Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Business

UK holiday tax could cost 33,000 jobs and cut tourism spending, warns Oxford Economics

Published

on

removal of VAT-free shopping has caused tourist spending to shift towards other European countries

Proposed plans to introduce a “holiday tax” in England could put up to 33,000 tourism jobs at risk and reduce Treasury revenues by nearly £700 million, according to new analysis that has intensified opposition from the hospitality sector.

Research by Oxford Economics, commissioned by UKHospitality, suggests that giving regional mayors the power to impose visitor levies would have a materially negative impact on tourism demand, spending and wider economic activity.

Under the government’s proposals, mayors would be able to introduce local taxes on overnight stays in hotels, guesthouses, hostels and holiday lets, with revenues earmarked for transport and infrastructure projects. The level of the levy would be determined locally, and implementation would be optional.

The most severe scenario modelled, a 5 per cent levy on accommodation, could result in a £1.8 billion decline in tourism spending by 2030 and the loss of 33,000 jobs across the sector. The same scenario is also expected to reduce overall tax receipts by £688 million, reflecting lower economic activity.

Alternative models also point to significant impacts. A flat £2 per person per night charge could reduce spending by £846 million and lead to 16,000 job losses, while a £2 per room levy would still result in around 7,000 fewer jobs and a £400 million drop in tourism expenditure.

Advertisement

Matthew Dass of Oxford Economics said the policy risks weakening the UK’s competitive position as a destination, particularly given the existing 20 per cent VAT rate applied to hospitality services.

“An additional tax would further weaken the country’s competitiveness,” he said, warning of broader negative consequences for the economy.

Leaders across the hospitality and tourism sector have reacted strongly to the proposals, arguing that additional costs would deter both domestic and international visitors at a time when the industry is already under pressure.

Allen Simpson, chief executive of UKHospitality, said the levy would “hike costs for Brits, make staycations more expensive and decimate tourism”.

Advertisement

Operators warn that reduced visitor numbers would not only affect hotels and accommodation providers, but also have knock-on effects across local economies, particularly in regions heavily reliant on tourism for employment and investment.

Simon Palethorpe, chief executive of Haven Holidays, said the tax could discourage domestic travel and reduce economic activity in areas with limited alternative employment opportunities.

Meanwhile, Fiona Eastwood, head of Merlin Entertainments, said the proposals risk making short breaks unaffordable for many working families, while Hilton executive Simon Vincent warned the move could make the UK less attractive compared with competing destinations.

The government has framed the policy as a way to give local leaders greater control over funding for infrastructure and public services, particularly in high-traffic tourist areas. However, critics argue that the economic trade-offs may outweigh the potential benefits.

Advertisement

The consultation on the proposals, which explored different levy structures and rates, concluded last month, with the government yet to confirm its final position.

The debate comes at a time when the hospitality sector is already facing a challenging operating environment, including rising employment costs, higher business rates and fragile consumer confidence.

For policymakers, the challenge lies in balancing the desire to generate additional local revenue with the need to maintain the UK’s competitiveness as a tourism destination.

Industry leaders are urging the government to focus instead on measures that stimulate growth, increase visitor numbers and support investment, rather than introducing additional costs that could suppress demand.

Advertisement

With tourism playing a critical role in regional economies and employment, the outcome of the policy debate is likely to have far-reaching implications, not just for the sector itself, but for the broader UK economy.


Amy Ingham

Amy is a newly qualified journalist specialising in business journalism at Business Matters with responsibility for news content for what is now the UK’s largest print and online source of current business news.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Business

Pfizer Lyme disease vaccine fails trial, company to seek FDA approval

Published

on

Pfizer Lyme disease vaccine fails trial, company to seek FDA approval

A tick (Ixodida) – carrier for several diseases of humans and animals, for exampel the dangerous Lyme disease, babesiosis, anaplasmosis, Powassan virus disease and many more.

Fhm | Moment | Getty Images

Pfizer on Monday said it will seek regulatory approval for a Lyme disease vaccine candidate despite the shot failing a late-stage trial.

Advertisement

Pfizer said the vaccine missed the trial’s statistical goal because not enough people in the study contracted Lyme disease to be confident in the results. Still, the company said the shot reduced the rate of infection by more than 70% in people who received the vaccine versus placebo, efficacy the company thinks is strong enough to take to regulators.

“The efficacy shown in the VALOR study of more than 70% is highly encouraging and creates confidence in the vaccine’s potential to protect against this disease that can be debilitating,” Pfizer Chief Vaccines Officer Annaliesa Anderson said in a statement.

