Removal of COVID-19 Travel Restrictions

On 18 March 2022, the Government removed all international COVID-19 travel restrictions for passengers entering the UK, including the UK Government’s mandatory hotel quarantine policy (the “MHQ Policy”).

Consequently, guidance previously published by the Government on the MHQ Policy and the Hardship Scheme was withdrawn on 21 March 2022.

Case Update

As mentioned in our previous update, PGMBM filed and served the Claimants’ Amended Grounds of Claim on 10 December 2021 to expand our claim against the charging policy in respect of the MHQ Policy (the "Charging Policy”) to also challenge:

(i) the revised hardship scheme regarding potential fee reductions, repayment plans and fee waivers (the “Hardship Scheme”); and

(ii) the individual decisions made by the Government on the Claimants’ eligibility for the Hardship Scheme (the "Eligibility Decisions”).

On 23 December 2021, the Government filed and served the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence in which they rejected all our grounds of challenge. They argued that the MHQ Policy had the overriding aim of protecting public health in a global pandemic and that the Government had the power to impose the Charging Policy.

They further claimed that the Government had conducted an adequate equality impact assessment in relation to the Hardship Scheme and that it was not irrational for the Eligibility Decisions to decline to offer the Claimants fee waivers or reductions under the Hardship Scheme.

On 25 January 2022, PGMBM filed a reply with the Court contesting certain arguments raised in the Summary Grounds of Defence.

On 24 May 2022, PGMBM received an Order laid down by the Court refusing permission to apply for judicial review. The Judge found that all our grounds of challenge were unarguable and held that the Government should be given a wide margin of appreciation (that is, a generous discretion) when striking the balance between competing private interests and public health considerations at the time of a pandemic.

Whilst this was not the result we were hoping for, we are proud to have fought for the rights of the Claimants and the many other financially vulnerable individuals and families affected by the costs of MHQ.

PGMBM remains committed to fighting for justice and holding public authorities and powerful corporations accountable for their unlawful wrongdoings.

If you are interested in learning more about the other ongoing legal challenges brought by PGMBM, we invite you to visit our website and social media platforms (including on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn).

Case Update

Since the Government last updated its guidance regarding potential fee reductions, repayment plans and fee waivers under its revised hardship scheme (the “Hardship Scheme”), PGMBM has continued to act on behalf of the three Claimants in the judicial review of the Hotel Quarantine charging regime.

Despite the strong evidence demonstrating the financial hardship suffered by the Claimants, the Defendant has found them ineligible for support under the Hardship Scheme.

PGMBM filed and served the Claimants’ Amended Grounds of Claim on 10 December 2021. We have expanded the claim to, in addition to challenging the charging regime, also challenge the Hardship Scheme and the eligibility decisions made by the Defendant.

The Government is now required to file and serve the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence by 5 January 2022.

The Red List

Whilst we welcomed Sajid Javid’s recent announcement that the red list had been scrapped, our view remains that the policy was neither proportionate nor effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19. 

The firm believes that the manner in which the policy was disregarded speaks to the lack of thought applied when reintroducing it in the first place, and it sympathises with the many hundreds of people who were negatively impacted as a result.  

PGMBM wishes to assure those reading that this is by no means the end of our challenges to the Hotel Quarantine policy.

Other Legal Proceedings 

PGMBM is leading another judicial review which challenges the Hotel Quarantine policy on the grounds of the right to liberty and security protected under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The case is currently before the Court of Appeal.

Also under consideration is a follow-on claim for a refund and/or damages for those who were subject to Hotel Quarantine. PGMBM encourages anyone who has been affected by Hotel Quarantine to register their details with us via www.hotelquarantinelawyers.com. Those who register will be the first to be notified of updates on our potential claim.

On 25 September 2021, the Government published guidance on its scheme for people to apply for a fee waiver, reduction or repayment plan for the costs of the managed quarantine system (“MQS”) on the grounds of financial hardship (the “Scheme”). This followed PGMBM’s application for judicial review in respect of the MQS charges and PGMBM’s repeated requests for information since the proposed Scheme was first announced in June 2021.

PGMBM is currently investigating the possibility of bringing a group action claim against the Government on behalf of the thousands of people affected by the MQS policy. We want to hear from anyone who has been forced to hotel quarantine in the UK that would like to find out how to claim back their money. There may also be the opportunity to claim compensation for other losses incurred from being forced to stay at hotel quarantine. If you have been affected by the MQS policy, we invite you to register your details with PGMBM on www.hotelquarantinelawyers.com now.

