Consumer rights in the post-summer travel period

The summer holidays are almost at an end, but the travel season is far from over. September is a hugely popular time for taking to the skies, particularly among those with adult children or those without children.

However, with flight and hotel bookings comes the inevitable cancellations that unfortunately face a small minority of customers. From a consumer rights perspective, this is certainly an interesting time of year.

A case of mistaken pricing

We’ve recently seen two fairly high-profile cases of travel arrangements being cancelled which have raised questions around the rights of consumers and brands.

The first, in which a small number of Qantas customers were briefly able to book first class tickets for a fraction of the normal cost, saw consumers downgraded (based on the tickets they held) to business class – which was worth considerably more than the price of their tickets.

Qantas said that this was due to a computer error and that it would honour bookings made, in business class instead of first, or offer a full refund.

This seems fair on the face of it, but let’s dig deeper. The airline terms and conditions state it is entitled to cancel a booking and offer a refund when it is ‘reasonably obvious’ that an error in pricing has been made.

What does the airline define as reasonable? The dynamic nature of airline pricing coupled with the absence of a set numerical definition of reasonable means that consumers who have planned a trip or booked accommodation around their flight lack protection and the recourse to argue that they made the booking in the belief that the price was genuine.

This also shifts the onus of realising the mistake onto consumers, although this is both allowable and a prudent move commercially.

Securing accommodation

Hotel chains in Manchester have also been recently criticised for supposed cancellations of existing bookings in order to raise prices on the dates that Oasis will play the city.

Some consumers have faced the disappearance of their bookings, more commonly, cancellations due to overbooking.

While frustrating, there is little in the way of protection for consumers for overbooking – as not cancelling the booking could result in unsafe overcrowding.

As long as a refund is offered, consumers can sadly do little to recoup the logistical losses that a cancellation could entail.

Recourse for consumers

When consumers are faced with cancellations or disruption to their plans, what is available to them to prevent losses?

Generally, when a cancellation of accommodation or transport is due to provider error or unavailability on the part of the provider, consumers are entitled to a full refund, as the service has not been provided.

The issue with both of the cases highlighted here is not, in fact, the financials of it all. Rather, these consumers are facing inconvenience and disruption that does not necessarily hold a financial value.

Additionally, then, providers may be able to offer a suitable alternative in place of a refund where a refund would not solve the issue of the service not being provided.

This is generally allowable for most services, on the basic principle that appropriate funds have been exchanged for a suitable service or product.

When travelling and booking transport and accommodation, consumers should be particularly careful to note cancellation policies and the rights of the provider, to avoid situations where they are left high and dry.

For further advice on consumers rights, please contact our team today.

By Kristie Willis, Employment Solicitor, Palmers Solicitors

A recent report by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has found that the “hidden cost” of employee sickness in the UK reached £103 billion in 2023.

This is an increase of £30 billion since 2018. Surprisingly, £25 billion of this increased cost is due to lower productivity from people working through sickness, with only £5 billion related to rising sick days.

The report has also found that workers in the UK “are among the least likely to take sick days, especially compared to other OECD and European countries.” Those lacking formal qualifications and those from ethnic minorities are particularly likely to work through poor health.

Analysing the figures

There are different types of workplace ill health which could factor into these figures, including:

• Those who are off on long-term sickness often as a result of long-term health problems and disabilities;
• Those that suffer from long term, dynamic health problems and disabilities who have intermittent flare ups and require days off in relation to these, but are otherwise able to work;
• Those suffering from short term illnesses who require short term absence.

The report recognises that working while sick does not always carry a cost to productivity. In some cases, it can have a therapeutic effect, but it depends on the illness and the employee in question.

However, the above data also shows that a lot of the productivity loss is actually from people not taking time off sick but continuing to work – at least part of which relates to those with long term health conditions.

The report notes that: “Twenty-six million people have long-term conditions in the UK. The number of working-age adults living with one or multiple health conditions is set to rise rapidly over the next decade.”

It is therefore important that employers are aware of their obligations in respect of long-term health conditions and disabilities, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments and avoid discrimination.

