Coronavirus And The Broads

[Poppy]

6 minutes ago, marshman said:

I think the Banks will become a bit cautious in acceding to S 75 payments unless they see evidence that the refunds are not available through the company direct

They have to - it's the law.  However there are some provisos.

"A Section 75 claim should not be your first port of call.

You should always attempt to get a refund from the retailer you bought from beforehand."

More here https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/credit-cards/guides/section-75-protection.html

[Oddfellow]

4 minutes ago, Poppy said:

They have to - it's the law.  However there are some provisos.

"A Section 75 claim should not be your first port of call.

You should always attempt to get a refund from the retailer you bought from beforehand."

More here https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/credit-cards/guides/section-75-protection.html

Don't hold your breath though. Flight refunds are the law too and look what's happening there. 
 

I do not foresee a situation in the short to medium term where section 75 will be a viable way of getting refunds as i believe there are already instances of such claims being sat on. The problem is that, when you look at this pragmatically from a high-level view, it simply is not in the best interests of the situation as a whole to give mass refunds as it will destabilise companies. Then what happens? Companies fail, more people become unemployed, there more burden on the state, fewer people can afford holidays, costs rise, more people get laid off and the spiral ends where? 

The bigger picture needs to be see by everyone. Lots of companies could have handled things better, but if people are only able or willing to see their own situation, that's a sad indictment of the ME mentality that has become all too prevalent in the last 30 years. 

[Vaughan]

24 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

I am sure that's a great help to any business that has gone from perhaps £20k monthly revenue to zero overnight.

Exactly. Boatyards are a seasonal business, so at this time of year they are already owed a VAT refund on all the money they have spent on maintenance in the winter.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, Poppy said:

They have to - it's the law.  However there are some provisos.

"A Section 75 claim should not be your first port of call.

You should always attempt to get a refund from the retailer you bought from beforehand."

More here https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/credit-cards/guides/section-75-protection.html

Again in these precarious times the only certain thing, it that nothing is certain. The stock market has already fallen hugely. The share price of most banks is less than half what it was before the outbreak of the virus. They have already been through the financial crisis and the PPI scandals and have still not fully recovered. All private pensions have already been hugely impacted by the stock market crash. Banks are reeling and are already being instructed to help businesses out by the government, even if they are dragging their heels. One thing is for sure the government will ultimately take action to protect the banks and the economy even if it meant making quick changes to Section 75 of the credit agreement. Keeping the economy afloat and supporting long term viable businesses will be the governments priority over people losing their holiday money or refunds for other non essential items. Having said that, if I was looking to book a holiday or make any big purchase I would still use a credit card and hope that the protection remains. 

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Exactly. Boatyards are a seasonal business, so at this time of year they are already owed a VAT refund on all the money they have spent on maintenance in the winter.

As some one who uses their boat all year round and having seen that more and more yards are starting to hire over the Winter, I wonder if there will be more or a shift to all year round hiring? I know it has it's own problems with maintenance, short cruising and therefore running hours and dragging resources away from the annual refurb, but if the boats are ready and don't move for another couple of months then this years Winter maintenance may be less even if only because there is less money to spend on it. For people in lockdown who are desperate to go boating again, I'm sure a boating holiday at any time of the year is preferable to being stuck in doors. 

[Oddfellow]

7 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

As some one who uses their boat all year round and having seen that more and more yards are starting to hire over the Winter, I wonder if there will be more or a shift to all year round hiring? I know it has it's own problems with maintenance, short cruising and therefore running hours and dragging resources away from the annual refurb, but if the boats are ready and don't move for another couple of months then this years Winter maintenance may be less even if only because there is less money to spend on it. For people in lockdown who are desperate to go boating again, I'm sure a boating holiday at any time of the year is preferable to being stuck in doors. 

More and more yards hiring over winter? Surely just Ferry Marina? 

Let me assure you that the demand for winter hire has, over the last 11 years I've been doing this, paltry. That could change under the current situation, but it will lead to a huge rise in complaints from customers who expect zero draughts, toasty central heating, power to work despite just 1 hour of engine time a day and so on. It's often more trouble than it's worth which is why we stopped doing it. 

 

[CambridgeCabby]

The more that people demand refunds from cancelled holidays the result sadly will be the loss of the operators , to help preserve the industry both here and abroad a more sensible option would be to rebook either for next year or for when the lockdown is lifted .

