break in Somerset through booking in Wells instead of Bath (average saving of £53 a night).
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“These destination swaps aren’t just a chance to save money – travellers can expect to find fewer crowds and more space to breathe, with holidaymakers ranking many of the cheaper destinations as not only better value, but a better overall stay than their pricier and more popular counterparts.”
“As we come towards the end of a holiday season like no other, holidaymakers will be pleased to learn they can still squeeze the last out of the summer without sacrificing beautiful scenery or great attractions by just travelling a few extra miles along the road.”
The Royal Yacht Britannia has been rated the UK’s favourite historical attraction, according to a new Which? survey.
The Queen’s former yacht, permanently moored on the waters of Leith in Edinburgh, came out on top when over 4,000 Which? members were asked to rate the UK’s 50 most visited attractions on criteria including facilities, entertainment and lack of crowds.
The Royal Yacht Britannia, which visited 144 countries during its 44 years in royal service, topped the table with a customer score of 90 per cent. Visitors gave it a five-star rating for food and drink, information, and value for money.
Visitors told Which? it was an “outstanding attraction”, “immaculately kept” and that staff were “very kind and helpful”. One respondent told Which?, “I thought we would spend about two hours there and in the end were practically the last to leave”.
It was followed by Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal Water Garden in Yorkshire, the country’s largest monastic ruins, with a customer score of 89 per cent. Those who rated it highly described the setting as “magical” and “suited to a slow pace and contemplation”.
The Abbey also scored well for information and value for money with both receiving five stars. It also achieved a further five stars for lack of crowds and queues, meaning visitors can enjoy the ruins and the Water Garden with plenty of space to roam between the two.
Stourhead House and Gardens received the third highest customer score (88%), followed by the Tower of London (87%), the most expensive of the 50 attractions. Entry to the popular London attraction costs £30.30 a head for adult non-members, but visitors gave it four out of five stars for value for money, with a wide range of exhibitions to enjoy as part of the ticket price.
Durham Cathedral was the highest scoring free attraction, with a customer score of 85 per cent – putting it joint seventh out of the 50 attractions (alongside Dover Castle, Culzean Castle, Titanic Belfast and Tyntesfield). Visitors gave it five stars for lack of crowds and value for money.
While visitors recommended the guided tours and attending a service to enjoy music from the choir, the Cathedral has since temporarily suspended singing and choral music as a result of measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
At the other end of the table was Southend Pier, the world’s longest pleasure pier, with a respectable customer score of 63 per cent. Although it features at the bottom of the list, it scored four stars for accessibility and lack of crowds. Visitors praised the walk along the pier as a way to blow away the cobwebs and liked the option of taking a train from one end to the other to enjoy the views.
However, it scored just one star for entertainment and engagement, facilities, and food and drink. Some visitors complained that the pier was “run down” and “not the most exciting place in the world”.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “With so many of us holidaying in the UK this year, we’re all looking for new places to explore and these results provide plenty of inspiration, with some excellent lesser-known attractions alongside the favourites we already know and love.
“Our findings show that visitors value learning something new from the historical attractions they visit, while providing value for money is another common feature of those near the top of the table. What’s clear though is that whatever your budget, whether you’re looking for a stroll down a pier or a saunter through a palace, the UK is blessed with fantastic locations for great days out.”
France and the Netherlands will be removed from the list of destinations exempt from quarantine requirements due to an increased number of cases of coronavirus (COVID-19).
Aruba, Turks and Caicos, Malta and Monaco will also be removed from the exemption list.
The decision made by the Scottish Government, and also made by the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales as well as the UK Government, is to reduce the risk of the transmission of the virus by those travelling from these countries.
The public health measures will come into effect at 4am tomorrow (Saturday 15 August) and will mean those arriving in Scotland from France, the Netherlands, Aruba, Turks and Caicos, Malta, and Monaco will be required to quarantine for 14 days.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said: “We have always been clear we are closely monitoring the situation in all countries and that we may need to take action to remove a country from the list of places exempt from quarantine requirements should the virus show a resurgence.
“These are not decisions which we take lightly but on the basis of the evidence it is important that we take action to suppress transmission of the virus and protect public health.”
Public health rules for international travel are an important part of Scotland’s wider response to the pandemic, to limit the introduction of new chains of transmission as Scotland’s own infection rates have been falling.
All international travellers arriving into Scotland, apart from a very limited number of exemptions, must complete a passenger locator form and provide evidence that they have done so on arrival in the UK if requested to do so by a Border Force official. Individuals who do not complete the form and present it when asked on arrival may be fined £60. The fine can be doubled for each subsequent offence up to a maximum of £480.
Those travelling abroad should check in advance if there are any requirements to quarantine on arrival at their destination.
The existing list of overseas destinations where those arriving in Scotland are exempt from self-isolation can be found online.
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has also updated its travel advice to advise against all but essential travel to France, Monaco, the Netherlands, Malta, Turks and Caicos Islands and Aruba.
Rory Boland, Which? Travel Editor, said:“It’s understandable that the government wants to restrict travel to these countries at this time, but the burden of this decision disproportionally falls on holidaymakers – thousands of whom are likely to be left significantly out of pocket because their airline will refuse to refund them.
“Unlike tour operators, airlines now routinely ignore FCO travel warnings and refuse refunds because, they argue, the flight is still operating. Some major airlines, like Ryanair, won’t even allow customers to rebook without charging a hefty fee.
