Hotels and Holidays

This category covers regulations which must be met by hotels and other types of accommodation providers. Measures included here concern the types of records hotels need to keep and the kind of signs they need to display. There are also regulations about caravan parks, package holidays, tour operators and timeshares.

You can find all the regulations that relate to hotels and holidays below to the left.

Housing Act 2004

The aim of the HMO licensing provisions is to improve property condition and management standards in these types of properties. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to licence certain high risk privately rented HMOs

Domestic regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Hotel Proprietors Act 1956

The Hotel Proprietors Act 1956 sets out the liability of hotel owners for damages to the property of hotel guests.

Domestic regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts Regulations 2010

Provides consumer protection measures in relation to the sale and resale of timeshares, the sale of holiday clubs (and other long-term holiday products) and the sale of timeshare exchange system membership.

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007

Sets out requirements for smokefree premises and vehicles to display no smoking signs, including size, wording and location.

Domestic regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Smoke-free (Penalties and Discounted Amounts) Regulations 2007

These regulations set out the levels of fines for offences set out in smokefree legislation (Health Act 2006).

Domestic regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Caravan Sites Act 1968 and Social Landlords (Permissible Additional Purposes) (England) Order 2006 (Definition of Caravan) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006

Deals with definition of caravan for residential and holiday purposes

Domestic regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours (Amendment) Regulations 1998

Requirements to provide information in brochures and before contracts are agreed.

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours (Amendment) Regulations 1995

Allows package travel organisers and approved bodies to enter arrangements or arrange insurance cover for the protection of consumer prepayments, and to provide for repatriation in the event of organiser bankruptcy.

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992

Regulates consumer protections by requiring package travel organisers to, for example, provide consumers with a minimum of information before travel, to have in place financial protection to cover a refund for or the repatriation of the consumer in the event of organiser bankruptcy, and make the organiser liable for the proper performance of all of the services covered by the package contract.

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Immigration (Hotel Records) Order 1972

Requires every person staying at a hotel or similar establishment to provide certain information, and for foreign nationals to provide additional information.  It requires hotels etc. to maintain a record of that information for 12 months or more.

Domestic regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 1995

Requires travel companies selling seats on flights to have an ATOL licence, unless exempt, in order to protect consumers from the insolvency of the travel company

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1996

Requires travel companies selling seats on flights to have an ATOL licence, unless exempt, in order to protect consumers from the insolvency of the travel company

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing)(Amendment) Regulations 1997

Requires travel companies selling seats on flights to have an ATOL licence, unless exempt, in order to protect consumers from the insolvency of the travel company

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing)(Amendment) Regulations 2003

Requires travel companies selling seats on flights to have an ATOL licence, unless exempt, in order to protect consumers from the insolvency of the travel company

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Civil Aviation (Contributions to the Air Travel Trust) Regulations 2007

Requires ATOL licence holders to contribute to pooled fund to meet consumer protection costs from insolvencies

EU regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

123 responses to Hotels and Holidays

  • Fiona Bewers said on June 2, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    The Private Water Supplies Regulations 2009 require local authorities to ensure that a suitable process of risk assessments is in place for all private water supplies by January 2015. While the main thrust of the regulatory regime is aimed at static caravan/park home/chalet estates, these regulations are likely to have implications for touring caravan sites with multiple distribution points.

    On touring caravan sites, facilities located within amenity buildings are in regular use. Any theoretical risk is only associated with cold water storage tanks.

    For such properties, it is proposed for buildings intended for multiple use:

    1. Where connected to a supply provided by a Water Undertaker: annual disinfection (against legionella bacteria) and flushing through of all pipework and fittings supplied via a holding tank located after the mains inlet;

    2. Where connected to a private water supply (eg spring, borehole): a) risk assessment every 5 years; b) annual test to confirm potable; c) appropriate measures to be implemented according to outcome of a) and b) and possibly including option 1.

    To impose additional, unnecessary regulation and associated financial burden upon operators of touring caravan sites will amount to an excessive and unjustified discrimination against this form of business which contributes considerably to the national tourism-based economy.