Setting a precedent

Employers should tackle the issue of employees working when they are not fit to do so by encouraging senior members of staff to set examples on when they are fit to work and when they are not.

If employees are at work when they are unwell, not only could any microbial illness spread through the workplace, but it may also take longer for the employee to recover, which could then affect the employee’s productivity over a longer period of time.

Employers should use return-to-work meetings and ongoing one-to-ones to ascertain the workplace dynamic in relation to sickness absence and seek to avoid a position where employees feel that they must attend work even when sick, whether this is due to workload, perceived negative views on sickness or financial reasons.

In addition, it can help if employers can be flexible.

For example, allow employees to work from home rather than being required to attend the office if they feel they cannot manage the commute.

That said, there is a fine line between whether any employee should be working if they are feeling under the weather, or whether they should be off sick.

Employers will need to consider this on a case-by-case basis, particularly if the employee has a disability or long-term condition.

Proposed solutions

The solution to these issues proposed by the IPPR is based on the Government and businesses working together to improve the health of employees, which will, in turn, benefit businesses and the economy.

The report continued: “IPPR is proposing a bold pro-business health plan which reimagines the role of business in health – clamping down on businesses that harm health and scaling up businesses that create good health – to deliver a healthy future of work for all. The think tank argues this would help the new government achieve health, prosperity and economic growth.

“The plan includes:

• Incentives: A new tax incentive for companies that commit to significant improvements in the health of their workforce, including the security, flexibility and pay of their staff, focused on SMEs.

• Regulation: A new ‘do no harm’ duty for employers, regulating them on health outcomes, not just safety inputs.

• Investment: New compulsory reporting on worker health – modelled on climate emissions reporting – to help private investors differentiate between health-orientated and health-harming businesses”.

In respect of incentives, it is proposing that those who meet certain standards relating not only to policies and procedures but also in respect of outcomes, including regarding the level of employee satisfaction for example, will have access to a temporary reduction in employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for a period of five years (provided a yearly certification is met).

Improving workplace environments

The report points to the fact that there are currently high levels of employment but that the quality of the employment appears to have deteriorated.

For example, in 2023, there were over 1 million people on zero hours contracts as opposed to 190,000 in 2011. The current Government has pledged to ban exploitative zero hours contracts so it is likely this will happen in some format, although the final proposals as to how this will work in practice are not clear currently.

To enable a continuous improvement incentive, it is proposed that where sufficient changes continue to be made, employers could become re-eligible for any incentive.

These proposed changes could be part of the measures considered by the Government to support employees and improve the health of employees overall.

At present, it appears that the number of people living with long-term health conditions is likely to increase and as such, it will likely be a combination of Government-led initiatives and employer led initiatives that provide the best outcomes in terms of productivity for both employees and employers.

The government is already proposing substantial employment law changes so it remains to be seen whether any of these proposals will be actioned.

Please contact our Employment Law team today to discuss workplace wellbeing initiatives for your business.

Two members of Palmers Solicitors’ Family Law team, based at the firm’s South Woodham Ferrers office, have become the first solicitors to be trained and accredited by the J9 Domestic Abuse Initiative.

Head of Family Law, Karen Bishop, and Solicitor Rumi Begum took on the training in August 2024 to offer informed support to clients and build empathy and understanding for survivors into the firm’s practice.

Karen said: “This support and insight is something that every family law team should be able to provide. J9 and Safer Places delivered a really eye-opening experience, and we’re incredibly proud to have taken part and brought back invaluable information to our practice.

“We hope to offer the opportunity for more of our team to become accredited, making it clear that our firm is a safe place for those facing abuse in the community.”

The J9 Domestic Abuse Initiative was founded and named in memory of Janine Mundy, who was killed in 2003 by her estranged husband while on police bail.

The Initiative is run by Safer Places, an Essex and Hertfordshire organisation that supports survivors of domestic abuse through a “journey to recovery, resilience and independence”.

Essex-based Palmers Solicitors has bolstered its specialist Construction Law practice with the promotion of Layna Thompson to Department Director.