The full guidance on the Scheme (including eligibility criteria and steps on how to apply) is available here - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hardship-arrangements-for-those-unable-to-pay-for-managed-quarantine-or-testing. 

It is important to note that the Scheme applies retrospectively. This means that, if you have previously paid for MQS and you could not afford the large fee, you could now be eligible for support. 

Whilst we await further information from the Government on whether the Claimants will receive the appropriate support under the Scheme, we are concerned that the changes do not go far enough. The Scheme is restricted only to people in the most severe financial circumstances and advises people to enter into financial difficulty by taking out loans or using a credit card for the MQS fees. It is irresponsible to encourage people to go into debt to be quarantined. The Government is not doing enough to support ordinary people who cannot afford the MQS fees and are travelling out of necessity, not to go on holiday. PGMBM will continue to fight for those who have suffered hardship from the MQS .

As mentioned in our previous update, following the Government’s application for an 8-week stay in order to finalise its scheme which allows persons entering the managed quarantine system (“MQS”) to apply for a fee waiver or reduction on the grounds of financial hardship (the “Scheme”), the Court granted a 6-week stay (pause) of the judicial review proceedings until 9 August 2021.   

PGMBM reached out to the Government on 28 June, 21 July, and 3 August 2021 to request details of the Scheme.  

Disappointedly, on 5 August 2021 (two working days before the expiry of the stay) the Government wrote to PGMBM seeking agreement for a further 6-week stay of proceedings until 20 September 2021. The Government stated that it had made significant progress with the technical and operational development of the Scheme and confirmed a range of alternative payment arrangements will be introduced. They however suggested that more time is required for the operational details of the Scheme to be finalised and approved. 

PGMBM does not consider any further extension of stay to be appropriate. Firstly, the Government is essentially proposing an additional month more than what it had originally requested to finalise details of the Scheme. Secondly, they have failed to engage in our attempts to progress discussions on the details of the Scheme and the reconsideration of the Claimants’ cases in the past month during which proceedings have been stayed.  

Further, despite the Government’s suggestion that significant progress has been made with the Scheme, it has provided no indication as to the anticipated eligibility criteria for hardship or the type of alternative payment arrangements that will be offered. They have also failed to explain why an additional 6 weeks are needed, particularly with the speed with which previous COVID-19 policies have been implemented. Additionally, during the period of the stay the Government has chosen to implement a 30% increase in the cost of MQS packages (which will increase from £1,750 to £2,285 for a single adult from 12 August 2021).  This underlines the importance of a timely introduction of the Scheme to provide the necessary support to the many people who are suffering hardship from the MQS fees. 

The timetable for judicial review is short and strict so that the lawfulness of Government decisions can be determined in a timely manner by the Court. We say it is in the interests of justice for our challenge to proceed and for the Government to respond to the allegations in the claim.    

For the above reasons, on 6 August 2021, PGMBM replied to the Government rejecting any further extension to the stay of proceedings beyond 9 August 2021. On the same day, the Government filed an application with the Administrative Court for a further 6-week stay as proposed in its 5 August letter.  

PGMBM is now waiting for the Court’s decision on the Government’s application. We look forward to providing you with a further update soon. 

As you may be aware from our previous update, the Government applied to the Court to request an 8-week stay (pause) of the judicial review proceedings in order to finalise its fee waiver and/or fee reduction scheme. In counter, PGMBM offered to agree to a shorter stay of 4 weeks on the basis that the Government had not provided sufficient reasons to show why it needed such a long period of time to finalise the scheme and consider the Claimants’ cases. On 12 July, the Court decided to grant a stay of 6 weeks until 9 August 2021.  

PGMBM has yet to see details of the scheme, so we are not currently able to disclose any further information regarding eligibility under the scheme and the requirements which must be met to qualify for "financial hardship". However, once details of the scheme have been shared with us, we will scrutinise the same thoroughly to ensure that it provides adequate support and exemptions for those who are unable to pay and are facing financial hardship as a result of the hotel quarantine fees.  

We want to take this opportunity to thank you all once again for your ongoing support and to everyone who has reached out to us to share their hotel quarantine experience. 

PGMBM will continue to work hard to ensure that those from low- or no-income backgrounds are not disproportionately affected by the Government’s charging policy and/or prevented from returning home.  

There has been a big development in the case.