A vaccine for Lyme disease isn’t expected to become a best-seller for Pfizer, with the company’s partner Valneva estimating peak annual sales of $1 billion. Pfizer expects overall revenue of around $60 billion this year, with its Covid-19 vaccine representing more than $5 billion of that forecast.

But Pfizer had billed the Lyme vaccine results as one of its major catalysts this year, and it represented a chance to introduce the only human vaccine for Lyme disease.

Advertisement

Moving forward with a shot that technically failed a clinical trial under an administration that has preached stricter scrutiny for vaccines may prove risky for Pfizer, and it could serve as a litmus test for vaccine policy in the U.S.

Lyme disease is an illness caused by bacteria most commonly spread to humans from ticks. It can cause arthritis, muscle weakness and pain. About half a million Americans are diagnosed with or treated for Lyme disease every year, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Despite the disease’s prevalence, especially in the Northeast, there isn’t a vaccine for humans available. A company that would later become GSK introduced a shot called LYMErix in 1998 but pulled it only a few years later after public concerns about safety tanked demand. That experience hobbled development of Lyme vaccines for humans, though multiple companies now make them for dogs.

Pfizer and Valneva have faced their own setbacks. In 2023, the companies dropped about half of the participants in the Phase 3 trial because of quality concerns with third-party clinical trial site operator Care Access. The trial had initially enrolled about 18,000 people and after the cuts ended up with about 9,400.

Advertisement

The companies’ vaccine targets the outer surface protein A of the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. A vaccinated person creates antibodies that are passed to a tick and prevent the bacterium from being transferred from the tick to the human. The series involves three shots in the first year, then a booster dose the following year.

The companies said they didn’t observe any safety concerns in the trial.

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.
Continue Reading

Business

How Companies Are Cutting Back On CAPEX By Leasing Infrastructure On Demand

Published

on

Maven Capital Partners has invested £2.6 million in PowerPhotonic, the precision optics specialist whose technology underpins high-power laser systems used in aerospace, defence, healthcare and semiconductor manufacturing.

Capital expenditure has been a huge obstacle for companies that rely on a lot of heavy equipment or infrastructure. Construction, logistics, mining and manufacturing firms have traditionally gone out and bought the gear they need in order to keep running.

While owning the gear gives them control, it also locks up a ton of capital, piles on maintenance bills, and leaves them exposed to the risk of underutilising their assets when they’re not in use.

A big shift is going on right now. Across multiple sectors, companies are moving away from the old model of buying and owning big-ticket assets and are instead turning to on-demand access to the gear and infrastructure they need. This change is revolutionising how capital is allocated in these businesses, and how they manage their risks.

The Problem with Being a Capital-Heavy Business

Ownership used to be seen as a necessity in industries where having access to that gear was essential to getting the job done. Contractors buy excavators, transport companies buy truck fleets, and manufacturers build extra capacity so they can meet demand without relying on outside help.

But this model creates a whole host of problems:

Advertisement
  • You need to shell out loads of cash upfront to buy the gear.
  • The gear depreciates quickly, leaving you with a fraction of what you paid for it after just a few years.
  • There are ongoing costs for maintenance and storage on top of that.
  • You’re stuck with the gear even when you don’t need it – which is a waste of money.
  • And there’s the risk that you’ll buy a lot of gear and then struggle to use it all when demand drops.

In reality, loads of companies end up with gear that’s not being used very much. That equipment bought for peak demand just sits there idle between projects or during downturns, which means you’re throwing good money after bad on cash that’s not really generating any value.

This is getting worse as margins get tighter, competition gets fiercer, and the pressure to get your capital allocation just right gets more intense.

The Shift Towards Access Over Ownership

So, to get around these problems, companies are starting to adopt the “access over ownership” model. Instead of buying gear that may not even get used all that much, businesses are turning to leasing or renting the equipment and infrastructure they need on demand.

This model is already well established in other areas. Cloud computing made it so that you don’t need to have all the IT hardware lying around on site. Mobility platforms let people use cars without having to buy them. And the same idea is being applied to physical gear and infrastructure now.

In construction, for example, contractors are ditching their own fleets and instead using hired gear to do the job. They keep a core set of assets that they own and use, and then rent or lease the rest as needed for specific projects or phases.

Advertisement

This way, businesses can match their spending to their actual needs.

What Are the Financial Benefits of On-Demand Infrastructure?

One of the key benefits to this approach is that it lets you cut back on capital expenditure. By not having to shell out a fortune upfront to buy the gear, you can keep your capital free for other important priorities like expansion, updating your tech, or hiring more staff.