    For a Certificated Location (CL) under Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule of The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, to extend a frequent testing regime upon these sites would be excessive, inappropriate and unjustified, especially as these locations are for a maximum of only five caravans. The majority of these sites have no facilities to present any theoretical risk of contamination or bacteria in the water supply. To impose stringent requirements for water testing will add significant financial burdens upon CLs. These small touring caravan sites provide considerable benefits for rural economies but are reducing under the burden of regulation and overheads.

  • Andrew Evans said on June 2, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    1. Business Rates, base it on Net Profit not turnover as the capital invested to raise turnover is usually funded by debt.

    2. Employers National Insurance a reduction would stimulate and encourage job creation and increase rates of pay.

    3. VAT, the Financial Minister’s of EU member States in 1996 agreed to vary the rates for VAT, this includes Guest Accommodation and Food served in restaurants. The UK is currently the 133rd least competitive out of 133 tourist destinations, the latest ‘Lonely Planet Guide’ accuses the UK tourism industry of being over priced. Studies show that gross revenue increases with more trade following a reduction. Ireland is in the process of reducing their VAT rate for Tourism. Please reduce the rate of VAT for Tourism to compete with France, Germany and Spain.

    4. Capital gains and Inheritance Tax, reward small / local business who’s efforts generate huge tax revenue to benefit their local economy. Allow the continuity of strong sustainable business that regenerate communities.

    5. Fuel Duty and additional VAT, in rural economies personal transport is the only means of travelling to work and to make essential journeys, the increase in VAT and duty on fuel inflates all cost, and reduces net income.

    Maternity /Paternity, Rebalance the rights of the employer and allow them to agree when the employee plans to return to work, we have had 3 employees not returning to work and not knowing until after 48 weeks of their leave, this may be ok in some sectors but for small seasonal family business in rural communities, key worker cover is impossible and prohibitive. The proposed increase in maternity pay is also a penalty to employers employing potential expectant parents. The Summer earning sustain winter employment, however the return to work in winter without summer earnings is a severe disadvantage to a small business.

    Holiday Allowance, the announcement of additional public holidays should be within the national allowance and not be an additional entitlement, holidays should be accrued and earned with increased entitlement given as a reward for performance and service. Increase national productivity by reducing the 1st year to allow the employer to reward exemplar performance in the second and successive years, consider the location, seasonality and nature of the business. We are forced to grant Annual Leave during key revenue periods, sacrifice service standards and in some cases business are forced to close to honour entitlements.

    Recruitment / Termination, give back the right of employers to get meaningful references, cut the benefits and credits that are a disincentive to work. Protect the needy and vulnerable but if jobs are available it should not be a lifestyle choice to stay on benefits.

    Working Time Directive, in seasonal resorts with small revenue windows, the opportunity and choice to work extra hours should be an individual’s choice and not restricted through legislation. Any person with aspiration and ambition should be encouraged to grow, develop and earn more.

    Trade Waste, With the introduction of recycling targets, the cost of trade waste collection has rocketed, to comply with set recycling targets our Local Authority which was collecting our waste increased costs in excess of 70% to reduce trade waste customers and meet their target.

    Planning, a 60% provision in our LDP of affordable housing in residential planning applications is unworkable with the current declining Housing Market. Flexibility is needed to review and unlock development sites; release needed new housing and stimulate the construction industry.

    Equality Compliance, The Wales Government, have as an objective to exceed compliance within equality legislation, e.g. the W.G. spend on procurement will be dictated by the suppliers exceeded compliance, this is unfair.

    In conclusion all LA and Government departments need greater engagement with business and the Hospitality Industry before introducing changes. Listen to the trade, and avoid the curse of individual departments acting independently where one initiative compounds the effect of other enforced rules and regulations.

    Today our guest needs and demands, are increasing with the advent of digital and social networking, yet our flexibility and ability to meet those needs are restricted and compromised by the growing need for compliance.