One of the key elements of the Claimants’ challenge is that the British Government’s charging policy for hotel quarantine is unlawful because it imposes the same fixed fee of £1,750 or more on anyone travelling to England from a “red list” country. The policy does not take into account an individual’s circumstances or their ability to pay. The crux of the challenge is that any scheme which does not allow for the fee to be waived or reduced under any circumstance is unlawful, as it discriminates against people from low or no income backgrounds. It can also prevent people exercising their “right of abode”; something all British citizens and residents are entitled to do.

Last Friday, (the last working day before the Government’s Summary Grounds of Defence was due to be filed), we received confirmation from the Government that they will be changing the hotel quarantine system to allow people to apply for a fee waiver or reduction on the grounds of financial hardship. This is precisely what PGMBM has been advocating for since sending our Letter Before Claim in early March, shortly after the system of hotel quarantine was introduced.

We have not yet seen the detail of the scheme (despite PGMBM having requested details) and so do not know who will be eligible under the scheme and which criteria must be met to qualify for “financial hardship”. The existing scheme, which allows the hotel quarantine fee to be deferred over a maximum of 12 months, is reserved for people facing significant financial hardship. This has been extremely limited, and the application process has been vague and inconsistent. However, we are hopeful that the new scheme will be broader and its application a lot clearer.

We also do not know whether the scheme will apply to the Claimants or to anyone who will have completed hotel quarantine and paid the fee prior to the scheme coming into place.  That is, whether people who have paid the £1,750+ charge but could not afford it will be able to ask for a backdated waiver or reduction. Over 40,000 people have been through the scheme so far and so this could potentially involve a lot of people. The Government has however confirmed that the Claimants’ - none of whom could afford the charge  - cases will be reviewed. Therefore, there may be a chance for people who have already completed their stay in hotel quarantine to be able to have the amount that they owe the Government reviewed. We will not know for certain either way until the full scheme is revealed. Rest assured, however, we will update you here as soon as we know.

It is a testament to the powerful arguments raised in our challenge that the Government appears to have conceded that the Claimants were right all along. It is disappointing that it has taken almost four months since these arguments were first raised, for this concession to be made and our thoughts remain with the thousands of people who are suffering as a result of the policy.

The Government has now asked the Court for an eight-week “stay” (a pause) in the proceedings so that it can implement the fee reduction and waiver scheme. We have agreed to a four-week stay only on the basis that the Government has not provided sufficient reasons to show why it needs such a long period to finalise the scheme and consider the Claimants’ cases, when some COVID-19 policies have been put in place at significant speed and many British citizens and residents are suffering right now as a result of the unlawful policy.

The Government says eight weeks is needed because the scheme is both impacted by, and impacts on, the broader suite of policies being implemented to improve hotel quarantine. The Government also cited practical barriers to policy implementation such as changes to the booking system, debt collection considerations and clear communication of its new policy.

The Court will now decide whether to grant a stay and for how long.

In the meantime, we want to say a big thank you once again to everyone who has supported the challenge. The pressure exerted on the Government appears to have paid off, with the campaign looking as if it will be a successful one. We promise to keep you posted with any further developments.

You can read our full Statement of Facts and Grounds here - 

https://assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210527_(Redacted)_Amended_Statement_of_Facts_and_Grounds.pdf

PGMBM have filed and served legal proceedings to challenge the British Government’s charges for hotel quarantine. The three Claimants, a pensioner, an NHS worker and a gig economy worker, have applied for permission for a judicial review of the hotel quarantine regulations and charging policy, which they argue are unlawful.

The rules state that UK and Irish citizens and residents who wish to return to England from “red-list” countries must pay an upfront cost of £1,750 to quarantine in a government-designated hotel, and over £3,000 for a family of four, a fee many travellers have been unable to afford. There is currently no discretion for people travelling for compassionate or emergency reasons and there is no way for people to pay a reduced fee, even if they cannot realistically afford it. The only exemption to upfront payment is a ‘deferred payment plan’ over a maximum of 12 months which is reserved for people facing emergency financial hardship. This has been extremely limited, and the application process has been vague and inconsistent.

PGMBM have instructed leading barristers Adam Wagner and Cian Murphy of Doughty Street Chambers to challenge the hotel quarantine regulations. They will argue that the charges breach international law, the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations, as well as equalities and human rights law.

You can find a link to the Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds of Application for Judicial Review (the Court document setting out the reasons for the challenge) below.

