November 2020 international travel rules

unforeseen

 If there isn't running water in the building then that definitely meets the criteria, as you can't let out a property without running water. 

For the UK maybe but are you sufficiently knowledgeable about non-UK law to make that assertion? 

epm-84

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

Nutty75 said:

I still haven’t found the answer if our reason for travel is valid during this lockdown - we have a property in Tenerife that we are hoping to rent out - but before we can rent it - we have a few plumbing issues to sort - and as my husband is a plumber he is carrying out these works himself.   The second reason is that we have been advised to have a Spanish Will drawn up so we have an appointment with our spanish Lawyer to go and sign the Will . Our daughters were due to fly out with us - but as they would be going for a holiday I have cancelled their flights as they obviously had no reason to travel - but I wish I could find out if our reasons are valid.  I did contact my travel insurance company and they thought that because my husband would be completing work on the apartment this would be acceptable - but they are coming back to me to confirm this and the Signing of the Will - I just wanted to check we would have insurance if we traveled - anyone have any idea? 

I'd say no.

Section 12 in the guidance refers to it not being permitted to stay overnight in your second home, as you don't currently rent it out it and don't live there it must be your second home.

Section 13 provides guidance for moving home and it's where people are claiming there's a loophole and you can pretend you're looking at buying a home abroad.  However, the section says "Follow the national guidance on moving home safely" and that links to a page where it specifically talks about moving to a new home in England, so there's nothing to suggest that extends to moving to a home abroad.

It's not your travel insurers responsibility to say whether a trip is legal, it's their responsibility to advise whether the cover you have is suitable for the trip you want to make.  

So you're saying it's illegal for someone to move abroad?

Not buying that.

Not everyone will be moving to a new home in England. Not legal advice, but IMO OP is therefore entitled to remain in that property overnight, as it's visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.

The legislation makes no reference to the property being in England, and therefore it must be assumed as intended to be anywhere within the world. If the Government haven't written the legislation adequately, the onus is on them. That said, the government hasn't adequately done anything since being elected, so getting a piece of legislation correct isn't exactly within their capabilities.

Whether it's legal or not, realistically you can't buy a house in 95% of Europe as either local restrictions would get in the way or you'd have to self-isolate for 2 weeks each time you return, which would prevent you from letting anyone view your home in England. If you argue you'd be buying a second home then you might have to prove that's covered, given travelling to a second home isn't covered.

I think for most people if they claimed they were going to the Canaries to buy a house, if either the police or border control asked a few basic questions about their plans, they'd quickly find out it's a lie as buying a house needs a lot of planning, not just phoning up some random estate agent in Spain and making an appointment you plan to cancel as soon as you arrive.

The big issue for the poster in question is it does specifically say staying in your second home is not permitted and that doesn't have an exception for those repairing a home ahead of sale.  In the circumstances it would probably be easier to just get a local workman to do the necessary work or to postpone it for a few weeks.

The reality is that if you want to go overseas it's extremely unlikely that you will questioned on your reason for doing so.

In the extremely unlikely event of some plod stopping you on the way to or at an airport I think you would be making a huge assumption that they would spend any time considering and analysing your reason for travel which would involve an in-depth knowledge of purchasing a property abroad.

Police are trained to spot when people are lying.  If they are convinced when someone says the purpose of their trip is to buy property abroad they could easily ask a few questions, which someone not buying a property abroad would struggle to answer.

Yes, theoretically a police officer could ask questions but I seriously doubt that they would be able to adequately exercise the correct discretion that their powers allow to prevent someone boarding a flight for which they have paid for and are legally entitled to board.

In a hypothetical situation where a passenger has 30 minutes to be able to board a plane you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think a uniformed officer would be able to correctly investigate if an reason for being away from home is valid. Far easier for them to wave you through warm and safe in the knowledge that their due diligence has been appropriate.

You're mistaken if you think the police would be standing at the departure gate.  While you didn't directly say they would but you've effectively said it by saying it would be happening 30 minutes before the plane departs.  Anyone who turns up at the airport 30 minutes before their flight is scheduled to leave has already missed their flight. 

