Report: Investigation into Pontins holiday parks

Read our full report into discrimination at Pontins holiday parks on this page.

Download an Easy Read summary of this report.

Holidays should be time that we all look forward to the most. They should be time spent with families and friends, making memories and recharging our batteries. There will be limits on what we can do, set perhaps by time, money and geography. Our race or ethnic group should never be a limit.

But that is what members of the Irish Traveller community faced when they tried to book holidays with Pontins.

At Pontins, race discrimination was company policy that staff had to follow. Holidaymakers were routinely discriminated against when Pontins felt their name, accent or address indicated they were part of this ethnic group.

Pontins considered people they thought may be part of the Irish Traveller community to be ‘undesirable’. The term ‘undesirable’ was integrated into their data systems and included in their policies. Pontins refused or cancelled bookings from people they deemed ‘undesirable’. In doing so, Pontins deliberately, openly and repeatedly broke the law.

The discrimination faced by Irish Travellers, and other members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, has no place in 21st-century Britain. The impact of the discrimination faced by those who were refused bookings at Pontins cannot be overstated. People told us that the experience was ‘painful’ and made them feel ‘dehumanised’.

As the equality regulator for Great Britain, it is our mission to ensure people are treated equally and fairly. Our investigation, with the help of a brave whistleblower, has shown that Pontins comprehensively failed to treat its customers equally and fairly. At the Equality and Human Rights Commission, we will always challenge such discrimination.

Pontins broke the law. Pontins must now put right their wrongs. We will continue to hold them, and others who think they are above the law, to account.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Chairwoman

Why we carried out this investigation

In March 2020, we received information from a whistleblower that Britannia Jinky Jersey Limited (trading as Pontins) had discriminated against Gypsies and Travellers. Some of this discrimination specifically targeted Irish Travellers, while other discriminatory policies were aimed at Gypsies and Travellers more broadly.

The whistleblower disclosed an ‘Undesirable Guest List’ with 40 names of Irish origin (the List). Pontins used the List and other information to identify suspected Gypsy and Traveller guests, and then cancel or refuse their bookings.

The Equality Act 2006 allows us to enter into legal agreements, called section 23 agreements, with organisations that we think have committed unlawful acts of discrimination. We entered into a 12-month legal agreement with Pontins on 22 February 2021. This required Pontins to carry out an action plan to prevent future acts of discrimination against Gypsy and Traveller guests. It also required Pontins to provide us with evidence of how it was carrying out the action plan.

After reviewing submissions from Pontins, on 11 February 2022 we notified Pontins of our decision to terminate the legal agreement. It ended on 18 February 2022.

Pontins had breached the terms of the legal agreement and action plan and we suspected it may have been continuing to operate booking practices that discriminated because of race. Pontins did not conduct an adequate investigation into the List and concluded that the List was justified and not for a discriminatory purpose.

Pontins also failed to conduct a review of whether its terms and conditions were directly or indirectly discriminatory against Gypsies and Travellers. It also did not adequately carry out a review of how its intelligence systems worked.

Pontins did not engage with us in an open and cooperative manner during the legal agreement.  

Scope of the investigation 

We launched our investigation on 26 May 2022. It examined whether Pontins committed unlawful acts of race discrimination against prospective guests that it perceived or suspected were:

• Gypsies or Travellers, or
• those ‘associated’ with Gypsies or Travellers, such as their friends or family.

We examined evidence from 2011 to 2023 to assess whether Pontins used its booking systems, policies and practices to prevent Gypsy and Traveller guests from booking a holiday and using its services.

Read the full Terms of Reference for this investigation on our website. Details of how we carried out the investigation are in Annex 2.

Key terms used in this investigation

Key terms are words or phrases that define a topic, issue or event, and are closely linked to our investigation findings.

Responsibilities of a service provider under the Equality Act 2010

Under the Equality Act 2010, Pontins is a service provider. It offers holiday services to members of the public.

It is unlawful for service providers to discriminate against their guests, including potential guests. This includes:

• refusing to provide the service
• the terms on which a guest’s holiday is provided
• terminating the holiday, or
• subjecting guests to any other detriment.

Our investigation focused on whether Pontins committed unlawful acts of discrimination on the basis of race. In this case, ‘race’ refers to Gypsies and Travellers. In this regard, racial discrimination also includes people Pontins perceived or suspected to be Gypsies and Travellers.

Meaning of discrimination

Acts of direct, indirect and associative discrimination are unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.

Direct discrimination

This means treating a person less favourably than another because of a protected characteristic, such as race. 

The types of conduct that may be directly discriminatory include written or spoken words, images and physical gestures.

We found Pontins responsible for eight directly discriminatory acts, which we explain in Chapter 1.

Discrimination by association

This means treating a person less favourably than another because they are associated with a person who is, or is perceived to be, of a certain protected characteristic.

We found Pontins responsible for two acts of direct associative discrimination, which we explain in Chapter 1.

In total, Pontins is responsible for 10 unlawful acts of direct race discrimination, two of which are associative discrimination.  

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination may be caused by a provision, criterion or practice that puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to someone who does not have that characteristic. This might be a formal or informal policy, a rule, instructions or other arrangements. This would be indirect discrimination unless:

• there is a good reason for doing so that is not discriminatory, and
• it is a proportionate and necessary way to achieve that aim.

We found that Pontins committed one indirectly discriminatory act. We explain this in Chapter 1.

Responsibility for an unlawful act

Pontins is responsible for any prohibited conduct carried out by its employees against guests and prospective guests.

Anything done by an employee in the course of their employment must be treated as if it was done by the service provider itself. It does not matter whether the service provider knew about, or approved of, what the employee did.

However, a service provider will not be legally responsible for the act of an employee if it can show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee from acting unlawfully.

Evidential Standard

Following an investigation, we can give a notice of an unlawful act, if we are satisfied that a breach of the Equality Act 2010 has been committed. We do not need to know or suspect that a specific person has been or may be affected by the unlawful act.  

In deciding whether an unlawful act has been committed, we use the civil standard of proof. This is the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof is on us to discharge.

Read more about our legal powers here.

Content warning: This chapter contains offensive language

Summary

In this chapter we set out the nine unlawful acts Pontins committed against Gypsies and Travellers and their associates between 2013 and 2018. We also set out the two unlawful acts of race discrimination in respect of Pontins’ terms and conditions. Pontins is legally responsible for these acts.

We provide an overview of our findings of the following unlawful acts that Pontins are responsible for:

• Direct discrimination based on:
  • the identification of Irish Travellers
  • the use of systems and databases to ban Irish Traveller guests and their associates, including those perceived to be Irish Travellers, and
  • guest files.
• Direct and indirect discrimination arising from the electoral roll term.

We detail our methodology and analysis in Annex 2 and Annex 3. This includes:

• the number of Traveller guests banned between 2013 and 2017, and
• summaries of booking records and case studies results.

Identifying Travellers

Pontins attempted to identify Irish Travellers so that it could refuse services to individuals from, perceived to be from, or associated with this racial group.