The move was the most recent step in a glittering career for Layna, who joined Palmers Solicitors in 2017 with a background in litigation and conveyancing.

She has offered invaluable support to Supervising Director Adam Davis with the development of the firm’s Construction department – facilitated by a 2023 promotion to Senior Associate, during which time Layna drove significant growth in the department’s fee income.

Layna said: “It’s a huge honour to join the team of Directors at Palmers Solicitors.

“Being at Palmers has allowed me to develop my skills and technical knowledge in a niche and complex area of law. In turn, this has given me the opportunity to take on business development work and drive growth in an exciting area of the practice.

“I’m excited to continue developing within this new role and helping the rest of the team to build their skills and the firm’s reputation as a leader in construction law.”

Commenting on Layna’s achievement, Adam Davis said: “A big congratulations to Layna on her well-deserved promotion.

“She has been a major asset to the Construction team since joining us. It’s been a huge privilege to see her develop and support her through her career.

“In recent months, she has really stepped up to act on some of the most complex matters that have come to us and demonstrated her aptitude for leadership and business development.

“I look forward to working alongside Layna to grow our department and expand our exceptional team.”

By Lisa Judd and Kristie Willis, Employment Law, Palmers Solicitors

The King’s Speech to Parliament sets out much of what was included in the manifesto prior to the General Election. There, to date, there have been no shock announcements in the field of employment law.

The King announced “My Government is committed to making work pay and will legislate to introduce a new deal for working people to ban exploitative practices and enhance employment rights”

The drafting notes to the King’s Speech, however, provide some further information:

• “This Government’s Plan to Make Work Pay will create a new partnership between business, trade unions and working people and is fundamental to our growth mission. The Employment Rights Bill, to be introduced within the first one hundred days, is a significant step towards delivering this ambition and represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.
• In addition to this Bill, we will deliver a genuine living wage that accounts for the cost of living and we will remove the discriminatory age bands to ensure every adult worker benefits. These changes will improve the lives of working people across the country.
• We will work in close partnership with trade unions and business to deliver our New Deal and invite their views on how best we can put our plans into practice.”

This reiterates the pledge prior to the election that new employment rights will be introduced within the first 100 days of the new parliament, however the proposal to consult with trade unions and business, suggests that some form of consultation will take place.

It is not clear whether the draft bill will be presented to the House of Commons within 100 days and the consultation will then take place or if there will be some form of short consultation prior to the draft bill being introduced to the House of Commons.

The key measures contained within the drafting notes include:

A ban on exploitative zero-hour contracts

The aim appears to be to ensure that workers have a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work and receive reasonable notice of any changes to their shifts with compensation for any shifts that are cancelled or shortened. It is unclear how this will work in practice for those that genuinely work on a casual basis e.g. students who pick up shifts during the holidays.

End Fire and Rehire

Replace the previous statutory code on fire and rehire – a practice where instead of consulting /negotiating changes to terms and conditions, employers give notice to end the existing contract offering employment from the following day on new terms. It is not clear what the proposals will be for the new replacement statutory code (assuming there is one).

Day 1 rights for all workers

There is provision to make the right not to be unfairly dismissed a day 1 right (no qualifying period of employment required) subject to probationary periods to assess new hires (please see our previous article for more information of this). Parental leave and sick pay will also be day 1 rights. Flexible working will become the default with employers required to accommodate this, as far as is reasonable, from day 1 of employment.

Statutory Sick Pay

The proposal is to remove the lower earnings limit and waiting period to make this available to all workers from the first day of sickness, making it fairer to lower paid and part time employees.

Protection for New Mothers

Make it unlawful to dismiss a new mother for six months after her return to work except in specific circumstances.

Fair Work Agency

Introducing new enforcement body to strengthen enforcement of workplace rights. It is not clear exactly what the powers of this body will be.