  • Fiona Bewers said on June 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    The Caravan Club welcomes the Government’s initiative to reduce the regulatory burden placed on tourism businesses across the UK. It is vital that UK tourism remains competitive in the current economic climate and anything that allows companies to concentrate on their core business – ensuring that their guests and visitors have an enjoyable and memorable holiday – can only be of benefit. We would welcome all measures which eliminate needless duplication of effort, simplify procedures and promote the communication of best practice across the sector. We would also make a plea for the avoidance of unintended consequences for any new legislation, so the voice of the industry is heard and acted upon during the consultation phase, and a comprehensive impact assessment conducted.

  • Jonathan Bell said on June 2, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, were set up primarily to provide protection to customers who have bought package tours including a flight element, so that they can, for example, be repatriated in case of failure of the company providing the tour. And yet they also apply to very small businesses offering, for example, walking tours without any flight component. Could there not be an exemption for very small businesses of those offering packages without foreign flights, so that they do not suffer the crippling costs of bonding, or the inability to recover payment until long after costs have been incurred?

  • ABTA - The Travel Association said on June 2, 2011 at 10:13 am

    ABTA represents over 1,400 travel companies, spread out over 5,400 locations across the breadth and width of the country. ABTA members include travel agents, tour operators and support tourism services right across the spectrum, from small family-owned businesses to the largest tour operators. ABTA is the largest travel association in the UK and its members provide 90% of the package holidays sold in the UK as well as selling millions of independent travel arrangements for both domestic and foreign breaks.

    We have consulted with our Members and convened the ABTA Red Tape Taskforce, a group of experts comprising a representative cross section of ABTA’s membership. While we will be submitting a more comprehensive report to the Cabinet Office, the Tourism Minister, and the Tourism Regulation Taskforce shortly, we have identified some key red tape that is either redundant, costly, in need of review, disproportionate, or impacts negatively on growth:

    Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007:

    When the smoking ban was brought into force, the Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations played an important transitional function, requiring “no smoking” signs to be placed at each entrance to a smoke-free premise. The ban on smoking in enclosed public places is now firmly embedded in practices and behaviour and there seems to be little value in the maintenance (and replacement) of “no smoking” signage outside of UK businesses and attractions. There is certainly a case for this legislation to be reviewed, and likely, repealed.

    Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007:

    ABTA is in full agreement with the Tourism Alliance’s submission on this piece of legislation. Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) were introduced as government sought to implement the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. The Regulatory Impact Assessment which accompanied the 2007 Regulations, made it clear that Government gold-plated the implementation of the Directive. Article 7(1) of the Directive requires an EPC to be made available whenever a building is constructed, sold or rented out, with EPCs having to be renewed every ten years. Implementation could have followed this strict interpretation of the Directive, but Government chose to require a new EPC to be produced whenever a building is marketed for sale. The RIA identified higher costs as a result of the latter approach, but also suggested greater benefits, which was the rationale for choosing this form of implementation. In a Communities and Local Government consultation, ‘Making better use of Energy Performance Certificates and Data’ (May 2010), it was acknowledged that there was no evidence that EPCs were delivering improved energy performance. Nonetheless they sought to broaden the scope of EPCs by introducing them for buildings used for short-term holiday lets; there were also proposals for the inclusion of EPC information in advertisements for holiday accommodation. The DCLG proposal to extend EPCs to properties used as Short-Term Holiday Lets is not based on any evidence that holiday makers use the energy efficiency of properties to base their decision on where to stay. It is also notable that the Impact Assessment acknowledges that, even if the users and owners of properties acted in a way that discriminated between properties on this basis, the benefit to the operator would only be £2 per annum.