We make the following unlawful act findings:

We make an additional unlawful act finding for the way Pontins used its systems and databases: 

Early culture and practice of discrimination

There was evidence of what we call the Undesirable Guest Practice in the guest files, booking information and staff evidence as early as 2013. Examples include:

• the use of the ‘undesirable’ term in refund data in 2013
• reference to an ‘undesirable’ list of surnames in 2014, and
• a pattern of unexplained cancellations and entries on the No Longer Welcome database, starting in 2014.

This practice continued until around 2018.

Internal publication of corporate policy

In 2015, Pontins formalised an earlier list and published it on its staff intranet in a document called the Undesirable Guest List (the List).

This strengthened the Undesirable Guest Practice, an internal practice of direct race discrimination against people thought to be Irish Travellers. The List was an official Pontins policy that staff were required to follow. It legitimised the Undesirable Guest Practice. A former staff member described its effect:

Figure 1. A representation of the ‘Undesirable guest list’.
The original image is Figure 3 in Annex 4.

Staff followed the Undesirable Guest Practice and used the List to identify people they perceived as Irish Travellers. They did this by:

• using the guest’s surname
• listening for an Irish accent, and
• checking the address the guest gave, including if the guest lived on a Traveller site or caravan park.

Online bookings were reviewed and subsequently cancelled if staff suspected the guest was an Irish Traveller.

Pontins put guests identified as Irish Travellers on the No Longer Welcome database to ensure future bookings would be denied.

The evidence extracts below show how the List was used:

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

We found other examples in the booking records of how the Undesirable Guest Practice worked.

Staff described the practice of conducting Google map address searches to check for anything ‘suspicious’. During the investigation, Pontins told us that this was not the standard practice for guest bookings. 

Evidence

A guest with no history of prior booking or antisocial behaviour attempted to book a holiday on 27 December 2016 through Pontins’ call centre. Following this attempt to book, Pontins’ records said:

‘No longer welcome - Do not book this guest in please, state that the park is no longer available, checked address on maps’.

The guest had a surname on the List. Google maps shows the guest lived near a caravan park. Pontins banned the guest from returning. No other explanation was provided for the booking refusal and ban. 

There were over 100 unexplained entries on the No Longer Welcome database relating to guests who lived on a caravan park, including on registered Traveller sites. See Annex 3 for our analysis of Pontins’ No Longer Welcome database.

Guest complaints from booking records

Some guests complained at the time of cancellation, felt it was unfair or that Pontins was discriminating against Travellers.

Pontins provided a sample of call centre diary notes that contained a summary of telephone calls with the guests:

Evidence

Evidence

Using the 'undesirable' term

Guests identified as Irish Travellers were considered by Pontins to be ‘undesirable’. They were refused bookings or had them cancelled and refunded.

The term ‘undesirable’ applied only to guests Pontins believed or suspected were Irish Travellers, or their associates.

There was no evidence to support Pontins’ claim that this term was only used for guests who had stayed at the parks and caused trouble.

In the booking records, some guests were explicitly labelled as ‘undesirable’ or ‘undesirables’, or a variation, such as an abbreviation. Of those guests, each one had either:

• a name on the List, or another name of Irish origin
• lived on a Traveller site or caravan park, or
• according to Pontins’ records, had an association to a suspected Irish Traveller guest within the party.

This targeted use of ‘undesirable’ is evident from:

• the description on the List
• evidence from former staff
• diary notes within Pontins’ own booking records
• guest profiles, and
• other records showing how the term was applied to guests.  

Evidence

Pontins integrated the ‘undesirable’ term into its data systems. Pontins’ guest reservation system had a drop-down menu designed to record the reasons why a potential booking is not finalised. This previously included an option to record when an ‘undesirable’ guest booking did not progress.

While the ‘undesirable’ option has now been removed from the system, a photo of the drop-down menu with the term remained in Pontins’ staff manual until November 2022, when the manual ceased being used.  

Figure 2. A representation of Pontins’ dropdown ‘If Not, Why Not’ menu. The term ‘Undesirable’ is highlighted in blue.
The original image is Figure 4 in Annex 4.

Fear of disciplinary action

Some staff said they did not think the above practices were wrong because their employer had asked them to use the List and facilitated the use of the Undesirable Guest Practice:

‘I and other sales advisors at that time were just following what we were told to do’.

Some staff feared disciplinary action if they did not comply with the practice and use the List. They said that they would be reprimanded if a suspected Traveller was able to book:

‘It was made very clear during this time that if we refused to follow [a senior staff member’s] instructions, we would face potential disciplinary action’.

Removal of the List

Pontins provided no evidence to confirm when or how the List was uploaded or removed from the company’s intranet. Pontins first claimed it was not referred to after December 2017, and then later suggested the correct date was August 2016. The date on the image of the List is 9 February 2018, so it was on the intranet until at least that date.

A former staff member said that the List was removed after a group of Travellers took Pontins to court in 2017. The guests who had a surname on the List said they were refused holiday services because of their Traveller race. The claim was settled in 2018.

There is evidence that a change in practice occurred in 2018. It is likely that Pontins removed the List from its intranet because of this legal claim. Fewer unexplained entries of guest names on the No Longer Welcome database appeared after December 2017.

We make two unlawful act findings in respect of Pontins’ actions against these guests, Unlawful Acts 8 and 9.

Examples of discrimination in guest files

We set out examples of conduct that contributed to our findings on the Undesirable Guest Practice, and the Unlawful Acts 1, 2 and 3 (see above).

We also make specific unlawful act findings in respect of the conduct set out below as follows.

1. Cancelling and banning guests due to their surname - Guest X

Records from a cancellation in March 2014 refer to the existence of an ‘undesirable list’ containing surnames. This is set out in the extract below. Guest X’s booking was cancelled, and they were added to the No Longer Welcome database because of their Irish surname, and therefore because Pontins perceived or suspected that the guest was an Irish Traveller. The booking was reinstated after the guest demonstrated they had an English accent.

Evidence

We make the following unlawful act finding:

The reasons given for the cancellation in the booking records satisfied us that an unlawful act had taken place. Pontins perceived the guest to be from an Irish Traveller background, having a surname on a list of undesirable guests. This surname later also appeared on the company’s intranet List. Although the booking was reinstated, this only occurred after the guest demonstrated she was not of a Traveller ethnicity, but instead was a ‘well-spoken English lady’.

Pontins claimed the List was not discriminatory because there were guests with surnames on the List who stayed at the parks. Pontins told us that there were thousands of guests in this category and that ‘whilst there was clearly an issue with the use of the List, it was not extensive’. We did not accept this explanation.

Some guests may well have satisfied Pontins that they were not Irish Travellers, as in the case above. The fact that some customers were able to satisfy Pontins that they were not Irish Travellers does not remove the discriminatory nature of Pontins’ approach. It confirms it. Pontins was trying to exclude customers by reference to their race. Anyone who was suspected of being an Irish Traveller was subject to a special procedure under which their bookings would be refused or cancelled, unless Pontins was satisfied that the customer was not an Irish Traveller.