“The government wants us to act responsibly and not travel to countries with an FCO warning, but it needs to make it clear to airlines that they too need to act responsibly and not ignore government travel advice in an effort to pocket customer cash.”
Some airlines are still failing to refund passengers
Ryanair, Virgin Atlantic and Tui are failing to refund passengers in agreed timeframes, breaching recent commitments to the regulator that they would speed up their refund process.
Which? has seen evidence that the airlines are reneging on promises they made to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about how they would improve their refund processes, including from some passengers who have been left out of pocket since March.
The findings come after the CAA reviewed airlines’ behaviour and identified several carriers that weren’t paying refunds ‘sufficiently quickly’, but opted not to take enforcement action after receiving commitments from the airlines to improve their performance.
However, Which? found that Ryanair, Tui and Virgin – all identified by the CAA as not processing refunds fast enough – are falling short of the promises they made to the regulator, prompting concerns from Which? that the regulator’s enforcement powers may not be fit for purpose.
The CAA told Ryanair it wasn’t satisfied that it was taking 10 weeks or longer to process refunds, and that airlines offering vouchers should also be offering passengers the choice of a cash refund. Following the regulator’s review, Ryanair published a commitment on its website that all refund requests up to the end of May would be cleared by 31 July.
But Which? has heard from Ryanair passengers who are still waiting for refunds from March, and who are still trying to get cash refunds after they were initially sent vouchers despite requesting cash refunds.
Virgin Atlantic told the CAA its maximum waiting time for refunds is 120 days, but some passengers have been trying to get refunds from the airline for longer than four months.
The consumer champion heard from two passengers who have been waiting over 130 days for refunds for flights that were cancelled in March.
Tui was reprimanded by the CAA for issuing vouchers and then making customers wait a further 28 days before they could apply for their money back. Tui told the CAA that “on average, cash refunds will be processed within 14 days”.
However, despite telling the regulator it is no longer automatically issuing vouchers, Tui still states on its website that customers must wait for a voucher before they can claim a cash refund.
Which? has heard from a passenger who is yet to even receive the voucher that she needs to claim her refund – or received any other communication from Tui – after her flight was cancelled in April.
Following its review, the CAA said a number of airlines have committed to speeding up the time it is taking to process refunds without requiring enforcement action, and that it would continue to monitor those airlines and continue to push for further improvements.
It said it would consider if enforcement action was appropriate if airlines failed to meet their commitments. However, it also highlighted that its enforcement powers are not well suited to swift action, and that it can take a considerable period of time for a case to come before the courts.
Which? is concerned that if airlines are continually allowed to openly break the law on refunds through this crisis, it will set a precedent that sees airlines continue to treat passengers unfairly without fear of consequence or sanctions.
Airlines have repeatedly been given the benefit of the doubt, but some have treated the regulator’s efforts to secure voluntary commitments with indifference. It is clear that more needs to be done to give the CAA the clout to effectively hold airlines to account.
Which? is calling for the government to enhance the CAA’s existing powers to allow it to more easily take swift and meaningful action against airlines that have repeatedly been exposed for disregarding the law and their passengers over the course of the pandemic.
The consumer champion believes this should be the first of a series of reforms to the travel industry, to help ensure the future of international travel from the UK and to help restore consumer trust in the sector.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“Time after time, Which? has exposed airlines breaking the law on refunds for cancelled flights due to the pandemic and treating their passengers unfairly, and we’re concerned that they now feel empowered to do as they please without fear of punishment.
“Passengers must be able to rely on a regulator that has effective powers to protect their rights – especially at a time of unprecedented turmoil. The government needs to step up and ensure the CAA has the tools it needs to hold airlines to account, or risk consumer trust in the travel industry being damaged beyond repair.”
Kirsty Ness requested a cash refund from Ryanair immediately after her flights were cancelled in late March, but on 20 April she received a voucher instead.
Kirsty has called Ryanair several times to cash in the voucher, but she has yet to receive her refund.
Palliative care nurse Jeanette Howard was sent a voucher for her Ryanair flights to Alicante that were cancelled on 20 March, even though she had applied for a cash refund.
She says she’s called the airline ‘on a daily basis’ since late April to ask to exchange the voucher for cash, but she’s still waiting for her money back.
Ryanair did not respond to Which?’s request for a comment.
Jeff Palmer and his wife were due to fly with Virgin Atlantic to Vegas on 9 April. He first requested a refund from Virgin on 31 March after they cancelled his flights, and told Which? he has tried ‘every method under the sun’ to contact them.
He received emails telling him it would be 90 days, then 50, then another 14, before receiving a refund for his flight but not his wife’s – despite it being part of the same booking. He told Which? he has contacted them several times since, and still no sign of a refund for her ticket.
A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said:“The huge volume of refund requests we have received, combined with the constraints on our teams and systems during the pandemic, has meant that refunds have been taking longer than usual to process, and we sincerely apologise for this.
“Since April, we have been focussed on making improvements wherever possible. We’ve boosted the size of the team dedicated to processing refunds five-fold, with over 200 people now directly involved. This has increased our capacity to process a greater number of refunds, more quickly and we continue to minimise the wait time for existing refund requests.
“Thanks to the progress made, we are steadily reducing the maximum processing time for each new Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Holidays cash refund. For customers requesting a refund in August, we expect the maximum processing time to be 80 days, from the date the refund is requested. For those requesting a refund in September, we expect it to take a maximum of 60 days, and then reduce to 30 days for refunds requested in October, before returning to normal levels.