    Immigration (Hotel Records) Order 1972:

    The Immigration (Hotel Records) Order 1972 is an obsolete piece of legislation originally borne out of Cold War security concerns and. This legislation requires that the operators of all lodgings record an excessive amount of data from all guests over 16 years old, including: date of arrival and departure, full name, and nationality. If the guest is from outside the UK, Ireland or the Commonwealth, the operator is also required to record the guest’s passport number, the place the passport was issued, as well as the next destination that the guest will be visiting. Furthermore, the data collected must be held securely for a year. The Order was identified in the 2009 Home Office Simplification Plan as needing to be repealed to reduce regulatory burden

    Licensing Act 2003:

    ABTA is in full agreement with the Tourism Alliance’s submission on this piece of legislation. The introduction of the Licensing Act saw the licensing fees for small businesses with very low alcohol sales rise from £30 for 3 years to over £250 per year in many cases. This cost, and the associated complexity of the new application forms, caused hundreds of small businesses such as B&Bs and self-catering properties to give up their licences. Alcohol was usually supplied as a service at a loss, but the increased fees meant that customers were effectively deprived of that service. To reduce the regulatory burden, another category of licence for businesses with very low alcohol sales that are peripheral to their overall activity would be helpful. Such a licence would simply require the business to register with the local licensing authority and exempt the requirement for staff servicing alcohol to be licensed. To ensure this category of license was not abused, businesses would be required to gain a full licence if a complaint against the establishment was lodged and upheld.

    Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005:

    ABTA is in full agreement with the Tourism Alliance’s submission on this piece of legislation. Fire safety law changed in October 2006 with the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Prior to this reform, many small accommodation businesses were exempt from the Fire Regulations under the “six bed space rule”. This rule stated that the operator did not have to comply with the fire regulations provided that no more than 6 people could be accommodated on the premises (usually by having 3 bedrooms) and that none of the bedrooms were located above the first floor. This allowed people to operate a small B&B business in their residential property without needing to modify the building, though of course there were safeguards through the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. The 2005 Order removed this exemption even though there was only one recorded fatality occurring in any property that operated under the six bed-space rule in the preceding five years and this occurred as a result of a cigarette before the Smoke-Free Regulations were introduced. For caravan parks the 2005 Order removed fire safety from the issues addressed through the site licensing system and instead each business was required to assess and manage fire risk (and argue with enforcement officers where they disagreed their assessment). The new Fire Safety Order has caused considerable regulatory burden due to a lack of training for fire officers and lack of co-ordination or appropriate guidance on how the order should be applied to small accommodation businesses. The situation has improved since new November 2008 when better Government guidance was issued (“Do You Take Paying Guests?”). However, considerable unnecessary costs are still being imposed upon businesses due to the inconsistent interpretation and application of the order by fire safety offices in different regions. This can be resolved by reintroducing the six-beds space rule or, if this is not possible, developing and issuing guidance to Fire Safety Officers to ensure a consistent, light-handed approach to the application of the Fire Safety Order.

  • P Curtis said on June 1, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    I have worked in a family owned and run holiday park for nearly 20 years and have seen the effect that the huge increases in regulations have had on the cost of running the business. We are classed as a contractor in the Construction Industry Scheme because we have changed touring to static pitches, our business is holidays and leisure not construction, yet we still have to comply with Construction regulations. Surely this should be restricted to companies purely in the Construction Industry?
    Amongst others, we have to consider money laundering when selling holiday homes and anti-bribery legislation when buying them! There should be criteria to stop small / medium businesses having to consider this kind of legislation and thus focus on the larger, more vulnerable organisations!

  • Samantha Pollock-Hill said on May 31, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    The division made in the past between small hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation in private homes should be reinstated. The removal of the barrier has meant that the fire departments of each county can make arbitrary decisions as to what is and what is not appropriate provision for fire safety without any guidelines and without any recognition of the difference between a property that is lived in by a family who has a limited number of guests whilst they are on the premises and one which takes guests as an hotel and may only be staffed by a few people or in some cases during the night, none at all. The number of fires in private homes is very small and the current legislation used by the fire department takes no notice of this. They site the tragic fire in Cornwall as their reason, a fire which happened in a small hotel where none of the staff lived in. A family home is always staffed and the owners will take the greatest care to make sure that the guests, the family and the animals are evacuated quickly and safely.