The police would be likely outside the terminal where they can do a number of things like check people are not turning up to see people off or to plane spot, check taxis dropping people off are properly licenced and insured etc. (That is unless the airline or airport requests their presence at the departure gates.)

I don't know why you would think it would take a long time for a policeman to say to someone (not necessarily every arriving passenger):

"Are you travelling today?"

"What's the reason for your journey?"

And only if they believe someone is lying would they ask anything further.  Further questions could be:

"Which town are you buying a new home in?"

"How many properties are you viewing/have you viewed?"

"When are you moving out to Spain?"

"Have you found a new job in Spain?"

That would take 1 minute for someone who is being honest and truthful to answer but for someone who is having to make things up because they are lying that might take longer, but it doesn't matter if it takes longer for people trying to break the law as the police are there to stop people breaking the law.   

epm-84

unforeseen said:

 If there isn't running water in the building then that definitely meets the criteria, as you can't let out a property without running water. 

For the UK maybe but are you sufficiently knowledgeable about non-UK law to make that assertion? 

Like I said they should be getting proper legal advice, not asking people on a forum (many of whom are posting hypothetical loopholes which might not stand up to a legal challenge in the UK, nevermind abroad.)

sheramber

Leodogger said:

ToxicWomble said:

Technically it might be allowed, but it’s not urgent and can wait 3 weeks. Nothing much else is happening across Europe

Whilst people continue to loophole and circumnavigate the law and justify why they should not follow rules and advice -  this mess is going to drag on for many months longer than it needs to.

Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family, in fact it may protect them from harm.

Personally I don’t agree with this lockdown, but I’m doing it and not trying to buck the system at every turn.
Yes high profile people have broken  the rules - but take the moral high ground and don’t sink to their level.

I haven’t had a holiday this year and won’t be booking abroad next year - it won’t kill me or hurt me - there’s always (hopefully) the year after. The world won’t end if you miss your oh so precious holiday but life might get back to normal quicker if you just do what’s right.

I see a lot of criticism of the government on here - I suggest the cause of a significant proportion of this mess is a lot closer to your home than you think.

I have ZERO sympathy for posters that don’t do what they know is right and believe their freedoms and life is more important than anyone else’s and even less for those who actively encourage this behaviour. 

Karma is a .... and it will come and get you when you least expect.

"Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family".   I don't agree, for those of us who have limited incomes and had booked holidays and flights like us before this pandemic hit and the flights were constantly pushed back until pushed inside the lockdown by accident or design by the airlines, have lost a lot of money because we were made NOT to turn up by law which of course if it is flights like us, we may not get our money back.  Many people who couldn't afford to lose money have and are bitter about it !   It is no consolation when your airline is turning around like Ryanair and saying "tough", the flight was still running and you didn't notify us within 7 days, when we were only given 6 days notice by Boris, so that we could swap flights free of charge.     The upshot is that I have already written to my MP because we were not given enough notice and people like Michael O'Leary are trying to cash in on that because he uses any loophole he can find to try to rob people.  As for those who say it is not the airlines fault, some airlines have taken the honourable route and refunded money, albeit people will have to wait for it but other unscruplulous people revel in any circumstance to make money out of a pandemic !

And people paid more for a seat on that honourable company's plane. If you want better service then pay more for it.

Leodogger

sheramber said:

Leodogger said:

ToxicWomble said:

Technically it might be allowed, but it’s not urgent and can wait 3 weeks. Nothing much else is happening across Europe

Whilst people continue to loophole and circumnavigate the law and justify why they should not follow rules and advice -  this mess is going to drag on for many months longer than it needs to.

Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family, in fact it may protect them from harm.

Personally I don’t agree with this lockdown, but I’m doing it and not trying to buck the system at every turn.
Yes high profile people have broken  the rules - but take the moral high ground and don’t sink to their level.

I haven’t had a holiday this year and won’t be booking abroad next year - it won’t kill me or hurt me - there’s always (hopefully) the year after. The world won’t end if you miss your oh so precious holiday but life might get back to normal quicker if you just do what’s right.