“Up until recently we have been committed to processing existing refunds within a maximum of 120 days, from the date the refund is requested, and we inform each customer when this is done by email. The timeframe begins from the date the refund is requested and acknowledged by a customer agent, not the date the flight is cancelled.
“We are aware that there are a portion of Virgin Atlantic bookings with pending refund requests which were incorrectly inputted and unfortunately now exceed 120 days for processing. This was an administration error and as soon as this was identified we urgently investigated. We are resolving this as a priority and any customers affected will have their refund processed as soon as possible.”
Kath Lowe’s Tui flight from Manchester to Tenerife was cancelled on 29 April, but she hasn’t received a voucher – or any other communication – from Tui and until she does she can’t claim a refund.
She says she’s tried calling Tui on many occasions but she’s never managed to get through to its call centre.
A Tui spokesperson said:“Customers with cancelled flight only bookings which were due to depart before 11 July were issued refund credit vouchers, and could then apply for a cash refund via our online form. These refunds were processed within 28 days.
“Customers with cancelled flight only bookings which were due to depart from 11 July onwards will automatically receive cash refunds. These refunds will be processed within 14 days.
“We’re really sorry to any customers who may have experienced delays in receiving their refund.”
Tui has also confirmed a voucher was sent to the case study in May but speculated it may have been lost in junk mail. They’ve now requested for this to be cancelled and a refund to be issued.
The CAA said:“We will review any supplementary evidence provided to us by Which? – beyond the 12,000 submitted to us during the review – but we will need to see individual examples in order to consider what further action is needed with the airlines.
“Throughout our review, alongside information received from airlines, we also used information from consumers and consumer groups, as well as mystery shopping from our consumer protection team, to determine what commitments were needed from airlines to improve performance.
“If we had not received such commitments during our review, then our next step would be to consider formal enforcement action. However, this enforcement process can take a significant period of time without providing short-term results for consumers. For example, the enforcement action we commenced against Ryanair in 2018 is not expected to come to court until at least 2021.
“While our initial review has finished, we have been clear that we will continue to monitor performance and should any airline fall short of the commitments they have made to us, we will take further action as required.”
During lockdown, the price of fuel hit a four-year low but new analysis from Which? has found that drivers were being overcharged at the pumps as sellers failed to pass on savings.
Rather than passing on the full reduction in wholesale prices, the consumer champion found that sellers were pumping up their own margins, which rose from 10p a litre to 18p – an increase of around 80 per cent – in the weeks after lockdown was introduced.
Despite a noticeable fall in the cost of unleaded petrol at forecourts across Britain, Which?’s study of fuel prices during lockdown suggests that drivers were actually still overpaying to fill up their cars as inflating margins allowed some fuel companies to pocket a proportion of the savings for themselves.
In March and April prices hovered between £1.02 and £1.04 a litre at supermarkets. In May, the price finally dropped below £1 at Morrisons, Asda and Tesco, while Sainsbury’s brought its prices down to the £1 mark. Independent petrol stations also followed suit but many remained several pence per litre more expensive.
Despite these noticeable savings, in the week that lockdown was announced in the UK, the average retail margin, which includes the cost of overheads and profit for suppliers and retailers, jumped from around 10p a litre to nearly 18p based on data supplied by the AA – by far the biggest jump of any week in 2019 and 2020.
For the same week in 2019, the margin was just 8p a litre and as little as 5p in April 2019.
The increase in margin may have been necessary for smaller independent petrol stations to survive the pandemic crisis, but some bigger independent petrol station groups – such as Motor Fuel Group, which has around 900 stations – are responsible for around 30 per cent of the market, and some will have made savings of millions of pounds during lockdown.
While this was partially due to financial measures introduced by the UK government, such as the business rate holidays, it raises questions about how high margins, such as those seen during the coronavirus pandemic, are set.
Currently, there are no established rules on the margins retailers can apply to pump prices, and, crucially, there’s not an independent fuel watchdog to monitor that these costs are fairly calculated.
Motorway services, which are privately owned, are able to charge large premiums for fuel compared with other forecourts. This also applies to the cost of items for sale in their service stations, meaning customers could be charged different prices for a cup of coffee if they stopped multiple times on a journey.
Which? found that sellers setting their own margins also have a role in regional differences and in the first week of lockdown, the difference in price between Northern Ireland and the South East of England was as much as 8p a litre for petrol and 6p a litre for diesel. Drivers in Northern Ireland get the best deal, because there is a proportionally high number of forecourts and therefore increased competition to keep prices low.
Which?’s own data also revealed that petrol is generally cheaper in towns and cities than in rural locations. But supermarket fuel forecourts, even in the countryside, are still cheaper than oil-company-owned petrol stations in cities.
Supermarkets sell 45 per cent of all fuel, benefiting from lower delivery costs due to the volumes they buy and sell, and bringing in footfall to their stores along with lower pump prices. In areas where there is less competition, particularly from large supermarket stores, drivers will get less value for money as independent fuel forecourts will be able to maintain higher margins with less impact on custom.
However, even supermarkets – which often reflect changes to the wholesale price more quickly than independent or oil-company-owned forecourts – sometimes choose to pass on any savings due to falling wholesale prices to customers through money-off vouchers instead of lowering prices.