2. 'Suspected traveller' bookings cancelled and banned

Booking records from the call centre in December 2014 document cancellation and refund reasons as ‘SUSPECTED TRAVELLER BOOKING’ for three guests (Guests A, B, and C).

We have replicated how the booking records appeared below:

Each of the three guests were entered onto the No Longer Welcome Database. They were banned from accessing future services. There was no evidence that the guests were informed of the ban. The fourth entry relates to an additional refund for the third guest.

We make the following unlawful act finding:

In each case, the guests’ bookings were cancelled because Pontins suspected they were Travellers. This was direct race discrimination. That satisfied us that an unlawful act had been committed in respect of each of the three guests.

3. Guest evidence, cancelled and banned

We received evidence from a family affected by a cancellation. The lead guest (Guest W) is from an Irish Traveller background with a surname on the List. They are married to a person from a settled background (Guest H).

In November 2017, Guest W and Guest H booked and paid online for a holiday starting in late December 2017. Eight days later Pontins cancelled the booking. The reason given was ‘Park declined booking’. A refund was issued on 4 December 2017. On the same date, both guests were placed on the No Longer Welcome database. Pontins confirmed to us that the entries related to Guest W and Guest H, who shared the same address. No reason for the ban is recorded.  

We make the following unlawful act findings:

We considered that the lead guest, Guest W, had a surname on the List, that the List was in operation at the time of the cancellation and at the time of the No Longer Welcome entries for both Guests W and H. The date of those entries matched those of the cancellation.

We are satisfied that Guest W was discriminated against because Pontins believed they were an Irish Traveller. Guest H was banned due to their association with Guest W, a person perceived to be an Irish Traveller.

4. Cancelled and complained to County Court

In 2017 a group of guests brought a claim in the County Court about cancellations that occurred in 2016, claiming they were discriminated against because of their Irish Traveller race.

The lead guest, Guest Y, booked, paid a deposit and made part payment for a holiday after speaking to a call centre advisor. They paid the remaining balance the week after. The next week Pontins wrote to the lead guest to say that the booking was cancelled. The lead guest called Pontins to query the cancellations, but Pontins did not reinstate the booking.

The lead guest and their family challenged that cancellation in a County Court claim

Pontins’ defence was that the bookings were cancelled because a large number of rooms were booked during a very busy holiday week. Pontins wanted to control and manage large group bookings, relying on its terms and conditions.

The case settled out of court, so was never subject to a judicial decision.

We make the following unlawful act findings:

We considered that the lead guest, Guest Y, had a surname on the List and that the List was in operation at the time of the cancellation. We examined Pontins’ internal computer records about the case. The booking records for the lead guest recorded the cancellation reason as ‘Guest no longer welcome at Pontins’ a day before the guest rang to query the cancellation. This phrase was routinely used as part of the Undesirable Guest Practice. It was associated with cancellations relating to guests perceived as Irish Travellers.

The booking records did not mention that the cancellations were because of the party size, as Pontins claimed in its written defence, which was verified by a statement of truth.

The lead guest was entered onto the No Longer Welcome database on the same day as they rang to query the cancellation. They were not informed of the ban.

The lead guest lived on a Traveller site, which was registered on a local authority website. The site is clearly visible on Google Maps. The Undesirable Guest Practice included checking address locations on Google Maps.

Earlier in 2016, other guests living on the same site had bookings refused and were entered in the No Longer Welcome database. One such guest was also described as ‘No Longer Welcome’ and banned on the same day as the cancellation.

Pontins’ defence in the County Court was that the booking was cancelled to manage the number of large groups on a particular date. If that were true, there would have been no reason to enter the lead guest on the No Longer Welcome database to ensure all future bookings were refused.

We are satisfied that Guest Y was discriminated against because Pontins believed the guest was an Irish Traveller. We also consider that Pontins’ defence in the County Court was unlikely to be true.

Guests Y1 to Y8 were refused services due to their association with lead Guest Y, who Pontins believed to be an Irish Traveller.

Electoral roll term

In 2018, Pontins introduced a term in its booking terms and conditions stipulating that UK resident guests must appear on the electoral roll:

In October 2023, Pontins amended its terms and conditions. The amendments were not agreed with us.  

The terms relating to electoral roll checks have been amended to say:

These terms are now accompanied by a new term. This states that Pontins may require a £500 cash damage deposit on arrival, at the discretion of the Park General Manager:

Previously, a £500 deposit was sometimes requested for large parties, which could be paid on check-in. There was no requirement that the deposit had to be paid in cash. The new deposit clause now sits under the Park’s ‘Right to decline a Booking’ term.

Concealed direct discrimination

We make one finding in respect of the 2018 terms and conditions, Unlawful Act 10:

Electoral roll terms - 2018

The introduction of the electoral roll term in 2018 was made with the intention of using it as a mechanism to enable, provide a pretext for and to conceal direct discrimination against Irish Traveller guests and their associates. We have concluded that it was introduced in place of the List and Undesirable Guest Practice.  

We have reached this conclusion for several reasons. Firstly, the fact that the introduction of the electoral roll term coincided with the removal of the List was significant. Secondly, we relied on the absence of any internal decision-making documents explaining the introduction of the term.

Thirdly, the reason put forward for the term is to verify identity. However, the public open electoral roll is not a reliable method of identity verification. Many adults opt out of the public register or choose not to register to vote. The term provides no mechanism for verifying identity by other means and does not apply to non-UK residents.

During our legal agreement, Pontins expressly requested it keep the electoral roll term for identity verification purposes. However, during the investigation Pontins disclosed that it has no access to the open electoral roll. Nor does Pontins carry out electoral roll checks in practice. It has never done so nor has it bought a copy of the electoral roll.

Our analysis also found that Gypsies and Travellers were considerably less likely than the general population to be registered to vote. There is a special and more complex procedure for voter registration of persons with no fixed address. The address declared is not included on the electoral roll. Many Gypsies and Travellers are not registered. Gypsies and Traveller organisations have run campaigns to promote and encourage voter registration for many years, such as ‘Operation Traveller Vote’.

We attempted to verify who suggested or advised on the introduction of the 2018 version of the term. We received inconsistent evidence and could not determine who was responsible for introducing it.

Pontins said the term was introduced in 2018 ‘to check identity’ but could not substantiate this with records showing when the term came into effect, or that this was the intended purpose. During the legal agreement, a member of staff explained that the terms were amended in 2018, after the List was removed:

'... that list was taken down, in 2018 we issued more in-depth terms & conditions'.

Pontins provided copies of the 2017 and 2020 versions of its booking terms and conditions. The first version of the electoral roll term does not appear in 2017, but it does appear in the 2020 document.

We were unable to determine when the electoral roll term came into effect. We therefore consulted the British Library web archive. This showed that the term was present in a snapshot of the webpage on 27 July 2018. This does not confirm the first date of the change and only shows what the website looked like on the date of the archive. This narrows down the period for the introduction of the electoral roll term to around early 2018.

We also received evidence that in 2018 a member of staff had suggested copying the terms from another holiday park provider. We could not verify this further due to legal privilege. 