Any monies already paid out have been budgeted for by the individuals , what hasn’t been budgeted for is returning the said monies to everyone .

[DAVIDH]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I think he would at least have made sure his phone got answered and this seems to be the basis of the complaints we have seen. Lack of customer communication, which gives the impression that the agency is just "circling the wagons".

Many at Hoseasons are furloughed, as they are in most companies. The government paying 80% of their wages is the only way to keep the company afloat. Those staff are not allowed to work so there are logically, less staff to take the calls, process the ammendments and cancellations etc. Certain marketing people I deal with are doing that job now, so please don't assume they are just circling the wagons. 

I can't agree that because they have got bigger, they no longer care what their customer base is saying. As Andy says, all travel companies are having a terrible time trying to survive, and in the same circumstances of having less staff on hand to help. Hoseasons are not just a Broads boating company, they market the Thames, the Canals and overseas, so the loss of such a large holiday area as the Broads, would not be good news to them, as it would weaken their offering as the holiday afloat specialist. Overall it would damage their reputation as an accommodation only provider of boats, lodges, cottages and holiday parks. They will not take it lightly. I am a member of a travel agency Facebook page and I can assure you, these delays are reported across all companies and airlines. Nobody is just taking the money and running for the hills. 

Regarding the perceived power Hoseasons has over the boatyards, I wonder if it's now more the other way around, at least as far as the Broads is concerned. The yards it represents, in the main, have  on-line reservations systems and have had the capability to accept bookings for some years now. Richardsons, NBD, and Barnes Brinkcraft are all sizeable concerns, the loss of any of which would devalue Hoseason's Broads offering. Can you not imagine a scenario where Richardsons for example, would have dictated it's terms of trading with Hoseasons, rather than the other way around? You don't think Richardsons will be on the same commission terms as Silverline for example?

[ChrisB]

This Mornings Times.

[MotorBoater]

By 15th May we are due to pay a balance to Richardsons for our July holiday. We have decided to pay and sort out when we are likely to get our holiday afterwards.

One consideration is that as the wife is furloughed and the firm basically closed so no-one is available there to discuss altered holiday dates at the present time.

We could have paid it by now but we are hoping for a clearer idea of the overall situation and I don't think that is unreasonable, purely for peace of mind.

And peace of mind is surely the key here. I have "Stood off" the debate around Hoseasons waiting for someone to state the bl**dy obvious which is recourse to the Small Claims Court. A company can be found in breach of contract and ordered to pay monies due, plus costs, and if they don't you upgrade it to the bailiffs. Anybody who has seen the bailiff program on BBC morning programs will know there is nothing like the bailiffs turning up at a large company to concentrate their minds. If you don't want to do it yourself hire a solicitor and add their costs in as well.

BUT.....There may be consequences in pushing a company to the brink if they suffer multiple assaults in this way.

Surely if anyone is anxious about their money the way forward is a complaint to Trading Standards or maybe the relevant government quango (I think it might be called The Competition & Marketing Authority, or some such.) and it needn't take the usual one or two years either.

Just ask three simple questions, have you got the customers money, if not who has, if you have why have you not repaid it ?

It is amazing what these people can do, once they wake up. If a company can't honour their financial obligations then they are trading insolvently in breach of the law and the directors are liable in law.

They don't have to be dishonest, just insolvent.

This is a bit rhetorical because, Hoseasons aside, it seems to me that a lot of this issue is sorted by consensus between parties.

Peace of mind, you might not like where you end up but at least it's sorted out. Now you have to find something else to worry about.

We are paying our money and we don't see it as taking a chance. We were planning a further trip up around October, maybe September, but having sampled the Broads in March we are hoping for something a bit warmer and calmer first !

There's too much doom and gloom on here lately, I prefer to concentrate on the great pictures, and memories, of the old Broads and the more recent too.

None of us will forget the friends and family lost, or the wider picture, but I think those of us of "A certain age" still have a duty to look forward  and try to instill in present and future generations a sense of history and, yes, pride in our environment, our institutions, particularly our health service, not to mention our nautical heritage !

So plenty to be getting on with - including sorting the shed/garage. Another Great British Institution being kept afloat in these pages !