In a survey, nearly half (45%) of respondents said that they use supermarket vouchers to reduce their fuel costs. However, the often high minimum spend requirements may mean that this is not a good value for money as it might seem, as those who can’t afford the minimum spend, or who don’t want to spend it, miss out on the savings on petrol.
The retail margin has already started to drop closer to pre-lockdown levels as demand returns to normal, but the pandemic has highlighted serious issues with the uncapped margins being set by fuel retailers, and the lack of an independent regulatory body to monitor these.
Which? believes drops in wholesale prices must be fairly reflected at the pumps and savings passed on to drivers, no matter where they buy their fuel.
Harry Rose, Editor of Which? said:“While there may have been fair cause for some fuel sellers to increase retail margins in order to survive lockdown, there really is no excuse for some larger retailers to be keeping savings for themselves during the pandemic. For customers to be charged fairly at the pumps wholesale savings must be passed on.
“If you want to save money on fuel, buy an economical car and fill it up at a supermarket. Although if you have a local and convenient garage that you like using, do continue to give it your support.”
But Which? says the CAA is failing the consumers it is supposed to protect
Review considered actions by airlines during the coronavirus pandemic
Civil Aviation Authority action has led to airlines making commitments to improve performance without requiring formal enforcement action
Quality of service and performance from most airlines has improved in response to bilateral engagement and the review, leading to refunds now being paid out faster
Civil Aviation Authority warns other European and international airlines that the consumers right to a refund must be protected
The UK Civil Aviation Authority has been reviewing the refund policies and performance of UK airlines and three of the largest international operators to the UK. A further five international airlines were included due to the level of consumer feedback and concerns that refunds were not being paid during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Civil Aviation Authority review is based on its own investigations, as well as information provided to us by consumers across email and social media, as well as through consumer bodies including the Competition and Markets Authority, the Northern Ireland Consumer Council and Which?.
At the start of the review, some airlines were not paying refunds, with others facing potential backlogs of numerous months.
We investigated airlines’ policies and practices to establish whether they were placing barriers in the way of consumers requesting refunds, through unclear messaging, difficult to navigate customer services and under-resourced call centres.
While we recognise that the coronavirus pandemic was an unprecedented situation for the aviation industry, our consumer team has worked to protect consumer rights and to influence airlines to change their processes and practices in order to improve performance in providing refunds.
The Civil Aviation Authority now has evidence that shows that since it launched its review, and its wide-ranging engagement programme with airlines, all UK airlines are now paying refunds. Call centre wait times have reduced, in some cases significantly, and customer service messaging has provided greater clarity on consumers’ rights to a refund for cancelled flights.
Our review found that a number of airlines were not performing adequately. We have gained immediate commitments from these airlines to improve their performance and the time taken to provide refunds to consumers, without requiring enforcement action.
This is the most immediate way of providing benefits to consumers as enforcement processes can take a considerable amount of time to complete given the potential for legal proceedings. We have previously called for stronger, more immediate, powers to act to protect consumer rights.
Other European airlines were not initially within the scope of our review due to discussions taking place between National Enforcement Bodies, European governments and the EU Commission. Engaging with these other EU airlines at that point would have potentially cut across these other discussions.
However, we have today written to a further 30 major European and international airlines that operate services to and from the UK to highlight the results of our review, and to warn them not to deny consumers their right to a refund. We will not hesitate to take further action against any airlines where necessary.
Commenting on the review, Richard Moriarty, Chief Executive of the UK Civil Aviation Authority, said: “The airlines we have reviewed have responded by significantly enhancing their performance, reducing their backlogs, and improving their processing speeds in the interests of consumers.
“Although we have taken into account the serious operational challenges many airlines have faced, we have been clear that customers cannot be let down, and that airlines must pay refunds as soon as possible.
“There is still work to do. We have required commitments from airlines as they continue the job of paying customer refunds. Should any airline fall short of the commitments they have made, we will not hesitate to take any further action where required.”
Summary statements for each airline are available on CAA website at the link below:
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“The regulator is failing the consumers it is supposed to protect. The reality is that people are still owed millions of pounds in refunds, are facing financial and emotional turmoil, and continue to be fobbed off by a number of airlines who have been brazenly breaking the law for months.
“These airlines will now feel they can continue to behave terribly having faced no penalty or sanction.
“It is obvious that the CAA does not have the right tools to take effective action against airlines that show disregard towards passengers and the law, but more worryingly, it’s not clear the regulator has the appetite to use them.
“The government must use this opportunity to bring in much-needed reforms, including giving regulators greater powers to take swift and meaningful action, but consumers need assurances that these will actually be used against lawbreaking companies.”
Darren Jones, Chair of Westminster’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee, has written to Secretary of State Alok Sharma outlining a number of key issues for the UK Government to address in its approach to support for business and workers as the country emerges from the Covid-19 lockdown.
The correspondence to the Secretary of State recognises the efforts of many workers and businesses who rose to the challenges brought about during the pandemic.
The letter also highlights a number of issues, including gaps in support for workers, the tapering of support for workers through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), and the treatment of workers during the pandemic and health & safety issues.
The letter tackles a number of areas concerning the Government’s support for businesses, recommending the Government review the success of the various loan schemes and the behavior of banks, and also highlighting problems arising from unpaid business rent and the calls for targeted support for sectors that are likely to continue to be hit by restrictions which threaten their future revenue and viability.
Darren Jones, Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee said: “The Business Department and the Treasury deserve significant credit for their efforts in addressing the unprecedented challenges faced by business and workers following the impact of Covid-19.