As followers of this page will be aware, the filing comes after PGMBM exchanged pre-action correspondence with the Government that outlined the Claimants’ concerns about the impact of the regulations and the charging policy on people with no or low incomes. At present, the Government has failed to properly address these concerns.
“Mr E”, a gig economy worker and the third Claimant in the proposed challenge, said “One would expect that everyone would be charged fairly for services provided based on what they can afford. However, when it comes to hotel quarantine fees, everyone is treated the same.”

For the lower or working classes, the worry of unpaid bills, affording food, poverty or becoming homeless is a real threat as a result of having to pay this unaffordable fee. The hotel quarantine fee is set at £1,750 per traveller for 10 days, but food delivery drivers like myself (identified as key workers during the pandemic) on zero hours contracts earn far less income per month.”

PGMBM also represents both “Mr M” - an NHS worker who travelled to Ethiopia in early March to visit his dying uncle and to care for his unwell mother - and “Mrs B”, a pensioner who travelled to attend her son’s wedding in October 2020 and, due to her flight being cancelled, inadvertently arrived back in the UK on the day the regulations came into force.

Should you wish to share your experiences with PGMBM, please send an email to [email protected]. 

Again, 

Thank you.

https://assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210527_(Redacted)_Amended_Statement_of_Facts_and_Grounds.pdf 

We would like to thank you all once again for your continued and invaluable support to the campaign. Our challenge to the Government’s illegal and unfair hotel quarantine policy would not have been possible without your support and generous donations.

By way of update on our judicial review challenge, on 16 April 2021 we responded to the Government’s letter. We have given the Government until 23 April 2021 to respond. We will post a link to a copy of the letter (with redactions to protect the privacy of the Claimants) as soon as possible.

As mentioned in our previous update, the Government’s response fell short of our request to remove all charges for hotel quarantine. We have therefore once again requested that the Government remove all charges on the ground that charging UK and Irish citizens and residents to quarantine is a breach of the UK’s obligations under international law. As an alternative to removing all charges, we have requested that the Government at least introduce adequate exemptions and/or payment plans to ensure that those who are unable to afford the hotel quarantine charges are not left in difficult financial situations or prevented from returning home and exercising their right of abode in the UK.

We note that on 23 April the Government added India to the “red list”. You can find the full “red-list” via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-measures-to-protect-the-uk-from-variant-strains-of-covid-19#red-list-travel-ban-countriesAccordingly.

We remain extremely concerned that the Government continues to introduce further countries to the “red list” without considering the impact that the hotel quarantine charges and the lack of support for those from low--income backgrounds is having on an increasing number of citizens and residents who are unable to return home.

If you have been affected by the Government’s hotel quarantine policy, we invite you to contact us to share how it has impacted you and your families.

Thank you

PGMBM

Firstly, and as always, thank you to all those who have continued to both donate and stay engaged with the campaign. Your invaluable support consistently provides the motivation to sustain our efforts to challenge the Government’s hotel quarantine policy and remains greatly appreciated by all involved.

We received a response from the Government to our Letter Before Claim on 26 March 2021. We will post a link to a copy of the letter (with redactions to protect the privacy of our Claimants) as soon as possible.

We are pleased to announce that since sending our Letter Before Claim, the Government has removed Portugal (including Madeira and the Azores) from the “red-list” of travel ban countries. This means that the second Claimant can now return home and attend school without having to book a “managed self-isolation package” and quarantine in a government-designated hotel room for (at least) 10 full days. In addition, the Government has also updated the hotel quarantine exemption list to include: (i) individuals with severe medical or health conditions as it now recognises that such individuals would not receive appropriate support if required to self-isolate in a government-designated hotel room; (ii) the carers of those individuals with severe medical or health conditions; and (iii) individuals who need to travel to visit a dying or severely ill household member, close family member or friend.

Whilst this is an excellent result for our client, the Government’s response falls far short of our request that it remove all charges for hotel quarantine.
We also note that the Government continues to update the “red-list” and on 19 March added Ethiopia, Oman, Qatar and Somalia to the list. Similarly, on 2 April the Government announced that on 9 April Bangladesh, Kenya, Pakistan and the Philippines will be added to the list.

You can find the full “red-list” via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-measures-to-protect-the-uk-from-variant-strains-of-covid-19#red-list-travel-ban-countriesAccordingly, we remain extremely concerned that an increasing number of people may be unable to afford to return home because of the Government’s unlawful hotel quarantine charges and may be experiencing immense stress about the uncertainty of how and when they will return home. If you have been affected by the Government’s hotel quarantine policy, we invite you to contact us to share how it has impacted you and your families.