[Oddfellow]

  

6 minutes ago, MotorBoater said:

By 15th May we are due to pay a balance to Richardsons for our July holiday. We have decided to pay and sort out when we are likely to get our holiday afterwards.

One consideration is that as the wife is furloughed and the firm basically closed so no-one is available there to discuss altered holiday dates at the present time.

We could have paid it by now but we are hoping for a clearer idea of the overall situation and I don't think that is unreasonable, purely for peace of mind.

And peace of mind is surely the key here. I have "Stood off" the debate around Hoseasons waiting for someone to state the bl**dy obvious which is recourse to the Small Claims Court. A company can be found in breach of contract and ordered to pay monies due, plus costs, and if they don't you upgrade it to the bailiffs. Anybody who has seen the bailiff program on BBC morning programs will know there is nothing like the bailiffs turning up at a large company to concentrate their minds. If you don't want to do it yourself hire a solicitor and add their costs in as well.

BUT.....There may be consequences in pushing a company to the brink if they suffer multiple assaults in this way.

Surely if anyone is anxious about their money the way forward is a complaint to Trading Standards or maybe the relevant government quango (I think it might be called The Competition & Marketing Authority, or some such.) and it needn't take the usual one or two years either.

Just ask three simple questions, have you got the customers money, if not who has, if you have why have you not repaid it ?

It is amazing what these people can do, once they wake up. If a company can't honour their financial obligations then they are trading insolvently in breach of the law and the directors are liable in law.

They don't have to be dishonest, just insolvent.

This is a bit rhetorical because, Hoseasons aside, it seems to me that a lot of this issue is sorted by consensus between parties.

Peace of mind, you might not like where you end up but at least it's sorted out. Now you have to find something else to worry about.

We are paying our money and we don't see it as taking a chance. We were planning a further trip up around October, maybe September, but having sampled the Broads in March we are hoping for something a bit warmer and calmer first !

There's too much doom and gloom on here lately, I prefer to concentrate on the great pictures, and memories, of the old Broads and the more recent too.

None of us will forget the friends and family lost, or the wider picture, but I think those of us of "A certain age" still have a duty to look forward  and try to instill in present and future generations a sense of history and, yes, pride in our environment, our institutions, particularly our health service, not to mention our nautical heritage !

So plenty to be getting on with - including sorting the shed/garage. Another Great British Institution being kept afloat in these pages !

I understand that there is very little appetite in the civil legal system for small claims action as mentioned here. Winding up orders are being discouraged too. Be very careful of the suggestions that you make here, even if they are balanced with other comments. 

The ONLY people who would have an appetite to push things like this into the small-claims territory at a time like this will be incredibly selfish, unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture. There will be no overall winners from a legal challenge, and that's assuming that a small claims court would even entertain such a move during these remarkable times. 

[Poppy]

1 hour ago, ChrisB said:

This Mornings Times.

 

They won't get away with it .

"Amid anger over the stalling tactics, the Financial Ombudsman Service, which adjudicates on complaints between banks and their customers, said: “We recognise this is an unprecedented situation but there is no reason not to process these claims as usual.” 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/106845/why-are-banks-blocking-lost-holiday-repayments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

[RS2021]

The government have also hinted very strongly that after they were bailed out in the financial crisis and encouraged to build up reserves, the banks should step up to the mark this time. Surely the reserves built up are just for a time like this.

[JennyMorgan]

13 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

The ONLY people who would have an appetite to push things like this into the small-claims territory at a time like this will be incredibly selfish, unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture. There will be no overall winners from a legal challenge, and that's assuming that a small claims court would even entertain such a move during these remarkable times. 

Andy, I wouldn't count on it. Whilst the big boys are protecting themselves in an attempt to avoid going under there are also smaller fry who will also wish to safeguard their interests. Personally, like many in retirement, I have no way of replacing what I lose, thus I would fight to retain what is mine. Not that I am unable to see the bigger picture, indeed I think that I can. There can be little question that such as Hoseason are presently vulnerable. I see no reason why I shouldn't protect my interests, just as businesses do.