Pontins continued to tell us that the term was introduced as an identity check, and that it was ‘industry standard’. It could not explain why the term remained and was never used in practice. We reviewed the terms of other holiday parks. While similar terms appear in some other holiday park terms and conditions, there are holiday parks of a comparable size that do not require such checks and allow identity verification on arrival.

Furthermore, between 2015 and 2018 there were various media reports regarding the use of a similar electoral roll term by another holiday park, resulting in alleged cancellations for Gypsy and Traveller guests.

Given Pontins’ previous discriminatory practices, we concluded that the introduction of the term in 2018 was to provide a pretext for continuing direct discrimination against Irish Travellers.

Indirect discrimination

We make a further finding of indirect discrimination in respect of the current amended terms and conditions, Unlawful Act 11.

New terms - October 2023

Pontins has now updated its terms. Towards the end of our investigation, Pontins informed us that it was conducting a review of its terms and conditions. While it offered to share a draft, it did not inform us of amendments relevant to this investigation, namely the new electoral terms, or seek to agree those amendments with us before updating its website. After we asked them, Pontins offered to provide a copy of the new terms.

Given the scale and seriousness of the past discrimination, we remain concerned about how the new terms will be implemented in practice.

Pontins said they have the electoral roll as the first of their checks ‘because it can be done without the guest having to take extra steps’. It has not confirmed how it will implement the new terms, including whether it will purchase and check the open electoral roll. Pontins acknowledged that checking the electoral roll is not a ‘comprehensive’ identity check.

Pontins’ new version of the electoral roll term allows for alternative identity checks, which is a slight improvement. However, it only provides this alternative in the event that a guest is not found on the electoral roll and it still requires guests to provide evidence of their identity and address prior to attending the parks. If a guest does not do so within seven days of a request, Pontins can cancel the booking. In its representations to us, Pontins offered to amend this term to extend the period to 14 days.

Strict photographic ID checks are now also required on arrival, otherwise Pontins reserves the right to refuse access to any guest without offering them compensation or a refund. A survey conducted by the Traveller Movement in July 2021 (Access denied?: The introduction of voter ID laws and the potential impact on Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller people) indicated 16% of Gypsy, Roma and Irish Travellers who responded to the survey had no photographic ID. This compares with 2% of the population as a whole who did not have photographic ID, according to a Cabinet Office report in March 2021. 

Publicly available evidence shows that Gypsies and Travellers are particularly disadvantaged, as compared with other people, by terms that stipulate electoral roll checks, including terms that require a guest to appear or be registered on the electoral roll. Stakeholder submissions to the investigation evidenced greater barriers for Gypsies and Travellers. These barriers include:

• the complex local electoral registration process
• knowledge and education barriers
• attitudes towards voting, and
• risks in identification of race from address disclosure, resulting in the denial of some services, such as banking or taking out a loan.  

The stakeholder submissions also raised concerns that electoral roll terms are used to target Gypsies and Travellers to refuse services.

As a statutory regulator, we receive information from a range of sources, not just relating to investigations. This includes intelligence about the barriers facing Gypsy and Traveller communities. We have received complaints about the use of electoral roll terms within the holiday sector and the negative impact this has on Gypsies and Travellers.

Pontins said that its new electoral roll term, amended in October 2023, does not require any guest to appear on the electoral roll. It said that the term is there ‘so that guests are not asked for identification when that step could be completed by Pontins’. It explained that the term benefits guests who are on the electoral roll as they do not have to satisfy additional identity checks. Prior to updating its terms in October 2023, Pontins told us it does not check the electoral roll in practice. It has not confirmed how the new terms are to be used in practice, if at all.

Although the term no longer stipulates that guests must appear on the electoral roll, it requires more onerous identity checks for guests whose name does not appear on the register. Guests not on the electoral roll must meet the additional identity check notification process prior to arrival. If they do not comply, Pontins can cancel the booking until that information is provided.

The requirement to provide evidence within a seven-day notice period may particularly disadvantage Gypsies and Travellers, especially those who live a nomadic lifestyle. The Traveller Movement survey on the impact of voter ID highlighted logistical challenges for nomadic Travellers and Travellers who live on sites without reliable access to Royal Mail or the internet. Consequently, a seven-day notification period may be easily missed. Extending the time to 14 days still risks a cancellation for non-compliance. It continues to place a burden on the guest to satisfy additional identity checks prior to attending the park.

Pontins’ current terms therefore put Gypsy and Traveller guests at a greater disadvantage because they are less likely than guests from other racial groups to be on the electoral roll. They also face other disadvantages, as outlined above. Consequently, they are more likely to have to comply with the more onerous identity check terms and conditions than other guests. As such, they are also likely to be deterred from making a booking, as the term gives rise to a reasonable perception that their bookings will be refused.

Under Schedule 3 of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013, a service provider may purchase access to the open electoral roll to conduct identity checks by checking names and addresses.

The regulations do not require individuals to be registered, nor does it require registered individuals to be on the open database. Many UK residents choose not to remain on the open electoral roll. The regulations therefore do not require registration on the electoral roll for the purpose of accessing services, including holiday services.

The Immigration (Hotel Records) Order 1972 requires that guests aged 16 years or older provide their full name and nationality on arrival. Only non-UK residents are required to produce a passport or other document establishing identity and nationality on arrival. This is further evidence that the additional checks Pontins have imposed are not strictly required by law.  

We acknowledge that some identity checks may be necessary. Pontins’ guests must already pay a deposit at the time of booking and provide a credit or debit card, which also confirms identity. Pontins did not satisfy us as to the need for any additional pre-arrival identity checks, or the prescribed and sequenced way that it requires guests to prove identity ahead of arrival. There are other proportionate means to verify identify, such as reasonable identity checks on arrival. It is best practice to accept a range of identification documents.

Pontins have also introduced a discretionary power for a Pontins Park General Manager to require, without any advance warning, a £500 cash deposit to be paid on arrival. The discretion will be exercised only after guest arrival. Pontins have not provided us with any criteria to guide the exercise of this discretion or explain what training has been provided to ensure that guests are not discriminated against or unfairly identified as ‘troublemakers’.

Further, if a deposit requirement is imposed, it is potentially onerous. Many guests will not have or be able to immediately obtain £500 in cash or have sufficient cash flow at short notice. Nor is it likely that guests will carry a £500 cash deposit for the purposes of potentially having to pay that sum on demand. Pontins have since offered to amend this term to include both cash or card payment methods.

We are concerned that Gypsy and Traveller guests at Pontins may be more likely to have this discretionary power used against them. Particularly as there is no guidance on the exercise of discretion and no evidence of how the exercise of the power is logged or monitored. Racism against Gypsies and Travellers is well documented in publicly available material. A 2022 Council of Europe Advisory Committee report found that in the UK there is a ‘troublingly persistent’ level of this kind of racism. The scale and seriousness of the past discrimination at Pontins underpins our concerns.