I see a lot of criticism of the government on here - I suggest the cause of a significant proportion of this mess is a lot closer to your home than you think.

I have ZERO sympathy for posters that don’t do what they know is right and believe their freedoms and life is more important than anyone else’s and even less for those who actively encourage this behaviour. 

Karma is a .... and it will come and get you when you least expect.

"Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family".   I don't agree, for those of us who have limited incomes and had booked holidays and flights like us before this pandemic hit and the flights were constantly pushed back until pushed inside the lockdown by accident or design by the airlines, have lost a lot of money because we were made NOT to turn up by law which of course if it is flights like us, we may not get our money back.  Many people who couldn't afford to lose money have and are bitter about it !   It is no consolation when your airline is turning around like Ryanair and saying "tough", the flight was still running and you didn't notify us within 7 days, when we were only given 6 days notice by Boris, so that we could swap flights free of charge.     The upshot is that I have already written to my MP because we were not given enough notice and people like Michael O'Leary are trying to cash in on that because he uses any loophole he can find to try to rob people.  As for those who say it is not the airlines fault, some airlines have taken the honourable route and refunded money, albeit people will have to wait for it but other unscruplulous people revel in any circumstance to make money out of a pandemic !

And people paid more for a seat on that honourable company's plane. If you want better service then pay more for it.

You mind explaining what you  mean?    We were booked with Jet2 but they closed down their winter schedule and we were forced to book with Ryanair being the only airline left going out of Birmingham to Spain.

cubegame

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

Nutty75 said:

I still haven’t found the answer if our reason for travel is valid during this lockdown - we have a property in Tenerife that we are hoping to rent out - but before we can rent it - we have a few plumbing issues to sort - and as my husband is a plumber he is carrying out these works himself.   The second reason is that we have been advised to have a Spanish Will drawn up so we have an appointment with our spanish Lawyer to go and sign the Will . Our daughters were due to fly out with us - but as they would be going for a holiday I have cancelled their flights as they obviously had no reason to travel - but I wish I could find out if our reasons are valid.  I did contact my travel insurance company and they thought that because my husband would be completing work on the apartment this would be acceptable - but they are coming back to me to confirm this and the Signing of the Will - I just wanted to check we would have insurance if we traveled - anyone have any idea? 

I'd say no.

Section 12 in the guidance refers to it not being permitted to stay overnight in your second home, as you don't currently rent it out it and don't live there it must be your second home.

Section 13 provides guidance for moving home and it's where people are claiming there's a loophole and you can pretend you're looking at buying a home abroad.  However, the section says "Follow the national guidance on moving home safely" and that links to a page where it specifically talks about moving to a new home in England, so there's nothing to suggest that extends to moving to a home abroad.

It's not your travel insurers responsibility to say whether a trip is legal, it's their responsibility to advise whether the cover you have is suitable for the trip you want to make.  

So you're saying it's illegal for someone to move abroad?

Not buying that.

Not everyone will be moving to a new home in England. Not legal advice, but IMO OP is therefore entitled to remain in that property overnight, as it's visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.

The legislation makes no reference to the property being in England, and therefore it must be assumed as intended to be anywhere within the world. If the Government haven't written the legislation adequately, the onus is on them. That said, the government hasn't adequately done anything since being elected, so getting a piece of legislation correct isn't exactly within their capabilities.

Whether it's legal or not, realistically you can't buy a house in 95% of Europe as either local restrictions would get in the way or you'd have to self-isolate for 2 weeks each time you return, which would prevent you from letting anyone view your home in England. If you argue you'd be buying a second home then you might have to prove that's covered, given travelling to a second home isn't covered.

I think for most people if they claimed they were going to the Canaries to buy a house, if either the police or border control asked a few basic questions about their plans, they'd quickly find out it's a lie as buying a house needs a lot of planning, not just phoning up some random estate agent in Spain and making an appointment you plan to cancel as soon as you arrive.