“Given the evolving situation around Covid-19, it’s inevitable that issues would emerge concerning the effectiveness of the Government’s support package and its impact on workers and businesses.
“However, it is also the case that the alarm over gaps in the Government’s support, such as for women, and those affecting freelancers and agency workers, were being raised repeatedly by those affected and yet these warnings continued to go unheeded.
“Rishi Sunak echoed a previous Chancellor in suggesting that the coronavirus has seen us all in it together. However, it’s clear that the reality of the economic lockdown is that its impact has not been shared out evenly and that it is falling very heavily on some parts of our economy.
“For example, we heard from sectors, including retail, the creative industries and manufacturing, who expressed concern over increasing redundancies in the wake of the furlough scheme changes coming in this weekend.
“It’s clear that some sectors of our economy will continue to face very challenging conditions. The shutdown of the aviation and aerospace sector will, for example, have a longer-term impact on these industries compared to others. In some parts of hospitality and in other sectors too, difficult trading conditions and continuing restrictions threaten future revenue and their viability.
“It’s important the Government quickly learns the lessons of recent months so that they can act in future with more policy sophistication and transparency and be able to step up and deliver the most effective support possible to workers and businesses.
“If we face the prospect of a second-wave and the likelihood of increased local lock-downs, it’s essential the Government looks again at its approach to sector support and to the additional measures which will be necessary to secure our economic recovery, help businesses prosper and enable workers to protect their livelihoods”.
The letter to the Secretary of State notes the examples highlighted by Which? of price-gouging, profiteering, and the inability of consumers to obtain refunds which they were legally entitled to when their holidays and flights were cancelled.
The correspondence also notes the comments from Lord Tyrie, former Chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority, stating that the pandemic had revealed that the CMA needed new powers to deal with profiteering.
The Committee calls for the Government to undertake a review of the powers and responsibilities of the CMA, and other consumer regulation enforcers, to address bad business practices and the effective enforcement of consumer law and the action needed to tackle market abuses, such as profiteering, that took place during the pandemic.
The letter to the Secretary of State highlights issues around the impact of late payments and the problems that many small businesses were experiencing throughout the UK’s supply chains because of cash flow problems.
Following evidence from SMEs, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), and the Small Business Commissioner (SBC) on these issues, the Committee recommends the SBC be given additional powers to proactively investigate late payments, that the Prompt Payment Code be made compulsory, and that late payers should be excluded from government contracts.
Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection at Which?, said:“Our research has highlighted terrible practices during the coronavirus pandemic, including airlines that have refused to refund passengers and sellers that have unjustifiably bumped up prices on essential goods.
“In too many situations consumers have been left with nowhere to turn, which is why regulators need to be given stronger and more targeted powers so they can take effective enforcement to tackle the types of bad practice we’ve seen during the crisis.”
Despite being more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky, Chanel No 5 and high-end champagne, most people buy branded ink for their printer rather than cheaper third-party alternatives even though they are just as good, according to new Which? research.
The consumer champion found that just one set of replacement cartridges for the Epson Expression Premium XP-900 costs £96. This means that a customer replacing their ink five times can expect to pay £480, yet a third-party alternative deemed of similar quality was found to cost a mere £70 for five replacement sets – a saving of up to £410.
At £2.04 a millilitre, the Epson printer ink was one of several branded versions found to be more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky (£1.71), Chanel No 5. (£1.13) and premium champagne (30p).
Despite the extortionate cost of original ink cartridges, the majority of people told Which? that they regularly buy branded cartridges (58%) over cheaper third-party alternatives – and some have never tried non-branded at all (41%).
The survey of almost 9,000 printer owners revealed that many people are concerned that third-party ink may be incompatible with their printer (43%), print quality would be compromised (30%) or that the third-party ink might damage their printer (30%).
However, in reality, the survey revealed that only one in 10 (11%) of those who use third-party ink regularly experienced cartridges not working, just four per cent experienced leakage and only three per cent found print quality lower than expected.
Many third-party brands also offer guarantees if the cartridge doesn’t work, while some will even repair or replace the printer for free.
What’s more, those surveyed thought some third-party brands were easier to use than original cartridges from HP and Epson ink. And the same goes for toner: Which? found that people with laser printers were much happier with third-party brands than original branded toner.
However, incompatibly isn’t a completely unfounded worry. Some HP printers are designed to prevent customers from using third-party ink by employing something it calls ‘Dynamic Security’, which recognises third-party cartridges and stops them working.
Although HP says this protects its customers, the thousands of people who took part in Which?’s survey found that third-party cartridges offer much better value and even, a better customer experience.
Which? has heard from many consumers who are unhappy that they can no longer use their favourite brands, with some even buying a new printer to avoid the ongoing high cost of replacement HP cartridges.
Which? believes that this is completely wrong and choosing to use third-party cartridges should be down to an individual’s choice, not HP’s.
In the US, a lawsuit resulted in some customers being reimbursed by HP for the costs of replacement cartridges, printers and repairs following a class action settlement.
Under the out-of-court settlement, HP agreed that Dynamic Security wouldn’t be reactivated in the affected inkjet printers. HP denies that it did anything wrong.
This hasn’t yet happened for UK consumers, so customers will need to carefully consider how much they could end up paying over the lifespan of their printer as it could be more than they bargained for.
Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said:“Printer ink shouldn’t cost the earth and we’ve found that there are lots of unbranded products that are just as good as their branded counterparts and only a fraction of the cost – so you can keep your hard-earned cash for actual luxuries rather than spending it on printing.
“Choosing third-party cartridges should be a personal choice and not dictated by the make of your printer. If you are in the market for a new printer, it might be best to avoid HP if you don’t want to fork out for expensive HP ink cartridges.”
But Ryanair says it’s just ‘another baseless survey of two men and a dog’
People are suffering serious financial and emotional distress as they struggle to claim refunds for flights and holidays cancelled due to coronavirus, a damning dossier of more than 14,000 refund complaints compiled by Which? has revealed – but a Ryanair spokespersoncalled the Which? report ‘yet another baseless survey of two men and a dog’.
The complaints – which have been passed onto the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as part of its review of how airlines have handled cancellations and refunds in recent months – are collectively worth more than £5.6 million and detail the significant toll that delayed and denied refunds are taking on customers’ lives.
The findings come as Which?’s campaign, ‘Refund Us. Reform Travel.’, demands that airlines urgently refund any passengers still owed money for cancelled flights and holidays.
Under the Denied Boarding Regulations, if a UK or EU airline (or an airline flying from an airport in the UK or EU) cancels your flight, you should be refunded within seven days.
Package holidays are protected by the Package Travel Regulations, which entitle you to a full refund within 14 days if your holiday is cancelled. However, many of the biggest carriers have been openly breaking the law amid an unprecedented volume of cancellations caused by the pandemic.
Since asking affected passengers to report their airline to the CAA through its online tool on 22 May, the consumer champion has received and submitted over 14,000 reports in just under six weeks, of which over 12,600 have been analysed to establish trends in the data.
Those who reported to Which? that they had been denied a refund are out of pocket by an average of £446.40, and have collectively spent a total of 52,000 hours – almost six years – trying to chase their airline for the money they are due.
Collectively, the 12,602 people whose reports were analysed told Which? they were owed £5.63 million in refunds. These reports provide a snapshot of the scale of the problem, with the industry’s own estimates from April this year suggesting that up to £7 billion of consumers’ money is owed in refunds.
The most reported airline was Ryanair, accounting for four in 10 (44%) of the complaints made to Which?, with passengers reporting a combined total of £1.15 million owed. Half of those (50%) reported spending more than five hours of their time trying to contact the airline for a refund.
Despite being the third largest operator flying out of the UK, behind EasyJet and British Airways, Ryanair owes over £400,000 more than the two market leading airlines, with its £1.15 million total equating to one in every five pounds that was reported to Which?.
Easyjet was the next most complained about airline, accounting for one in seven (14%) complaints. Customers told Which? they were collectively owed more than £663,000 in refunds, with three in 10 (29%) telling Which? they are yet to receive a response from the airline with regards to a refund.
Virgin Atlantic was the third most complained about, with seven per cent of complaints saying the customer was waiting for a refund from the airline. Over £915,000 is collectively owed to Virgin Atlantic customers who complained to Which?, with the average refund amounting to £1,031.61.
Three in 10 (29%) customers who reported Virgin Atlantic to Which? told the consumer champion they had spent over five hours trying to claim a refund, while a further three in 10 (31%) had spent over 10 hours.
Tui and Etihad customers spent the most time chasing a refund, with four in 10 (both Tui and Etihad – 39%) spending over 10 hours contacting their airline to ask for their money back.
Additionally, nearly half (45%) of Tui customers who made a report to Which? told the consumer champion they had not received a response from the company at the time of submitting their report.
Airlines have cited huge volumes of refunds and limited staff available to process them as an explanation for the delays in refunding customers, however a number of airlines have done a significantly better job of returning money to their customers in a shorter time frame while operating under similar circumstances.
A Which? survey of airline customers in May who had had flights cancelled found that four in 10 (39%) BA customers surveyed had received their money back within the legal time frame, while three in 10 (29%) Jet2 customers who responded were refunded within the seven day window. This was in comparison to only five per cent of Ryanair customers telling Which? they received a refund within the legal time frame, and one in seven (14%) Easyjet customers.
Which? also invited people to report the impact that being denied a refund on their lives has had, as the pandemic has left hundreds of thousands of households in difficult financial circumstances and worried about their health and that of their loved ones.
Lynn Fox, 42, was made redundant in March after her employer went into administration, before her self-employed husband was left without work due to the pandemic.
They had remortgaged their house in January to pay for a once-in-a-lifetime holiday with Virgin Holidays to Florida costing £6,700. But when Virgin cancelled the holiday, Lynn was unable to contact the company and requests for a refund went unanswered.
Both Lynn and her husband have been relying on Universal Credit and told Which? that without the money they were owed, they feared they may struggle to pay their mortgage for the next year. However, after Which? contacted Virgin about her story, she received an email saying her refund is now being processed.
In response to Lynn’s experience, a Virgin Holidays spokesperson said:“Virgin Holidays understands the difficulties that the Covid-19 crisis poses to our customers with upcoming travel plans, and we are offering as much flexibility as possible for those whose trips are affected.
“Our absolute focus remains on supporting all of our loyal customers, whether that’s to amend, rebook or cancel plans. As a direct result of the Covid-19 crisis and the global travel restrictions imposed, Virgin Holidays has had to make significant holiday cancellations and we continue to be inundated with an unprecedented volume of refund requests, while working through a backlog, and unfortunately these are taking longer than usual to be processed.