Many years ago, in the great Broads recession to which Vaughan has often referred, I bought two day boats. Decent people, good boats, rather than just the usual deposit on commencing building, they asked for the cash up front, which seemed reasonable and they had been entirely open and honest with me as to their situation. Unfortunately someone else in their supply chain was also in trouble and one business dragged down the other. End result was that I became the owner of two incomplete boats, one without the engine. From that day to this I have vowed that I will not be caught again, my family's interests have to come first.  

[Poppy]

2 minutes ago, RS2021 said:

The government have also hinted very strongly that after they were bailed out in the financial crisis and encouraged to build up reserves, the banks should step up to the mark this time. Surely the reserves built up are just for a time like this.

We are advised that it's a good rule of thumb to give ourselves a solid financial cushion of around three months' essential outgoings available . So if you lose your job, for example, it'll help buy you three months to find a new one.

Is this not also aplicable to business ?

[Vaughan]

5 hours ago, Vaughan said:

There is also another objective question : Is it the boatyard who are failing to provide the holiday, or is it the customer, who is failing to arrive for the holiday?

What I really meant by that was : is there an actual breach of contract that requires a refund and if so, who is breaching it?

I have studied Richardsons conditions of hire as published on their website this morning.  In other words, right up to date.  I have not looked at others as it is safe to assume they will be almost exactly the same.  They are the industry's conditions which have not changed in 50 odd years, apart from the odd comma or full stop.

The things which matter here are cancellation of the holiday, either by the boatyard or by the customer.

When you book you are responsible for the full hire terms even if you cannot take your holiday as planned.  We have on your instructions reserved the boat exclusively for you.

Unfortunately events beyond our control occasionally affect bookings . . . . .  this means any event(s) or circumstance(s) which we could not, even with all due care, forsee or avoid. 

They then list the events, which mainly involve flooding of a river, or lack of water in a canal.   It is very important to remember that the Norfolk Broads are not closed to navigation and this has been confirmed by the BA on this forum. 

In these cases, they will offer a different boat, date or cruising area, or all three, but the next clause needs reading carefully :

Providing the cancellation is not due to events beyond our control, we will also offer you a full refund. 

So they are saying that as this situation is beyond their control it qualifies for a modification of the booking, but not for a refund.  Whilst we might have our own opinion on the ethics of that statement it remains a fact that it is one of the conditions under which the contract was made.

And now as to cancellation by the customer :

They say that you can only demand a refund of your balance payment for a "qualifying reason", one of which is  -  Compulsory quarantine of you or any member of your party or your travel being prevented by Government restriction following an epidemic.

That would seem clear enough until you consider what is a Government "restriction"?  Is it a law enforcement, or a recommended guideline?  And please, before some members climb back into their pulpits and shout "stay at home and save lives!" at me, we have to consider what these words might mean in a court of law.  I think it is safe to assume that an insurance company would not pay out on a "guideline"!

As I see it, the boat you have hired is still there, ready to go and the Broads are still open.  The boatyard is closed by the simple fact that there are no customers.  The customers have stayed away because the Government has told them to.  But does that constitute a reason for the refund of a legal contract and have either side actually breached it? 

There are some very grey areas here and I hope that common sense will prevail, rather than having to test it in court, as I really could not guess what the outcome of that might be.  A very good day for lawyers, no doubt, but probably not for anyone else!

 

 

 

[MotorBoater]

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

  

I understand that there is very little appetite in the civil legal system for small claims action as mentioned here. Winding up orders are being discouraged too. Be very careful of the suggestions that you make here, even if they are balanced with other comments. 

The ONLY people who would have an appetite to push things like this into the small-claims territory at a time like this will be incredibly selfish, unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture. There will be no overall winners from a legal challenge, and that's assuming that a small claims court would even entertain such a move during these remarkable times. 

I understand your point of view but I am moved to point out two things, neither of them in a spirit of confrontation,

The legal route is there by act of parliament and can only be removed by the same. I would not advocate such action but the possibility should not be ignored. However it will take exceptional stamina to progress far under lockdown.

Someone who has struggled on minimum wage to save for a year, or more, to save for a family holiday will not see it as selfish if he is trying to protect that investment. He simply wants to know what is happening to his money and why he can't get it back. He will probably re-invest it in another holiday as that was the idea in the first place and thinks he might try a different way.