Some of the key financial benefits are:

  • You don’t need to throw down loads of cash upfront to buy some new gear.
  • Your cash flow is more predictable, because you’re only paying for the gear when you need it.
  • You avoid all the depreciation costs that come from owning stuff that’s not generating a good return for you.
  • You save on maintenance and storage costs.
  • And your operating expenses become more predictable, which makes it easier to budget and plan.

By treating access to equipment as an operational expense, rather than a capital expense, you get more flexibility and can respond better to changing market conditions.

How On-Demand Infrastructure Improves Asset Utilisation

Another huge problem with the old model is that you end up with a lot of underused assets. Some gear gets used a lot, while other stuff just sits there idle for ages. This reduces your overall return on investment and makes it more expensive to get the job done.

Advertisement

But if you lease or rent the gear you need on demand, you can match your usage to your needs more closely. The gear is used when you need it, and then it’s back on the market when you don’t.

This approach also means you can get access to the specialist gear you need for specific tasks, without having to buy it and then stick it in a warehouse somewhere.

It Lets You Be More Flexible and Scalable

In today’s business world, demand can change overnight. Project pipelines can go up or down, timelines get changed, and market conditions shift. And in that kind of environment, having the flexibility to scale up or down quickly is a huge advantage.

On-demand infrastructure lets you scale your operations without being tied to a fixed asset base. If demand goes up, you can get more gear to meet the demand – and if demand drops, you can cut back and save yourself some cash.

Advertisement

And that’s especially useful in construction, where different projects need different types and volumes of gear at different times.

Digital platforms are making it all a lot easier to track down and get access to the gear you need. Platforms like Quotor give you a view of what’s out there, so you can find the gear you need without having to buy it yourself.

Reducing the Risk of Uncertain Markets

Finally, on-demand infrastructure reduces the long-term risk of buying a lot of gear that may not get used as much as you thought. In industries where the market is volatile – and that’s a lot of industries right now – the risk of buying gear in a boom and then having it go unused in a bust is a real problem.

But if you’re only leasing or renting the gear you need, you’re not committing to anything long-term. You can adjust your resource usage as the market changes – which means you can avoid the costs of maintaining gear that’s not being used.

Advertisement

This risk reduction is getting more and more important as industries have to deal with all the volatility in the market right now.

Technology is Making It All Happen

At the end of the day, all this is being made possible by the rapid advancement of digital technology. Online platforms, data analysis and real-time tracking are all making it easier for businesses to find, compare and access the resources they need.These technologies are making it a lot clearer where you can find the equipment you need and how much it’s going to set you back, which lets companies make decisions alot faster and with alot more info. And to top it off, they just make it a lot easier to get the equipment you need from multiple suppliers without all the hassle that’s usually involved.

As more and more businesses get on board with digital technology, on-demand infrastructure is going to become a whole lot more integrated into how it’s done in the industry, especially in places where equipment is a big deal.

A Shift in How Companies Approach Capital

The idea of on-demand infrastructure is part of a much bigger change in how companies think about capital – rather than just tying up their cash in physical assets they are really starting to value things like flexibility, efficiency, and being able to adapt quickly.

Advertisement

This shift doesn’t mean they aren’t going to own any assets anymore. Lots of companies are still going to have the equipment that really matters to them right up front. But the balance is shifting. People are getting pickier about what they own, and instead they are using access models to fill in the gaps and handle the day to day things that are hard to predict.

In construction this is a pretty fundamental change in how equipment is sourced & used.

Wrap Up

Cutting capital costs with on-demand infrastructure is more than just being cheap – it’s a way for companies to respond to the problems with the way they used to own things, and the fact that things are moving really fast.

By moving from owning things outright to accessing them as you need them, companies can do all sorts of good things like get their equipment running most of the time, reduce how much money they lose to financial risks, and use their capital in some place where it’ll get a better return. As more and more platforms for digital stuff get built out, this model is just going to keep on growing in the asset-intensive industries.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Business

Mondelez unveils two new Clif energy products

Published

on

Mondelez unveils two new Clif energy products

Company adds energy bites.

Continue Reading

Business

Danone adding meal solution provider to portfolio

Published

on

Danone adding meal solution provider to portfolio

Huel has raised approximately $59 million in venture capital funding. 

Continue Reading

Business

Hormel highlights five pizza trends

Published

on

Hormel highlights five pizza trends

Trends include meat and specialty crusts.