“Our customer centre and finance teams have been working from home with limited infrastructure, so in order to accelerate the process, we have boosted the size of the team handling refunds. These additional staff are receiving training to use the required systems, which is increasing our capacity to process refunds.
“We would reassure all Virgin Holidays customers that if they’ve requested a refund, it will be repaid in full, and the work to process refunds is our priority. Payments are being prioritised based on how long the customer has been waiting for their refund, working in order from March 2020 onwards.
“We are committed to completing each refund at the earliest opportunity, but we would assure customers that payment will be processed within an absolute maximum of 120 days, from the date the refund is requested. We are making every effort to reduce this timeframe wherever possible in these extraordinary circumstances and thank all of our customers for their patience.”
Which? also heard from Laura McAdam, 26, who needed to fly back to her family home after losing her job and worrying about becoming homeless.
Laura told Which? she suffers from severe depression and anxiety, and that she eventually stopped chasing Easyjet after spending approximately 12 hours trying to get a refund, as the distress was taking a toll on her on top of everything else going on in her life.
Laura said Easyjet only gave her the option of rebooking or accepting a credit note, and that all her emails to the airline went ignored. She told Which? the £120 – which she is still waiting to be refunded – would make a huge difference to her given how little money she has to live on.
However, after being contacted by Which?, Easyjet said it has contacted Laura to apologise for the inconvenience caused and asked for her refund to be processed immediately.
Alisya Boyraz, 22, and her partner were due to relocate from the UK to China for work in February, having quit their jobs and arranged to move out of their home in January.
However, after Emirates cancelled their flight in March they had to postpone their move – losing their jobs, the apartment they had secured in China, and a significant amount of their savings in the process. They are now also out of pocket by over £1,080 for their cancelled flight, as the travel agent she booked with, Travel2Be, has not refunded them yet.
Alisya told Which? that their Chinese visas have now expired meaning if they do not make it to China, they will have lost a further £1,300 spent on legal fees for the move. They are now having to rely on friends and family for somewhere to live, and that her partner is still out of work, months on from the flight being cancelled.
Alisya said the money owed to them would make a significant difference to their lives while her partner is out of work, and would help cover some of the money lost as a result of their move being postponed.
Which? believes the stories it has already submitted clearly make the case for tough action against airlines that continue to flout the law. But as international travel begins to resume from the UK, Which? is calling on people to continue to submit their complaints to pass on to the CAA to ensure the regulator does not let travel companies return to normal with no consequences for their actions over this period.
The CAA must now take urgent enforcement action against airlines that are failing to pay refunds, rather than continuing to let them get away with illegally withholding customers’ money given the huge financial and emotional toll it is having on thousands of people’s lives.
Which? also believes the serious problems people have faced in recent months have demonstrated that major reforms to the travel industry are necessary. The consumer champion will set out in the coming months steps that the government should take in order to restore consumer trust in the travel sector.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “We are hearing from thousands of passengers who are still waiting for refunds months after flights and holidays were cancelled.
These people are often in desperate circumstances of their own and have told us the stress of being left out of pocket has significantly impacted on their emotional wellbeing and their finances.
“As a first step to restoring lost trust in the travel industry, it’s important that lawbreaking companies are not let off the hook for their actions during this period. The regulator must act swiftly on this evidence and take strong action against those airlines that have repeatedly been exposed for flouting the rules.”
An Etihad spokesperson said:While every effort is being made to process refunds, there have been occasions where it took longer to handle requests. This has been due to the extremely high number of calls and claims received.
“In addition to offering full refunds, we also introduced a generous travel credit option for use against future travel. Extra resources were also brought in to ease the situation, resulting in considerably improved service levels.
“We regret any inconvenience or distress faced by our customers and we thank them for their continued patience and understanding.
An Easyjet spokesperson said:“As the UK’s largest airline, easyJet carries more passengers than other airlines which means we have also had to make more cancellations during this period.
“Throughout this Covid period, we’ve continued to offer our customers a refund option, in addition to free changes or a voucher. We’ve also ensured that the refund request is easy and straightforward, via a dedicated refund webform online. All of these entitlements can be accessed through our online Covid Help Hub.
“We are processing refunds for customers and aim to do so in less than 28 days. But in these unprecedented times, the volume of cancellations compounded by local lockdown restrictions leading to reduced staffing levels in our customer contact centres, means that processing of refunds is taking longer than usual. To help our customers, we have invested extra resources into the call centre to help reduce our queue as quickly as possible.”
A Ryanair spokesperson said:“This is yet another baseless survey of two men and a dog from Which?.
“Ryanair has already processed over €500m in refunds and vouchers since mid-March, which is over 40% of Ryanair’s total backlog of Covid cancellations in March, April, May & June.
“The process time for cash refunds is taking longer due to unprecedented volumes and the fact that we have fewer staff available due to social distancing measures.”
A Tui spokesperson said:“We remain sorry for the delay to customers and have apologised to customers directly who were particularly impacted by the delays during the height of lockdown.
“The world closed around us, retail stores closed and teams had to work from home; we simply couldn’t keep up with the volume of customers we had to help. In total we’ve cancelled holidays for nearly 1.5 million customers.
“We worked day and night to resolve this by building new systems to support retail customers digitally and set up 1000 Retail Advisers to work from home so they could manage cancellations remotely. Once our new systems were built customers were able to request refunds online.
“Since we’ve made these changes, our phone lines have an average call waiting time of 15 minutes, online forms are actioned in real time and customers are refunded within 14 days.