  • Ruth Lander said on May 31, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Smokefree Regulations
    The Governments Better Regulation Unit cites the smokefree laws prohibiting smoking in public places as a case study of effective regualtion. The signage regulations are an important part of why the legislation is effective and these regulations should be left as they are for a number of reasons. Firstly they are working well and we have seen an effective level of compliance as well as the signage regulations being simple to both understand and implement. Finally the way that Public Health messages are communicated to members of the public is extremely important. The current signage clearly identifies which premises are covered by the legislation making it easy for people to recognise thus ensuring better compliance.

    • Robert Wright said on June 1, 2011 at 9:05 pm

      In response to the above, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Report ” Better Regulation Better Benefits: Getting the Balance Right, Case Studies, October 2009″ cited the effectiveness of the Smoke Free Laws. I quote “The Smokefree Law has achieved its aim of significantly reducing exposure to second hand smoke.” “It appears that the Smokefree Law is well known and its benefits widely appreciated.” The general thrust of the Report targeted the workplace and pubs & clubs. Nowhere did it mention the effectivenes or otherwise of Smokefree Signage. Putting this into context, the following conclusions may be drawn from the Report. 1. The aim has been achieved. 2. People know what is and is not acceptable. So, why are we flogging the dead horse of Smokefree Signage Law in private homes run as B&Bs and small commercial properties such as Guest Houses? It treats people as fools, with a presumption that a no smoking sign is needed otherwise people will smoke. I agree that the way Public Health Messages are communicated to members of the public is extremely important. In my opinion, the Smokefree Signage Law is not proportionate and irritates. It should be scrapped for small guest accommodation premises.

  • Ian Hunt said on May 29, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    This is what we are up against from the Government’s Consultation Document, Summary of Responses.
    Question 4.1
    Do you agree that the guidance should be amended to provide that an energy performance certificate must be produced when a holiday let is rented out on a short-term basis?
    Yes: 73 per cent
    No: 27 per cent
    Those who agreed said:

    as consumer interest in energy efficiency increases there is no reason to suppose that some consumers will not factor this into their decision making process

    energy performance certificates should apply to all habitable buildings and therefore, short-term holiday lets should not be excluded, particularly as there is no reason why a holiday home one year could not become a permanent residence the following year

    the proposal would help to police ‘green’ claims often made by holiday let landlords

    So there you have it, in the Governments eyes all the hard work and monies we’ve put into our holiday let businesses will only be short term before we rush back into making them permanent dwellings,and that we’re telling visitors on our web sites that we’ve got energy efficient everything, when in fact we’re all putting them in sheds at the bottom of the garden! More importantly we must all be “policed”, ie this is going to cost you more money!

  • Jill Jones said on May 29, 2011 at 9:23 am

    As a provider of self-catering accommodation, where heating and power is included in the tariff, why would my properties be inefficient? These are major expenses, paid directly by me. Would EPC’s improve my properties when already they are double glazed, insulated and boilers serviced in order to get the maximum benefit from the heating that is put into them? For my situation it is an unnecessary further expense.

  • Catherine Look said on May 27, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Local Authorities just don’t understand how much local businesses support the area/s in which they are situated . We recently conducted a planning appeal to retain a wardens accommodation unit on our holiday park in Cornwall. The Officer was genuinely surprised when we explained the huge investment we had made and the hundreds of thousands of pounds we spend each year in buying goods and services locally and paying our staff. To cap it all, the Officer had not even inspected the whole park prior to the Appeal site inspection.

    We spend a huge amount of staff and Directors time complying with regulations such as Health & Safety and Employment Law. Not only is there the time actually trying to comply, but we also need to attend training courses and seminars to try and keep up to date, and employ specialsits to assist and advise us. I estimate that we employ the equivalent of at least one full time one person (out of 35) at Senior Executive level just to deal with Health & Safety, Employment Law, Site Licencing and Planning Matters.

    It would also help if Local Authorities carried out their duties properly and promptly in respect of Site Licencing. We currently have an instance where we have made 11 requests, over the course of a year, to a Local Authority to transfer a Site Licence to us (to which we are legally entitled). To date the Licence has not been transferred and we are considering legal action against the authority. It is this type of ineptitude by Local Authorities that really does not help us in running our businesses. It is so time consuming.