The big issue for the poster in question is it does specifically say staying in your second home is not permitted and that doesn't have an exception for those repairing a home ahead of sale.  In the circumstances it would probably be easier to just get a local workman to do the necessary work or to postpone it for a few weeks.

The reality is that if you want to go overseas it's extremely unlikely that you will questioned on your reason for doing so.

In the extremely unlikely event of some plod stopping you on the way to or at an airport I think you would be making a huge assumption that they would spend any time considering and analysing your reason for travel which would involve an in-depth knowledge of purchasing a property abroad.

Police are trained to spot when people are lying.  If they are convinced when someone says the purpose of their trip is to buy property abroad they could easily ask a few questions, which someone not buying a property abroad would struggle to answer.

Yes, theoretically a police officer could ask questions but I seriously doubt that they would be able to adequately exercise the correct discretion that their powers allow to prevent someone boarding a flight for which they have paid for and are legally entitled to board.

In a hypothetical situation where a passenger has 30 minutes to be able to board a plane you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think a uniformed officer would be able to correctly investigate if an reason for being away from home is valid. Far easier for them to wave you through warm and safe in the knowledge that their due diligence has been appropriate.

You're mistaken if you think the police would be standing at the departure gate.  While you didn't directly say they would but you've effectively said it by saying it would be happening 30 minutes before the plane departs.  Anyone who turns up at the airport 30 minutes before their flight is scheduled to leave has already missed their flight. 

The police would be likely outside the terminal where they can do a number of things like check people are not turning up to see people off or to plane spot, check taxis dropping people off are properly licenced and insured etc. (That is unless the airline or airport requests their presence at the departure gates.)

I don't know why you would think it would take a long time for a policeman to say to someone (not necessarily every arriving passenger):

"Are you travelling today?"

"What's the reason for your journey?"

And only if they believe someone is lying would they ask anything further.  Further questions could be:

"Which town are you buying a new home in?"

"How many properties are you viewing/have you viewed?"

"When are you moving out to Spain?"

"Have you found a new job in Spain?"

That would take 1 minute for someone who is being honest and truthful to answer but for someone who is having to make things up because they are lying that might take longer, but it doesn't matter if it takes longer for people trying to break the law as the police are there to stop people breaking the law.   

None of this happened when I flew out of Bristol on Friday. The armed police on patrol have more important things to do than question law abiding members of the public especially as the UK terrorism threat is now extreme.

silvercar

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

Nutty75 said:

I still haven’t found the answer if our reason for travel is valid during this lockdown - we have a property in Tenerife that we are hoping to rent out - but before we can rent it - we have a few plumbing issues to sort - and as my husband is a plumber he is carrying out these works himself.   The second reason is that we have been advised to have a Spanish Will drawn up so we have an appointment with our spanish Lawyer to go and sign the Will . Our daughters were due to fly out with us - but as they would be going for a holiday I have cancelled their flights as they obviously had no reason to travel - but I wish I could find out if our reasons are valid.  I did contact my travel insurance company and they thought that because my husband would be completing work on the apartment this would be acceptable - but they are coming back to me to confirm this and the Signing of the Will - I just wanted to check we would have insurance if we traveled - anyone have any idea? 

I'd say no.

Section 12 in the guidance refers to it not being permitted to stay overnight in your second home, as you don't currently rent it out it and don't live there it must be your second home.

Section 13 provides guidance for moving home and it's where people are claiming there's a loophole and you can pretend you're looking at buying a home abroad.  However, the section says "Follow the national guidance on moving home safely" and that links to a page where it specifically talks about moving to a new home in England, so there's nothing to suggest that extends to moving to a home abroad.

It's not your travel insurers responsibility to say whether a trip is legal, it's their responsibility to advise whether the cover you have is suitable for the trip you want to make.  

So you're saying it's illegal for someone to move abroad?

Not buying that.

Not everyone will be moving to a new home in England. Not legal advice, but IMO OP is therefore entitled to remain in that property overnight, as it's visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.