As for Hoseasons, and other firms in a similar situation, if they did not respond positively to a solicitors letter asking for a refund I would start to wonder (As previously expressed in this thread) do they have the money, or can they get it. That might be the time to give Trading Standards, or similar, a call.

[Meantime]

15 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

What I really meant by that was : is there an actual breach of contract that requires a refund and if so, who is breaching it?

I have studied Richardsons conditions of hire as published on their website this morning.  In other words, right up to date.  I have not looked at others as it is safe to assume they will be almost exactly the same.  They are the industry's conditions which have not changed in 50 odd years, apart from the odd comma or full stop.

The things which matter here are cancellation of the holiday, either by the boatyard or by the customer.

When you book you are responsible for the full hire terms even if you cannot take your holiday as planned.  We have on your instructions reserved the boat exclusively for you.

Unfortunately events beyond our control occasionally affect bookings . . . . .  this means any event(s) or circumstance(s) which we could not, even with all due care, forsee or avoid. 

They then list the events, which mainly involve flooding of a river, or lack of water in a canal.   It is very important to remember that the Norfolk Broads are not closed to navigation and this has been confirmed by the BA on this forum. 

In these cases, they will offer a different boat, date or cruising area, or all three, but the next clause needs reading carefully :

Providing the cancellation is not due to events beyond our control, we will also offer you a full refund. 

So they are saying that as this situation is beyond their control it qualifies for a modification of the booking, but not for a refund.  Whilst we might have our own opinion on the ethics of that statement it remains a fact that it is one of the conditions under which the contract was made.

And now as to cancellation by the customer :

They say that you can only demand a refund of your balance payment for a "qualifying reason", one of which is  -  Compulsory quarantine of you or any member of your party or your travel being prevented by Government restriction following an epidemic.

That would seem clear enough until you consider what is a Government "restriction"?  Is it a law enforcement, or a recommended guideline?  And please, before some members climb back into their pulpits and shout "stay at home and save lives!" at me, we have to consider what these words might mean in a court of law.  I think it is safe to assume that an insurance company would not pay out on a "guideline"!

As I see it, the boat you have hired is still there, ready to go and the Broads are still open.  The boatyard is closed by the simple fact that there are no customers.  The customers have stayed away because the Government has told them to.  But does that constitute a reason for the refund of a legal contract and have either side actually breached it? 

There are some very grey areas here and I hope that common sense will prevail, rather than having to test it in court, as I really could not guess what the outcome of that might be.  A very good day for lawyers, no doubt, but probably not for anyone else!

 

The government has already said that travelling to a second home or holiday home is non essential and you could be liable to a fine. They have specified a limited number of reasons you can be out of the home and going on holiday is most definitely not on that list. So whilst I'm no lawyer in the case of the contract you quote above I would think the bit I highlighted and underlined would suffice, and failing that then if anybody in the party had a cough or fever and were forced to self isolate, that would seal the deal. However putting all of that to one side, patience and understanding and rebooking for a later date would to me seem to be the best option.

[Ray]

11 minutes ago, MotorBoater said:

Someone who has struggled on minimum wage to save for a year, or more, to save for a family holiday will not see it as selfish if he is trying to protect that investment. He simply wants to know what is happening to his money and why he can't get it back.

This is a point that concerns me about the subject under discussion. I fully agree with all the comments suggesting flexibility and patience, to protect Broads businesses and ultimately the Broads themselves.

But in the example above and there will be quite a few, that someone may have lost their job and be in financial difficulty, some protection and fast track refund procedure does need to be in place for genuine cases of severe hardship.

[Vaughan]

10 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

The government has already said that travelling to a second home or holiday home is non essential and you could be liable to a fine. They have specified a limited number of reasons you can be out of the home and going on holiday is most definitely not on that list.

I agree with you but I would still not like to predict the outcome of that in court.

[Oddfellow]

42 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Andy, I wouldn't count on it. Whilst the big boys are protecting themselves in an attempt to avoid going under there are also smaller fry who will also wish to safeguard their interests. Personally, like many in retirement, I have no way of replacing what I lose, thus I would fight to retain what is mine. Not that I am unable to see the bigger picture, indeed I think that I can. There can be little question that such as Hoseason are presently vulnerable. I see no reason why I shouldn't protect my interests, just as businesses do.