  • Simon H said on May 27, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Make UK tourism more competitive by reducing the VAT on accommodation providers to the same levels as elsewhere in Europe. The positive benefit on the economy by encouraging more domestic tourism and ensuring more people visit from abroad will significantly outweigh the loss of VAT tax revenue.

  • Simon H said on May 27, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Remove the retrospective requirement for an EPC for holiday cottages. It is of no benefit to the customers/guests, the business itself or the wider environment. The only people who will benefit are the EPC providers who have quickly jumped on the bandwagon and the civil servants whose jobs exist solely to invent new unnecessary legislation. I write this as the owner of a GTBS GOLD award business with a keen interest in the environment and the impact that my business and my guests have on the environment and the economy. I strongly support any legislation which will achieve improvements in the sustainability of tourism in this country. The EPC does no such thing. Repeal this legislation now, it only adds more bureaucratic cost to the business and has no positive impact.

  • D J Russell said on May 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    As a mother of two, with a vested interest in the future, I totally sympathise with a desire to reduce the use of non-renewable energy sources.
    Working, as I do, in a very small business, one self catering cottage, with a low turnover and lower profit base, I do not understand how paying for an Energy Performance Certificate will further this admirable aim.
    This smacks of an office derived scheme developed to offer a veneer of action with little consideration given to those working in SMEs who are already overburdened by their multitude of roles and the constant addition of new rules which ‘must’ be adhered to or there follows the threat of a fine: this suggests another money collecting method by government rather than a real measure to improve the environmental situation we all face.
    As we include fuel in the overall cost of a holiday in the cottage, this certification can offer neither information nor assistance to our guests.
    We are, naturally, trying to reduce our carbon use and have insulated our beautiful stone-built eighteenth century cottage as well as possible. We have welcomed guests from many countries as well as those closer to home, but faced with further costs and calls on our time, may need to consider a cessation of trading.

  • Linda Offord said on May 27, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    The Smokefree Regulations for signs and fines have been a huge regulatory and public health success and should remain as they are. The regulations are working well, are simple to implement and easy to communicate.

  • elizabeth daniel said on May 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    I feel that Energy Performance Certificates are quite unnecessary for holiday cottages – I quite understand if it a property for sale etc. Just more ridiculous legislation for owners of properties.

    • bob briggs said on May 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm

      I own a small bed and breakfast which is Exclusively Non Smokers and believe more should be done to show that accommodation like ours exist. Many large tourism organisations do not acknowledge Non Smokers Only accommodation refusing even to add a category to their websites and newsletters. Its about time the non smoker was given higher profile.

  • C Scales said on May 26, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Energy Performance Certificates – I understand that this imposition on self-catering accommodation is a tick box for government tackling environmental concerns. However, it is a certification process that does not result in energy reduction – merely some extremely basic recommendations, usually with quite high cost implications – or anything useful to guests. Why do small business owners have to take more responsibility than householders, whose certification happens when the property comes up for sale? All accommodation owners aiming to improve standards, reduce costs and show guests that they consider the environment do all the EPC covers and more, but will have to pay to prove this on a document no guests will consult.
    Schemes such as Green Dragon (Visit Wales), which give accommodation an award for meeting certain standards, which then are used as part of marketing, are far more useful for owners and informative for guests.

  • Peter Hancock said on May 26, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Although not listed among the specific regulations on this section of your web site I wish to comment on two issues that affect the UK hotel industry. I speak as the chief executive of a consortium of luxury independent hotels and also as a member of the British Hospitality Association.

    1. Chinese tourists face more red tape when visiting the UK than they face when travelling to the rest of Europe because of the cost and complexity of our visa applications. Simplification and therefore reduced charges would be the solution here.

    2. The rate of VAT that UK hotels are obliged to charge is higher than in most other countries, placing us at a competitive disadvantage and supressing the contribution we could be making to the economy. If treated as an export, tourism would qualify for its own lower rate of VAT.

Bookmark and Share