Under Clause 38 of the terms and conditions, guests who fail to comply with any of these terms may also be subject to other detriment, such as being added to the ‘Refusal to Return’ database. This was formerly called ‘the No Longer welcome database’. Gypsies and Travellers are therefore more likely to be placed on the Refusal to Return database because they are less likely to be able to comply with these new terms and conditions.

Accordingly, we consider that Pontins’ guest terms and conditions, as amended in October 2023, are not objectively justified and amount to unlawful indirect discrimination. 

Effect of Discriminatory Terms under Equality Act 2010

Under section 142 of the Equality Act 2010, discriminatory contract terms are unenforceable. Section 142 applies to Pontins’ current guest terms and conditions because we have found these to be indirectly discriminatory towards Gypsy and Traveller guests. The effect is that the discriminatory terms and conditions cannot be enforced.

Summary

In this chapter, we outline the significant failings in Pontins’ leadership and culture.

Poor leadership has enabled routine racial discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers. Pontins’ leadership failed to act and respond appropriately. The response to the legal agreement was inadequate. This forced us to end it.

While some members of staff were cooperative during the investigation, we do not consider that there was a genuine willingness to either accept that wrongdoing had occurred, or to initiate reform.

In accordance with paragraph 9 of our Terms of Reference, we consider how Pontins should improve its systems, monitoring and culture. This should prevent future acts of race discrimination against Gypsy and Traveller guests.

Failings of leadership

Discriminatory practices were instigated and supported by senior managers at Pontins. Pontins remains legally responsible for the actions of its staff.

Pontins did not fully comply with the legal agreement or action plan. It demonstrated a lack of genuine engagement with the process. Pontins’ own investigation and report submitted during the legal agreement claimed that the List was not used for a discriminatory purpose. Pontins refused to acknowledge that the List was used to discriminate against Irish Traveller guests and their associates. It maintained the List was to stop ‘troublemakers’ from booking, following an incident at the Southport resort in April 2015.

This was not true. It conflicts with Pontins’ latest representations to the investigation, which acknowledge that the List was discriminatory.

Pontins provided us with information during the investigation that was inaccurate. There were clear omissions of significant information. For example, Pontins told us there was only one guest complaint in respect of race discrimination. Towards the end of our investigation, it told us about the 2017 court case. Pontins also maintained that the List was not used for a discriminatory purpose in its responses to our evidence requests during this investigation.

Pontins’ directors denied having had knowledge of the List, but said throughout the process that it was not ‘tolerated or condoned’. However, there was no corporate acceptance of any responsibility for the List. There is no evidence that the directors publicly condemned or criticised the List to staff at the time it was removed, or later, when there was media attention about the issue around the time of our legal agreement.

In its representations on the draft report, Pontins told us that its directors ‘acknowledge the List was used, that it discriminated and have taken responsibility for it’. This acknowledgement and acceptance of past wrongdoing signals an intent to prevent similar discrimination from occurring again.

We conclude that Pontins did not enter into the legal agreement with a real commitment to address past discrimination. The evidence indicates that it used the legal agreement as an opportunity to evade scrutiny of discriminatory practices.

Genuine efforts must be made to ensure discrimination in any form does not happen again.

Our recommendations are directed towards Pontins’ current senior managers and directors.

Whistleblowing - culture and practice

There was no safe or impartial mechanism for Pontins employees to whistleblow. This was because the discriminatory practices were led by senior managers. We saw evidence that an internal complainant was dismissed as a ‘troublemaker’.

We also considered how a narrow definition of ‘whistleblowing’, which did not include a reference to discrimination or the Equality Act 2010, was used as a justification for initially refusing to classify the complaint as related to ‘wrongdoing’.

We therefore make recommendations for Pontins to improve its whistleblowing procedures.

Former staff denials

Many of the staff who were employed at the time the List was in operation have since left the company. However, many who provided evidence to this investigation have continued to defend its use, or to deny any involvement.

We acknowledge that staff may have felt pressure from senior management to adopt discriminatory practices. Some former staff acknowledge that what happened was wrong. Nevertheless, they felt they had to comply with management instructions.

We make recommendations to Pontins to address its racially discriminatory culture. It should engage with and promote a positive attitude towards Gypsies and Travellers, to prevent a future breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Recent staff and structural changes

There have been several staffing and structural changes at Pontins since the COVID-19 pandemic. Pontins has since made some changes to its practices and procedures. We do not consider these to be adequate to deal with discrimination or complaints of discrimination effectively.

Our recommendations address the shortcomings we have identified.

Lack of clear training, policies and procedures

The only Pontins staff guidance manual provided was out of date, containing old screenshots of databases with the term ‘undesirable’ to refer to certain guests.

Pontins also provided us with its employee handbooks. These incorporate policies and procedures for the Britannia Group, which includes Pontins, Britannia Hotels Limited and Elite Venue Selection Hotels Limited. They contained the workplace equality and diversity policy and whistleblowing policy and procedures, which are shared across the group of companies.

We make recommendations to improve policies and procedures. All staff at Pontins must undergo specific training on service discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

We expect Pontins to have zero tolerance for any form of race discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

Record keeping and decision making

Pontins has poor systems for recording key decisions. Pontins was unable to tell us:

• when and why important updates to its 2018 terms and conditions occurred
• who signed or approved them, and
• what legal checks took place to ensure the updates did not breach the Equality Act 2010.

There was no paper trail documenting any decision making. There were significant omissions in evidence, such as the lack of dates showing when guest bans were revoked. See Annex 3 for more detail on this.

There were some procedures in place to document guest incidents. However, from the small sample we reviewed it was unclear whether the reports related to the specific guest that was subsequently banned. We saw no evidence that any of those guests received documentation informing them of their eviction or subsequent ban. We were provided with letter templates, many of which were of poor quality or lacked sufficient detail.

We make recommendations to ensure robust record keeping and enable the collection and monitoring of information.

Improvements to the No Longer Welcome database

A system that records when guests have committed anti-social behaviour or criminal acts that warrant a ban from Pontins’ holiday parks is not a breach of the Equality Act 2010, providing it is not used in a discriminatory manner.

Pontins have since renamed the No Longer Welcome database. It is now called Refusal to Return. Entries are now reviewed every year. Pontins informed call centre staff of the changes in an email. However, there was no additional training for staff.

We recommend that all staff involved in administering the Refusal to Return database are provided with specific training on how to use the system in a non-discriminatory manner. This includes staff on the parks, as well as in the call centre. Training should be face-to-face.

Renaming the No Longer Welcome database to Refusal to Return is a positive step. The language is objective rather than emotive. No guest should be labelled ‘undesirable’, or any similarly dehumanising expression. Proper reasons and evidence should be recorded, in writing, for each decision taken.

Pontins have since amended its terms and conditions in October 2023. Clause 38 briefly explains the Refuse to Return policy. It gives guests a right to appeal, although Pontins’ decision is final. These terms indicate that any guest who fails to comply with the terms and conditions can be listed as ‘Refuse to Return’. This widens the scope of the practice. It is no longer limited to guests who have unacceptable behaviour on the parks. The newly drafted clause implies that any breach of the terms can result in a future ban. Breaches may include failing to provide evidence of identity on arrival or a £500 cash deposit.  

