Cancelling with least finance implications

DullGreyGuy

la531983 said:

Thats a bizarre clause to have in travel insurance. Surely most new employers will work around pre-booked holidays. The fact they clearly are not willing to is surely not a good sign.

Its an Allianz clause, appears in various products they underwrite inc the ones they sell directly. 

It depends, there can be legitimate reasons why you may want someone to start sooner rather than later, particularly if its to replace someone doing a unique role with an imminent end date... you'd normally want the new starter to overlap with the leaver to do a handover else you get Chinese whispers because it has to be handed off to a middleman who then tries to hand it to the new starter despite having never done it themselves.

It can also be that the applicant simply doesnt say, they could have been told the company wants someone ASAP and decide not to mention their impending travel in case it means someone else gets offered the role. 

TELLIT01

It may be a case that the company has a number of new starters and a training programme has been prepared with a fixed start date.  That was the situation when I took a Civil Service job.  One person had their employment terminated because they called in sick for 2 days during training.

To the question of additional costs on the holiday, there would probably be an under occupancy charge, which should be far less than the amount they would get back from their travel insurance.