The legislation makes no reference to the property being in England, and therefore it must be assumed as intended to be anywhere within the world. If the Government haven't written the legislation adequately, the onus is on them. That said, the government hasn't adequately done anything since being elected, so getting a piece of legislation correct isn't exactly within their capabilities.

Whether it's legal or not, realistically you can't buy a house in 95% of Europe as either local restrictions would get in the way or you'd have to self-isolate for 2 weeks each time you return, which would prevent you from letting anyone view your home in England. If you argue you'd be buying a second home then you might have to prove that's covered, given travelling to a second home isn't covered.

I think for most people if they claimed they were going to the Canaries to buy a house, if either the police or border control asked a few basic questions about their plans, they'd quickly find out it's a lie as buying a house needs a lot of planning, not just phoning up some random estate agent in Spain and making an appointment you plan to cancel as soon as you arrive.

The big issue for the poster in question is it does specifically say staying in your second home is not permitted and that doesn't have an exception for those repairing a home ahead of sale.  In the circumstances it would probably be easier to just get a local workman to do the necessary work or to postpone it for a few weeks.

The reality is that if you want to go overseas it's extremely unlikely that you will questioned on your reason for doing so.

In the extremely unlikely event of some plod stopping you on the way to or at an airport I think you would be making a huge assumption that they would spend any time considering and analysing your reason for travel which would involve an in-depth knowledge of purchasing a property abroad.

Police are trained to spot when people are lying.  If they are convinced when someone says the purpose of their trip is to buy property abroad they could easily ask a few questions, which someone not buying a property abroad would struggle to answer.

Yes, theoretically a police officer could ask questions but I seriously doubt that they would be able to adequately exercise the correct discretion that their powers allow to prevent someone boarding a flight for which they have paid for and are legally entitled to board.

In a hypothetical situation where a passenger has 30 minutes to be able to board a plane you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think a uniformed officer would be able to correctly investigate if an reason for being away from home is valid. Far easier for them to wave you through warm and safe in the knowledge that their due diligence has been appropriate.

You're mistaken if you think the police would be standing at the departure gate.  While you didn't directly say they would but you've effectively said it by saying it would be happening 30 minutes before the plane departs.  Anyone who turns up at the airport 30 minutes before their flight is scheduled to leave has already missed their flight. 

The police would be likely outside the terminal where they can do a number of things like check people are not turning up to see people off or to plane spot, check taxis dropping people off are properly licenced and insured etc. (That is unless the airline or airport requests their presence at the departure gates.)

I don't know why you would think it would take a long time for a policeman to say to someone (not necessarily every arriving passenger):

"Are you travelling today?"

"What's the reason for your journey?"

And only if they believe someone is lying would they ask anything further.  Further questions could be:

"Which town are you buying a new home in?"

"How many properties are you viewing/have you viewed?"

"When are you moving out to Spain?"

"Have you found a new job in Spain?"

That would take 1 minute for someone who is being honest and truthful to answer but for someone who is having to make things up because they are lying that might take longer, but it doesn't matter if it takes longer for people trying to break the law as the police are there to stop people breaking the law.   

None of this happened when I flew out of Bristol on Friday. The armed police on patrol have more important things to do than question law abiding members of the public especially as the UK terrorism threat is now extreme.

They may have been prioritising terrorism over breaches in the law on travelling for leisure. It doesn’t make people travelling for leisure law abiding.

silvercar

ToxicWomble said:

If the flight had gone ahead - the £282 would still have been GONE

Therefore claiming hardship as a result of one scenario but not the other is flawed logic

I still don’t disagree that you are entitled to a refund (and never have) - you should be, I am merely stating that your resulting affordability/hardship logic is flawed

Obviously, anyone travelling for a holiday will be wanting to rebook as soon as it is allowed, therefore affordability does come into it. Same for those visiting relatives overseas; if you don’t manage to travel in the next few weeks, you will want to reschedule as soon as possible, you don’t just shrug and say you won’t see someone for another year.

we lost our holiday due to the new rules, we don’t want to wait until this time next year. Luckily we had booked cancelable rate at the hotel and our return flight was cancelled, so we will get a refund for that eventually., but to say anyone who doesn’t get refunded is not suffering as a result is disingenuous.