“We really appreciate the continued patience and understanding of our customers.”
In response to the CAA data analysis, Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said:“Virgin Atlantic understands the difficulties that the Covid-19 crisis poses to our customers with upcoming travel plans, and we are offering as much flexibility as possible for those whose trips are affected.
“We’re helping customers with upcoming travel plans to rebook on an alternative date free-of-charge, with the option to change their destination, all the way until 30 September 2022.
“As a direct result of the crisis and global travel restrictions, we have had to make significant cancellations to our flying programme, with a selection of core routes recommencing from 20 July 2020.
To provide immediate peace of mind, where a flight is cancelled, we’re automatically providing a customer credit equal to the value of the trip. This credit can be used to rebook on alternative dates, allowing for a destination change and name change, for travel all the way until 30 September 2022.
“If the rebooked travel date occurs before 30 November 2020, we’ll also waive any potential fare difference. This process gives customers the flexibility and time to decide their future travel plans with Virgin Atlantic when they are ready to do so.
“Our absolute focus remains on supporting all of our loyal customers, whether that’s to amend, rebook or cancel plans during the Covid-19 crisis. We continue to be inundated with an unprecedented volume of refund requests, while working through a backlog, and unfortunately these are taking longer than usual to be processed.
“Our customer centre and finance teams are working from home with limited infrastructure, so in order to accelerate the process, we have boosted the size of the team handling refunds. These additional staff are receiving training to use the required systems, which is increasing our capacity to process refunds.
“We would reassure all customers that if they’ve eligibly requested a refund, it will be repaid in full, and the work to process refunds is our priority. Payments are being prioritised based on how long the customer has been waiting for their refund, working in order from March 2020 onwards.
“We are committed to completing each refund at the earliest opportunity, but we would assure customers that payment will be processed within an absolute maximum of 120 days, from the date the refund is requested. We are making every effort to reduce this timeframe wherever possible in these extraordinary circumstances and thank all of our customers for their patience.
Passengers arriving in Scotland from 57 overseas destinations that have similar or lower levels of coronavirus (COVID-19) infection than Scotland will no longer need to quarantine. Travellers from the 14 UK overseas territories will also be exempt.
This public health measure will be lifted on Friday (10 July) for those arriving from countries and territories where the risk of importing COVID-19 is sufficiently low – with 26 European nations among them, including Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Malta.
Passengers arriving from these countries will still be required to complete the online passenger locator form prior to travel and to supply contact details, travel details and the address of the final destination where they will be staying. Travellers arriving into Scotland via an English port or airport, or direct to the country, will still need to quarantine if they have been in a country which is not on the exemption list.
A further review will be conducted on the 20 July.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said: “Having carefully considered the public health impact of proposed exemptions we will lift the quarantine requirements from a limited number of countries where the risk of importing COVID-19 is sufficiently low.
“These exemptions will take effect on Friday, at the same time as those being introduced for travel into England and Wales.
“As we have lowered the level of the virus in Scotland, we must manage the risk of more cases coming into the country, particularly from areas where infections are more prevalent than here. That makes decisions about lifting quarantine requirements particularly difficult.
“Anyone travelling should follow public health advice at all times including wearing face coverings, avoiding crowded places, washing hands and surfaces, staying two metres apart and self-isolating if you get symptoms and immediately registering for a test.”
Passengers arriving in Scotland will no longer need to quarantine provided they have not been in a non-exempted country in the previous 14 days.
Public health rules for international travel are an important part of Scotland’s wider response to the COVID-19 pandemic – to limit the introduction of new chains of transmission of the virus as the country’s own infection rates are/have been falling.
The measures were initially introduced across the UK and applied to travellers arriving from all countries outwith the Common Travel Area (CTA)
Exempting additional countries, including Spain and Serbia, will be considered at three weekly review points with the next review being 20 July.
Data received from the UK Government indicates that the prevalence of the virus in Spain is 0.33% which means 330 people per 100,000 have the virus. In Scotland that figure is 28 people per 100,000.
Those travelling abroad should check in advance if there are any requirements to quarantine on arrival at their destination.
The list of overseas destinations where the self-isolation requirements for those arriving in Scotland will be lifted on Friday are:
Andorra; Antigua and Barbuda; Aruba; Australia; Austria; The Bahamas; Barbados; Belgium; Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba; Croatia; Curaçao; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Dominica; Faroe Islands; Fiji; Finland; France; French Polynesia; Germany; Greece; Greenland; Grenada; Guadeloupe; Hong Kong; Hungary ; Iceland; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg; Macau; Malta; Mauritius; Monaco; The Netherlands ; New Caledonia; New Zealand; Norway; Poland ; Réunion; San Marino ;Seychelles; St Barthélemy; St Kitts & Nevis; St Lucia; St Pierre and Miquelon; South Korea; Switzerland; Taiwan; Trinidad & Tobago; Turkey; Vatican City State and Vietnam.
The fourteen UK overseas territories also on the list of exemptions are: Akrotiri and Dhekelia; Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Ireland is already exempt as part of the Common Travel Area, as are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“Retaining quarantine restrictions on these countries could lead to Scottish holidaymakers being left out of pocket.
“Those who have already booked package holidays from an English airport may not be able to claim a refund because the holiday will now go ahead.
“It’s important that those affected get an opportunity to rebook at a later date and don’t have to pay the price for England and Scotland having different quarantine lists.”