We will review the continuing operation of the Refusal to Return process as part of our future action plan.

Sole discretion terms

The List referred to booking terms that gave Pontins ‘sole discretion’ to cancel bookings.

That term was used to justify discrimination. This was a further attempt to legitimise the discriminatory Undesirable Guest Practice. Booking records show that some staff relied on this term to justify cancellations, in particular to Irish Travellers.

The new terms, amended in October 2023, still give Pontins a wide discretion to refuse bookings. For example, Clause 37.1 reserves a right to cancel or terminate the holiday ‘at any time’. Pontins can offer a substitute holiday, but state that ‘under certain circumstances we may only offer you a full refund’. We found that a practice of cancellations and refunds without a choice to rebook was part of the Undesirable Guest Practice.

Clause 12.3 gives Pontins sole discretion to cancel bookings of groups of more than eight people if it considers the park is not suitable. In the 2017 court case (Unlawful Acts 8 and 9), Pontins claimed in its defence that the cancellations were due to large group bookings. Given this history, we remain concerned about how this term will be implemented in practice. 

There is also wide discretion given to park managers to decide who should pay a £500 deposit. We set out our concerns with this term in Chapter 1.

We recommend that terms allowing for a wide discretion to cancel are modified to state that they may only be used on reasonable grounds, and subject to a requirement to give reasons.

We make recommendations for Pontins to review and amend these terms.

A public apology to the Gypsy and Traveller communities from Pontins, in the name of its owners and directors. This should acknowledge that discrimination took place and take responsibility for allowing it to happen.

R1.2: Commit to a zero tolerance approach

An internal message to staff from the directors accepting the findings and recommendations of this report, emphasising zero-tolerance to discrimination and committing to improving policies and procedures, including anti-discrimination and whistleblowing policies.

R1.3: Engage with the Gypsy and Traveller community

Develop a programme that includes engagement between Pontins’ board of directors and Gypsy and Traveller groups and service users to gain insight into their experience of discrimination and increase awareness of race discrimination.

R2: Monitoring cancellations, failed bookings and the Refusal to Return database

R2.1: Create a robust refusal review process

Establish a system of review, agreed with us, that ensures safeguards relating to any new and existing entries to the Refusal to Return database. 

R2.2: Monitor cancellation and complaint trends

Using existing booking data, monitor and assess reasons for failed and park-cancelled bookings, including the impact of cancellation terms and conditions. 

Monitor guest complaints arising from refusals of service, cancellations, terminations (evictions or refusals to enter the Park) or additions to the Refusal to Return database, and all complaints that raise unfairness or discrimination concerns.

R3: Policies, guidance and training

R3.1: Review and update policies and procedures

To include the following:

R3.1.1 Refusal to Return policies and procedures

Review and improve internal and external policies, procedures and documentation relating to the banning of guests who have attended Pontins parks. The system should be fair, transparent and with adequate safeguards for guests subject to any ban.

R3.1.2: All guidance and databases

Update staff guidance manuals and databases to reflect new systems, policies, and procedures, including the removal of discriminatory terms or reference to ‘undesirables’. Communicate changes to all relevant staff emphasizing zero-tolerance of discrimination.

R3.1.3: The legal review process for policies and procedures

Formalise a process for legal review of any new and existing policies and procedures, to include ensuring compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

Pontins and the wider Britannia Group should ensure that its employee handbooks are fully compliant with the Equality Act 2010.

R3.1.4: Complaints process

Use the monitoring information to continuously review and refresh the complaints process to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

R3.2: Face-to-face training

Develop and deliver face-to-face training for all staff involved in the end-to-end Refusal to Return process, which is to be embedded in principles of fairness, equality and diversity. Refresher training to be provided annually for new and existing staff. 

Face-to-face training for all relevant staff on how to handle guest complaints concerning discrimination. Refresher training to be provided on an annual basis for new and existing staff.

R3.3: Cross-corporate equality training

Develop and deliver training on the legal duty to not discriminate, harass or victimise guests under Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010. Refresher training to be provided annually for new and existing staff. 

Pontins to engage with the Britannia Group to develop and deliver the above training.

The Britannia Group develop and deliver the above equality training to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

R4: Whistleblowing

R4.1: Create a whistleblower action plan

Strengthen the whistleblowing policy and culture, build confidence and trust with staff on the whistleblowing procedure and encourage staff to challenge inappropriate behaviour.

Pontins to engage with the Britannia Group to review and amend the whistleblowing policy and procedures.

The Britannia Group to put the amended whistleblowing policies into effect across its group of companies.

R5: Terms and conditions

R5.1: Remove the electoral roll requirement

Pontins must remove electoral roll terms and conditions and replace them with a proportionate identity check on arrival that allows for a range of identification methods.

R5.2: Remove electoral roll requirements across the sector

All other holiday sector operators should also remove electoral roll terms and conditions and replace them with a proportionate identity check on arrival that allows for a range of identification methods. 

R5.3: Amend the sole discretion terms

Develop revised terms and conditions, to be agreed with us, that limit the scope of the ‘sole discretion’ terms so that bookings cannot be cancelled due to discrimination. The revised terms and conditions should include a disclaimer that, in exercising its discretion, the company shall not breach the Equality Act 2010, and all guests should be offered the option to re-book.   

R5.4: Introduce a legal review process

Formalise a process for legal review and record keeping of any new amendments to the terms and conditions, embedding principles of equality and non-discrimination as set out in law. 

R5.5: Conduct a review of the 2023 terms and conditions

Review and update the terms and conditions that were amended in October 2023 to remove discriminatory terms and engage with relevant statutory regulators.

R6: Electoral Commission and other relevant regulators

The practice of relying on the electoral roll as a sole or primary form of identity verification creates a barrier to services, particularly holiday services, and is indirectly discriminatory to members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities. It is also open to abuse to conceal direct discrimination.

R6.1: Consider the findings in this report relating to the use of electoral roll terms and conditions within the holiday sector

The Electoral Commission, the Competition and Markets Authority and any other relevant regulators may want to consider whether further information, guidance or action is required to assist in reform of the holiday sector.

Unlawful act notice served under section 21 of the Equality Act 2006 (Notice).

In the matter of the investigation into Britannia Jinky Jersey Limited (trading as Pontins) as described in the terms of reference dated 26 May 2022.

The Commission for Equality and Human Rights, commonly referred to as ‘the Equality and Human Rights Commission’ (EHRC), hereby gives Notice to Britannia Jinky Jersey Limited, trading as ‘Pontins’, pursuant to section 21 of the Equality Act 2006 (EA 2006) that:

Britannia Jinky Jersey Limited (‘Pontins’) has been the subject of an investigation under section 20(1)(a) of the EA 2006. Following that investigation the EHRC is satisfied that Pontins has committed the following unlawful acts (Unlawful Acts):

1. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 by operating the Undesirable Guest Practice between 2013 and 2018. This was a practice of refusing or terminating services to Irish Travellers, or guests perceived to be Irish Travellers, or their associates such as family members, resulting in other detriment. This amounted to less favourable treatment because of race.

2. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 by internally publishing and using the List to identify and refuse or terminate services to Irish Travellers or anyone perceived to be an Irish Traveller and their associates, such as family members, and subject them to other detriment. This amounted to less favourable treatment because of race.       

3. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) the Equality Act 2010 by using its systems and databases in a systemic and targeted manner to subject a person who is or is perceived to be an Irish Traveller, or their associates such as family members, to other detriment by placing them on an electronic database of banned guests. This had the effect of preventing those guests from accessing future services. This amounted to less favourable treatment because of race.

4. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 by unlawfully refusing to provide services to Guest X by terminating the provision of the service (cancellation) because of race. Guest X was perceived as an Irish Traveller because of having a surname on the List.

Guest X was thereafter subjected to other detriment by having their name entered on the No Longer Welcome database preventing the guest from accessing any future services because of their race. The cancellation and subsequent ban from future services amounted to less favourable treatment because of race.  

5. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 by unlawfully terminating the provision of services (cancellation) to each of Guests A, B and C, because it perceived the guests to be Travellers. The Guests were also subjected to other detriment when they were entered onto the No Longer Welcome database and banned from accessing future services. The cancellations and subsequent ban from future services amounted to less favourable treatment because of race.   

6. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 for unlawfully refusing to provide services to Guest W by terminating the provision of the service (cancellation) because of race. Guest W was perceived as an Irish Traveller because their surname was on the List.

Guest W was then subjected to other detriment by having their name entered on the No Longer Welcome database, preventing them from accessing any future services because of their race. The cancellation and subsequent ban from future services amounted to less favourable treatment because of race.

7. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 for unlawfully refusing to provide services to Guest H because of their association with a person perceived as an Irish Traveller. This amounted to less favourable treatment because of their association with a person of a particular race.

Guest H was then subjected to other detriment by having their name entered on the No Longer Welcome database, preventing them from accessing any future services because of their association with a person of the Irish Traveller race. The refusal and subsequent ban amounted to direct race discrimination by association.

8. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 by unlawfully terminating the provision of services (cancellation) to Guest Y because it perceived Guest Y as an Irish Traveller. Guest Y had a surname on the List and lived on a Traveller site.

Guest Y was thereafter subjected to other detriment by having their name entered on the No Longer Welcome database, preventing them from accessing any future services because of their race. The cancellation and subsequent ban from future services amounted to less favourable treatment because of race.

9. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 for unlawfully refusing to provide services to eight other guests, Guests Y1-Y8, because of their association with Guest Y, a person perceived as an Irish Traveller. This amounted to direct race discrimination by association.

10. Pontins breached sections 13 and 29(1) and 29(2) of the Equality Act 2010 by introducing the electoral roll term in 2018 after the removal of the List, as a disguised form of direct discrimination. The term was designed to provide a mechanism for Pontins to act in a particular way to identify or deter persons likely to be Irish Travellers, to refuse or cancel their bookings.

11. Pontins is in breach of sections 19 and 29(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010 because its guest terms and conditions, as amended in October 2023, indirectly discriminate against Gypsy and Traveller guests and prospective guests.  

Effect of the Unlawful Act Notice

Pontins is required to prepare an action plan for the purpose of avoiding repetition or continuation of the Unlawful Acts. The EHRC makes recommendations for that purpose which are in Chapter 3 of this report. These shall form the basis of an action plan but shall not limit other actions deemed necessary to meet its purpose.

The first draft of the action plan must be given to the EHRC by 5pm on Tuesday 9 April 2024.

By virtue of section 21 of the EA 2006 Pontins may, within the period of six weeks beginning with the day on which this notice is given, appeal to the appropriate court or tribunal on the grounds that it has not committed the unlawful acts specified in this notice and / or that the requirement for the preparation of an action plan is unreasonable.

On appeal, the court or tribunal may affirm, annul or vary a notice or requirement for the preparation of an action plan, and make an order for costs or expenses.

The appropriate court or tribunal is defined in section 21(7) of the EA 2006. The EHRC considers that the appropriate court or tribunal is the county court (in England and Wales) or the sheriff (in Scotland).

The EHRC may investigate under section 20(1)(b) whether or not a person has complied with a requirement imposed by an unlawful act notice under section 21 of the EA 2006.

If the EHRC thinks that a person is likely to commit an unlawful act, it may under section 24(1) of the EA 2006 apply in England and Wales to the county court for an injunction restraining the person from committing the act, or in Scotland to the sheriff for an interdict prohibiting the person from committing the act.

Dated: 14 February 2024

Signed:

Adam Sowerbutts

Legal Director

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Arndale House, Arndale Centre

Manchester M4 3AQ

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE EHRC

The framework for an investigation is set out in section 20 and schedule 2 of the Equality Act 2006.

Evidence sources

Pontins provided us with general information, representations, documents and data sets. We received the first evidence to the investigation from Pontins in July 2022 and the last in October 2023.

We also received evidence from:

• 18 former and current employees, including the whistleblower.
• Individuals who contacted us via our dedicated investigation inbox. This included submissions from Irish Traveller guests who had their bookings refused or cancelled.
• Gypsy and Traveller representative groups.

Where necessary, we obtained evidence from individuals under a legal Notice, pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Equality Act 2006.

We are grateful to everyone who provided evidence to the investigation.

How we carried out the investigation

Our investigation was based primarily on documentary and witness evidence. It was prompted by a whistleblower disclosure of the List.

During the legal agreement, Pontins provided us with a variety of information. This included its own investigation into the List, dated June 2021, and staff interviews.

These documents formed the starting point for our investigation.

To assess whether Pontins had discriminated against Gypsies and Travellers, we were guided initially by information from the whistleblower and surnames on the List. This enabled us to examine booking records and No Longer Welcome database entries of guests with these surnames. We explain our analysis of the key databases in Annex 3.

We reviewed all evidence submitted to the investigation and tested it with requests for further information from individuals or from Pontins, as required. We took all replies into account.

We conducted research relevant to the electoral roll term, including:

• Gypsy and Traveller voting and participation trends
• the electoral registration process, and
• wider information about the extent of discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers within UK society.

We collated complaints received about electoral roll terms and conditions within the holiday sector from a variety of sources. This included data from the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS).

We were satisfied that we could reach findings without a need for oral evidence or oral hearings. We considered it unnecessary to identify individuals for the purpose of publishing our report findings.

We assessed each of our unlawful act findings against the legal test set out in the Equality Act 2010.

Pontins was given an opportunity to submit representations on the draft report. These were considered carefully before this report was finalised and published.

Summary

This section outlines the results of our analysis of booking records and databases. This information is relevant to the unlawful act findings outlined in Chapter 1.

We outline our analysis and evidential findings in respect of:

• the List
• the No Longer Welcome database, now known as the Refusal to Return database
• booking and cancelled booking records

The results in this section were considered in conjunction with the other evidence submitted to the investigation.