ToxicWomble

silvercar said:

ToxicWomble said:

If the flight had gone ahead - the £282 would still have been GONE

Therefore claiming hardship as a result of one scenario but not the other is flawed logic

I still don’t disagree that you are entitled to a refund (and never have) - you should be, I am merely stating that your resulting affordability/hardship logic is flawed

Obviously, anyone travelling for a holiday will be wanting to rebook as soon as it is allowed, therefore affordability does come into it. Same for those visiting relatives overseas; if you don’t manage to travel in the next few weeks, you will want to reschedule as soon as possible, you don’t just shrug and say you won’t see someone for another year.


we lost our holiday due to the new rules, we don’t want to wait until this time next year. Luckily we had booked cancelable rate at the hotel and our return flight was cancelled, so we will get a refund for that eventually., but to say anyone who doesn’t get refunded is not suffering as a result is disingenuous.

1) why not ? I haven’t seen my family/relatives since at least March/April and have idea when I will get to see them next

2) we don’t want to is different to we can’t afford to 

3) not sure that’s what I said - I disputed the claim of financial hardship due to lack of refund

I want to do lots of things that I can’t afford to and money tied up in one thing may prevent me doing something else - just have to prioritise and accept that some things are
more important than others and some will just have to wait
(obviously if visiting terminally ill people then time is of an essence)

Maybe we need a new term of “social hardship”

sheramber

Leodogger said:

sheramber said:

Leodogger said:

ToxicWomble said:

Technically it might be allowed, but it’s not urgent and can wait 3 weeks. Nothing much else is happening across Europe

Whilst people continue to loophole and circumnavigate the law and justify why they should not follow rules and advice -  this mess is going to drag on for many months longer than it needs to.

Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family, in fact it may protect them from harm.

Personally I don’t agree with this lockdown, but I’m doing it and not trying to buck the system at every turn.
Yes high profile people have broken  the rules - but take the moral high ground and don’t sink to their level.

I haven’t had a holiday this year and won’t be booking abroad next year - it won’t kill me or hurt me - there’s always (hopefully) the year after. The world won’t end if you miss your oh so precious holiday but life might get back to normal quicker if you just do what’s right.

I see a lot of criticism of the government on here - I suggest the cause of a significant proportion of this mess is a lot closer to your home than you think.

I have ZERO sympathy for posters that don’t do what they know is right and believe their freedoms and life is more important than anyone else’s and even less for those who actively encourage this behaviour. 

Karma is a .... and it will come and get you when you least expect.

"Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family".   I don't agree, for those of us who have limited incomes and had booked holidays and flights like us before this pandemic hit and the flights were constantly pushed back until pushed inside the lockdown by accident or design by the airlines, have lost a lot of money because we were made NOT to turn up by law which of course if it is flights like us, we may not get our money back.  Many people who couldn't afford to lose money have and are bitter about it !   It is no consolation when your airline is turning around like Ryanair and saying "tough", the flight was still running and you didn't notify us within 7 days, when we were only given 6 days notice by Boris, so that we could swap flights free of charge.     The upshot is that I have already written to my MP because we were not given enough notice and people like Michael O'Leary are trying to cash in on that because he uses any loophole he can find to try to rob people.  As for those who say it is not the airlines fault, some airlines have taken the honourable route and refunded money, albeit people will have to wait for it but other unscruplulous people revel in any circumstance to make money out of a pandemic !

And people paid more for a seat on that honourable company's plane. If you want better service then pay more for it.

You mind explaining what you  mean?    We were booked with Jet2 but they closed down their winter schedule and we were forced to book with Ryanair being the only airline left going out of Birmingham to Spain.

Which proves the point=- pay more and get better service.
Ryan air are cheap because they don't give the service and goodwill that  more expensive airlines do.
It doesn't matter why you booked with them you can't expect th same level  of service as you get from more expensive  ones.
If you booked first class rail travel and the train was cancelled and you could only get second class tickets on the 
  next train would you expect first class service in that second class compartment?