Travellers affected by the UK’s quarantine hotel policy want a judicial review of the rules.
A law firm representing travellers is challenging the UK’s quarantine hotel policy and seeking a judicial review.
Currently, passengers must spend 11 nights in quarantine hotels on returning from red list countries, despite being fully vaccinated and testing negative for Covid.
London-based firm PGMBM says this is an “unlawful deprivation of liberty”.
On Thursday, the cost of staying in a quarantine hotel jumped from £1,750 to £2,285.
The firm has begun legal proceedings.
PGMBM managing partner Tom Goodhead said: “Mandatory hotel quarantine is a fundamental breach of human rights. It has led to the false imprisonment of people who are fully vaccinated and have tested negative.
“Prisoners are entitled to more liberty than those forced to quarantine in hotels.”
More than 60 locations including Turkey, Mexico, Kenya and many countries in Africa are currently on the red list.
The other European countries with mandatory quarantine involving hotel detentions – Ireland and Norway – have amended their schemes so fully vaccinated travellers are exempt from needing to quarantine.
The legal team are seeking compensation, not only for those they represent, but also for anyone who has been double jabbed in the UK and has stayed at a quarantine hotel.
In addition to compensation for the breach in human rights, the law firm is also seeking refunds of the cost of the quarantine hotel stays.
This is the second case PGMBM has brought about quarantine hotels. The first was on the grounds of financial hardship and resulted in the government offering the option to pay in 12 monthly instalments for those facing financial hardship.
“We want to see this draconian policy scrapped and those affected to be properly compensated,” he continued.
Mr Goodhead added that the majority of the people who get in touch with the law firm are not travelling to or from red list countries for holidays or for leisure.
“They are often travelling for emergency or urgent reasons and would not be travelling unless they felt it was absolutely necessary,” he explained.