Allow me to be more succinct: push too hard in a legal sense and there is a real possibility of nobody getting anything. Customers ARE NOT preferred creditors when a business fails ergo nobody wins or gets what they wanted. 

29 minutes ago, MotorBoater said:

Someone who has struggled on minimum wage to save for a year, or more, to save for a family holiday will not see it as selfish if he is trying to protect that investment. He simply wants to know what is happening to his money and why he can't get it back. He will probably re-invest it in another holiday as that was the idea in the first place and thinks he might try a different way.

Agreed and I can see that I made a poor choice of words, but my point stands, perhaps further clarified in my comment to Peter above.  

31 minutes ago, MotorBoater said:

That might be the time to give Trading Standards, or similar, a call.

But what good will come of this either? The chances of individuals getting anything back remain slim and it might just upset the whole apple cart resulting in nothing for everyone. 

We can hypothesise for ages but there are only a few people in this thread and the whole forum who have real-world experience of running a business such as those we are discussing here and I am sure that we can all agree that the focus has to be on maintaining the viability of all the businesses in the Broads sector (and in others) so that some form of normality can return for the benefit of the many. 

Refunds might not be possible now, but they may be in the future. We all need to sit it out and see what happens as we are all affected by this and will be for many years to come. 

 

[Poppy]

2 hours ago, MotorBoater said:

By 15th May we are due to pay a balance to Richardsons for our July holiday. We have decided to pay and sort out when we are likely to get our holiday afterwards.

One consideration is that as the wife is furloughed and the firm basically closed so no-one is available there to discuss altered holiday dates at the present time.

We could have paid it by now but we are hoping for a clearer idea of the overall situation and I don't think that is unreasonable, purely for peace of mind.

And peace of mind is surely the key here. I have "Stood off" the debate around Hoseasons waiting for someone to state the bl**dy obvious which is recourse to the Small Claims Court. A company can be found in breach of contract and ordered to pay monies due, plus costs, and if they don't you upgrade it to the bailiffs. Anybody who has seen the bailiff program on BBC morning programs will know there is nothing like the bailiffs turning up at a large company to concentrate their minds. If you don't want to do it yourself hire a solicitor and add their costs in as well.

 

The cost of employing a solicitor for a solicitor under small claims may not be recovered under any judgement.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

 

...And now as to cancellation by the customer :

They say that you can only demand a refund of your balance payment for a "qualifying reason", one of which is  -  Compulsory quarantine of you or any member of your party or your travel being prevented by Government restriction following an epidemic.

That would seem clear enough until you consider what is a Government "restriction"?  Is it a law enforcement, or a recommended guideline?  And please, before some members climb back into their pulpits and shout "stay at home and save lives!" at me, we have to consider what these words might mean in a court of law.  I think it is safe to assume that an insurance company would not pay out on a "guideline"!...

 

Just to be clear, the law on this is contained in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 Section 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

Section 6 (2) then gives circumstances that may be considered to be 'reasonable excuse'. Going on holiday is not on that list.

The fundamental restriction is designed to prevent people from leaving the place where they are living, so, yes, travel is being prevented.

 

[Vaughan]

50 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

Allow me to be more succinct: push too hard in a legal sense and there is a real possibility of nobody getting anything. Customers ARE NOT preferred creditors when a business fails ergo nobody wins or gets what they wanted. 

Exactly. They would simply find themselves a long way down the queue of those scrabbling to try and recover a few "pence in the pound".

Much better for customers (who were already loyal to their boatyard) to stay loyal and ride out the crisis.  That way they can help the yard to stay in business and welcome them again, for a future holiday!

[Vaughan]

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Just to be clear, the law on this is contained in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 Section 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

Section 6 (2) then gives circumstances that may be considered to be 'reasonable excuse'. Going on holiday is not on that list.

The fundamental restriction is designed to prevent people from leaving the place where they are living, so, yes, travel is being prevented.

Again, I agree but does that mean (in court) that either side is in breach of the contract?  Surely the customer, of his own volition, would happily turn up on the due date and enjoy his holiday?  But, just like the boatyard, he is being prevented (to use your own word) by circumstances beyond his control?

I suppose what I am asking is : if government prevention is the cause of the breach of contract, then should government pick up the cost of it, since neither side of the contract itself, is actually at fault?

 

 

"Kirk to Enterprise : one to beam up!"