The List

Pontins claimed that the List was used to identify troublemakers and arose after an incident at the Southport resort in April 2015.

We compared the 40 names on the List to guest booking records. Three of the surnames listed had no corresponding booking records, which meant there were surnames on the List that did not relate to any actual guest. No surnames on the List had a connection to any guest who may have stayed at the Southport Park in Easter 2015, when the incident occurred.

25 surnames on the List had no entry on the No Longer Welcome database. Even accounting for spelling errors and variations, there were 18 names we could not find on any of Pontins’ booking databases.

The data showed that guests with a name on the List were less likely to have a clear reason for being banned compared with guests not on the List and without a name of Irish origin.

Overall, the analysis contradicted Pontins’ claim that the List was used to identify troublemakers.

The No Longer Welcome database (Refusal to Return)

We did not rely on statistical data to make unlawful act findings. However, it was useful to enquire into how different practices operated. For example, out of the guests with surnames on the List, only 14% had a clear reason stating they had caused trouble on the park, mostly added since 2018.

In comparison, we found that 70.1% of guests banned with clear and apparently legitimate reasons did not have names of Irish origin, including surnames on the List. Reasons recorded included property damage or abusive behaviour.

At the start of the investigation, Pontins provided its current No Longer Welcome database. It contained only 10 entries of guests with surnames on the List. Pontins later provided the entire historical database from 2011. This showed 142 guest entries related to a guest with a surname on the List.

Nearly 400 records entered between 2013 and 2017, when the Undesirable Guest Practice was in operation, were removed without explanation. The majority showed no date for the change. We have concluded that this most likely occurred in 2021 and 2022. This was during our regulatory intervention with Pontins. The effect of the changes could have been to obstruct our investigation, although we were in fact able to identify the changes made through technical analysis of the database.

The changes made to entries on the No Longer Welcome Database were substantial and significant:

• All the entries with the reason ‘undesirable’ (or variations thereof) were deleted.
• Only one ‘undesirable’ entry confirmed the date of deletion, occurring in the weeks between the termination of our legal agreement with Pontins and the official launch of our investigation.
• Over 75% removed had some connection with perceived Irish Traveller names and addresses.
• 115 related to guests with surnames on the List.
• The entries relating to our individual Unlawful Acts findings (4 to 7) were deleted.
• 111 deleted records related to guests living on a Traveller site.
• Only one entry with a Traveller site had a confirmed date of deletion, occurring in the weeks between the termination of our legal agreement and the official launch of our investigation.

Evidence

Evidence

Current banned guests

As of July 2023, the total number of guests subject to a ban is 266. Of those currently banned from services, only 20 with surnames on the List remain. Four of the records were entered during the time the List was in operation (three in 2015, one in 2018), suggesting a very small fraction of entries during this period were ever valid and that the true purpose of the List was not to identify actual troublemakers, but to discriminate on the grounds of race.  

The remaining entries of guests on the Refusal to Return database with surnames on the List are from 2019-2022. Each entry has a reason recorded such as ‘aggressive behaviour’. This showed a marked difference, and improvement in practice from 2019 onwards. We reviewed a small sample of these remaining records and made further recommendations to Pontins - see Recommendations.

Booking records

We cross checked booking records with the guest ID or booking number, to determine whether any guest with a successful, cancelled or unconfirmed booking was entered onto the No Longer Welcome database. We also checked if that ban was before or after they attempted to make a reservation or had attended the park at all, and if so whether the holiday was before or after the ban.  

We examined records of guests with names on the List, or where ‘undesirable’ was a reason for entry on the No Longer Welcome database, and then reviewed guest addresses from booking records to determine whether they related to a registered Traveller site.

We also asked Pontins to provide any additional booking records or diary notes in a sample of 27 guest records from 2014 to 2019, so we could examine the cases in more detail. The sample included some records where the ‘undesirable’ term was used in either the refund data or the No Longer Welcome database, including where the surnames were not on the List, as well as cases relating to third party bookings.  

Our analysis overall did not support Pontins’ claim that the List was used to identify ‘troublemakers’. Instead, the evidence identified the following trends:

1. Banned at the same time as attempting to book or when cancelled

Many of the booking records showed that guests with surnames on the List or who lived on a Traveller site or caravan park were banned before the holiday could take place. This indicated that the guest did not have a history of unacceptable behaviour at the parks before being banned. Some booking records indicated a ban took effect after they called to query a booking, or at the same time as a cancellation.

Evidence

2. Guests banned - living on a Traveller site or caravan park

Between 2013 and 2017 there were 115 guests added to the No Longer Welcome database who also lived on a traveller site or caravan park. Only one entry suggested a legitimate reason for the ban. The rest either had no reason recorded (102), were described as ‘no longer welcome’ (11), and one referred to Pontins’ ‘sole discretion’ to decline bookings, mirroring language used in the List. 111 of these entries have since had their banned status revoked.

Almost half were entered on the database on the same day as they had a booking cancelled and refunded, so the holiday had not yet taken place. It is therefore difficult to see any proper reason for a ban. Many (25) of these bans were applied on the same day the guest called to enquire about a holiday.

This suggested they were banned after an advisor had assessed them according to the Undesirable Guest Practice and that the ban was not connected to their behaviour. Of the 115 guests, 28 had paid towards their holiday, and 27 received a refund. This contradicted Pontins’ claims that these guests had a history of causing trouble because Pontins’ terms and conditions state that refunds are not given if a guest has a history of anti-social behaviour.

Where there was evidence of previous stays in the guests’ records, there was no evidence that the ban related to a recent holiday. Many were cancelled months or years after their last stay.

We concluded that it was likely these 111 guests were added to the database because advisors had checked their addresses and believed the guests were Travellers. They were then rightly and fairly removed from the database. However, they had been denied services until around 2022.

3. No evidence of previous bad behaviour including where 'undesirable' term is used

In the sample of 27 guest records, there was no evidence of any history of unacceptable behaviour at the parks. This included the records where ‘undesirable’ was used to justify a cancellation or No Longer Welcome entry. While some had a long delay between the cancellation of the guest booking and entry onto the No Longer Welcome database, there was a pattern of guests with the same addresses added to the No Longer Welcome database on the same day. This suggested some guests may have been perceived as associates.

Evidence

4. Groups of names added during shifts

We found multiple entries on the No Longer Welcome database that occurred within an employee’s shift. For example, some guests with surnames on the List were added onto the electronic banned database on the same day, by the same member of staff. This suggested that there was a systemic practice of adding entries to the No Longer Welcome database of guests who they perceived as Travellers or associates. There was no other evidence to justify a ban.

Evidence

Figure 3. The original photograph of the 'undesirable guest list'.

Figure 4. The original image of the Pontins 'If Not, Why Not' dropdown list.

For advice, information or guidance on equality, discrimination or human rights issues, please contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service, a free and independent service.

Telephone    0808 800 0082

Hours          09:00 to 19:00 (Monday to Friday)

                     10:00 to 14:00 (Saturday)

Post            FREEPOST EASS HELPLINE FPN6521