Thank you

PGMBM

assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210318-LetterfromGovernmenttoPGMBM_Redacted.pdf
assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210319-LetterfromGovernmenttoPGMBM_Redacted.pdf
assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210319-ResponsetoLetterDated18March2021HotelQuarantineJudicialReview(CHQ01)_Redacted.pdf
assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210324-LetterfromGovernmenttoPGMBM_Redacted.pdf
https://assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210329-LetterPGMBMtoGLD29March2021-HotelQuarantineJudicialReview(CHQ01)_Redacted.pdf
https://assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210326GovernmentResponse_Redacted.pdf

Firstly, we would like to thank everyone for their support in raising awareness about the challenge to hotel quarantine, sharing how it has affected you and your families as well as for all the generous contributions received to date.

We have made significant progress over the last two weeks and are pleased to inform you that we have instructed a distinguished Counsel team consisting of Tom Hickman QC, Adam Wagner and Francis Hoar, all of whom are leading human rights and public law barristers.

Today, 5 March 2021, we sent the Government a Letter Before Claim (“LBC”) on behalf of two Claimants which sets out our challenge to the measures. On the advice of Counsel, the LBC is focussed on the grounds with the greatest prospects of success when taking the Claimants individual circumstances into account. Accordingly, we have focussed the grounds of judicial review on: (1) the illegal imposition of charges for hotel quarantine and coronavirus testing; (2) the unaffordable level of fees and absence of any adequate exceptions under the hotel quarantine charging policy; and (3) European Convention on Human Rights and Equality Act challenges to the nature of the quarantine restrictions.

Our challenge is to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations, which amended the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/568) (the “Regulations”).

In summary, we say:

• Article 40 of the International Health Regulations 2005 (“IHR 2005”) prohibits the imposition of charges for quarantine. Therefore, it follows that the Government’s charging policy for a “managed self-isolation package” is contrary to the IHR.
• The general power for the Secretary of State to “permit or prohibit” charges under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 must be read subject to the UK’s international obligations under the IHR 2005. It follows that either (a) the provision in the Regulations that authorises the Secretary of State to impose charges for quarantine is ultra vires, and should be severed from the Regulations, or (b) the discretion under that provision cannot be used in a way contrary to the IHR 2005 and so Government’s charging policy is ultra vires. 
• The imposition of quarantine charges represents a substantial additional cost for people needing to travel and, for many, the costs are unaffordable and prohibitive. In addition, the Government’s charging policy does not make adequate exceptions or reductions for those that are unable to pay it - For example, people receiving income related benefits and retirees who do not have any work income. The effect of the charging policy is therefore to prevent people travelling to see family and, in many cases, will impede and even prevent family units from being together. In some cases, the charges obstruct people, including children, from exercising their right of abode or residency in the United Kingdom, unlawfully frustrating their statutory rights under the Immigration Act 1971.
• In general, a restriction (such as hotel quarantine) that impacts upon fundamental freedoms or that affects minority groups disproportionately will not be lawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 or the Equality Act 2010 if a less restrictive method could have been used. The LBC focusses on one specific group that is disproportionately affected by hotel quarantine, namely children.
• When considering the hotel quarantine measures, the Court must scrutinise decisions affecting fundamental rights. Whether those decisions are lawful or not must be based objectively on the merits. In circumstances where an equality impact assessment has not been undertaken, or where one has been undertaken but is inadequate, the Court should not give the Government any, or more than a minimal, margin of discretion. We note that the Government has not published any impact assessment in respect of children. In any event, given the nature of the hotel quarantine measures, we do not consider that any impact assessment could have adequately evaluated the impact of hotel quarantine on children .

In light of the above, the LBC requires the Government to: (1) remove all charges for hotel quarantine; (2) agree that the hotel quarantine measures are inadequate to address the rights of children; and (3) set out how the hotel quarantine measures will be changed to give effect to their fundamental human rights. You can read the full LBC by following the link on our CrowdJustice page. Please note we have removed the identifying details of our Claimants to protect their privacy.

Whilst we acknowledge the importance of safeguarding public health, we wholeheartedly believe that the Government should not use the Coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to implement unlawful regulations that are contrary to the UK’s international obligations and violate fundamental human rights.

The government must be held to account and without your support that would not be possible, so again, thank you.

https://assets.pgmbm.com/documents/HQ/20210305-LetterBeforeClaim-HotelQuarantineJudicialReview(CHQ01).pdf