Fair Pay Agreements

Establishing a new fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector. This will likely be an agreement in respect of pay and terms and conditions that apply sector wide. Initially this will apply to the adult social care sector but it is thought that this may well extend to other sectors. It seems reinstatement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body will also be similar to the new fair pay agreement proposed. Again this seems to be a trial before it is considered whether to extend this to other sectors.

Updating Trade Union Legislation

It is envisaged that this will strengthen trade unions and will include removing the previous rules on minimum service levels during industrial action (e.g. for NHS workers). This is likely to include introducing a right to ensure workers have a reasonable right to access a union within workplaces.

Further information regarding these proposed changes is expected to become available shortly as the bill is expected to be laid before the House of Commons within the next 100 days. At present, it is a case of watch this space!

In the meantime, please contact us for tailored advice on all areas of employment law. 

By Kristie Willis, Employment Law Solicitor, Palmers Solicitors

In accordance with the forecasts, Labour succeeded in obtaining a landslide victory at the general election on 4 July.

In a bid to deliver on major manifesto pledges, this is likely to result in some significant changes to employment law, particularly within the party’s first 100 days – most notably a day-one right to protection from unfair dismissal.

The issue of unfair dismissal

Currently, most employees have to wait two years before they have the right not to be unfairly dismissed (unless they are dismissed for an automatically unfair reason).

Labour is proposing that this right will apply to employees from day one of employment.

This will not prevent dismissals for the reasons of conduct, capability or redundancy, which are the main fair reasons for dismissal currently – there is no reference to dismissal for some other substantial reason, although this is not often relied on.

The party is yet to say whether the processes for these dismissals will remain the same. This unfair dismissal extension will be subject to the employee’s probationary period.

Labour has yet to release any information on how dismissal during probationary periods will operate and whether any dismissals will need to be for reasons of conduct, capability and redundancy.

It is also not clear whether an employee could be dismissed at any point in the probationary period or only at the end of that period, in addition to whether there will be any limits on probationary periods in terms of extensions.

If there is no restriction on probationary periods, it seems likely that employers will seek to impose longer probationary periods to allow flexibility and more opportunity to assess new employees. It therefore appears that the duration of probationary periods will likely need to be limited, for example by a maximum period.

A growing number of claims

The extension of unfair dismissal rights is likely to result in an increase in claims and it may be that employers are more cautious of hiring new employees if there are additional costs or management time required to manage the probationary period.

It is unlikely that dismissal for any reason during the probationary period would be permitted as this would severely restrict the access to unfair dismissal protection from day one and would simply impose a new minimum service requirement (that of the probationary period).

If dismissal would be permitted only for failing the probationary period and this is the only way to dismiss someone outside of the standard fair reasons for dismissal (conduct, capability and redundancy), it seems likely that some form of process would be required, although this could be less onerous than a full capability procedure.

Employers may wish to make their recruitment processes more rigorous to ensure that the correct employee is recruited to the role and may be less willing to take a chance on someone.

Planning ahead 

Labour has said it will consult on the proposals for these measures – and it will likely need to complete these quickly in order to comply with its set timeline.

It is expected that a lot more information will be released over the coming weeks and months. Once this information is released, it will be important for employers to update their contracts of employment to ensure that they can rely on their probationary periods and their policies to fairly dismiss employees during or at the end of the probationary period if necessary.

Over the coming years, there will likely be a significant increase in employment tribunal claims as employees’ rights are extended and employers are placed under increasing restrictions on when they can dismiss. Labour has also suggested it will remove the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal and this may well increase the value of successful claims.

Ultimately, the next few years will involve substantial changes to the rights of employees and workers – and not just for reasons of unfair dismissal.

We’re likely to see the abolition of fire and rehire, except in circumstances where there is no ‘genuine alternative’, as well as a boost and further extension to the National Minimum Wage.

Labour has further pledged to remove the different tier status of employees and workers so that everyone (except the genuinely self-employed) falls under the status of worker.

There is a pledge to “consult in detail” on this and therefore it is likely this will not be one of the changes implemented within 100 days of taking office but a significant change to prepare for in the future.

For tailored advice on upcoming changes to employment law and how they may impact you, please contact our expert team today.