Continue Reading

Business

Welch’s hits goal to remove artificial dyes from snacks

Published

on

Welch’s hits goal to remove artificial dyes from snacks

The fruit snacks no longer contain colors such as Red No. 40 or Blue No. 1.

Continue Reading

Business

The Best House Buying Companies in the UK (2026): A Business Perspective

Published

on

The UK housing market is set for a subdued year, as both Savills and Rightmove cut their forecasts for house price growth in 2025, reflecting a combination of weak buyer activity, rising property supply, and lingering geopolitical uncertainty.

The UK property market continues to evolve, with increasing demand for speed, certainty and flexibility driving growth in the fast house sale sector.

House buying companies — often referred to as cash property buyers — have become a significant part of the market, offering homeowners an alternative to traditional estate agent sales. For many sellers, particularly those facing time pressure, these companies provide a streamlined route to completion.

However, the sector is far from uniform. Business models vary widely, from direct cash purchasers to hybrid platforms reliant on investor networks. As a result, understanding which companies deliver consistently is key.

Below is a business-focused overview of some of the leading house buying companies operating in the UK in 2026, based on scale, structure and market presence.

1. Springbok Properties

A scaled operator with structured sales models

Springbok Properties

Advertisement

is one of the most established and recognisable companies in the UK fast-sale property sector.

From a business standpoint, what differentiates Springbok is its multi-route sales model. Rather than relying on a single acquisition method, the company offers a range of structured solutions designed to align with different seller priorities — including speed, price and certainty.

This operational flexibility allows Springbok to handle higher volumes of transactions while maintaining relatively consistent completion timelines.

The company has also built significant brand equity, supported by a large volume of customer reviews and a strong digital presence.

Advertisement

Business strengths

  • Nationwide operational scale
  • Structured, multi-channel sales model
  • Strong brand recognition and review footprint
  • Ability to process high transaction volumes

For sellers and investors alike, Springbok represents one of the more mature and systemised operators within the sector.

2. The Property Buying Company

Direct acquisition model with strong market visibility

The Property Buying Company operates primarily as a direct purchaser, which simplifies the transaction process and reduces reliance on third-party buyers.

From a business perspective, this model offers clarity and speed, making it attractive to sellers seeking straightforward transactions.

The company has invested heavily in marketing, giving it strong visibility within the UK property sector.

Business strengths

  • Direct buying model
  • Clear and simple transaction structure
  • Strong brand awareness

However, as with most direct buyers, pricing is closely tied to valuation models and risk assessment.

3. Good Move

Compliance-led positioning in a lightly regulated sector

Good Move has positioned itself as a regulated house buying company, emphasising transparency and adherence to industry standards.

Advertisement

In a sector where regulation is still evolving, this approach provides a degree of differentiation and appeals to sellers seeking reassurance.

From a business standpoint, Good Move’s focus on compliance reflects a broader trend toward professionalisation within the fast-sale market.

Business strengths

  • Compliance-focused positioning
  • Transparent communication processes
  • Alignment with industry bodies

4. Property Solvers

Hybrid model with investor integration

Property Solvers operates using a hybrid approach, combining direct purchasing with access to an investor network.

This model allows the company to offer flexibility, matching sellers with different types of buyers depending on the property and circumstances.

From a business perspective, hybrid models can increase deal flow but may introduce variability in timelines and pricing.

Advertisement

Business strengths

  • Flexible acquisition strategy
  • Access to investor capital
  • Nationwide coverage

5. WeBuyAnyHome

Brand-led growth within the fast-sale sector

WeBuyAnyHome is one of the most recognisable brands in the UK quick-sale property market, driven largely by its marketing strategy and national reach.

The company focuses on generating high volumes of enquiries through a simplified onboarding process.

While brand strength is a clear advantage, the underlying transaction model often depends on investor participation.

Business strengths

  • Strong national brand presence
  • High lead generation capacity
  • Streamlined enquiry process

Sector Insights: A Market in Transition

The growth of house buying companies reflects broader structural changes within the UK property market.

Key trends include:

  • Increased demand for chain-free transactions
  • Rising adoption of PropTech and digital workflows
  • Greater awareness of alternative selling routes
  • A shift toward speed and certainty over maximum price

As a result, the sector is becoming more competitive, with companies refining their models to improve efficiency and conversion rates.

Key Considerations for Sellers

From a business and consumer perspective, due diligence remains essential.

Advertisement

Sellers should assess:

  • Whether the company is a direct buyer or intermediary
  • The transparency of the valuation process
  • Evidence of completed transactions and reviews
  • Membership of recognised industry bodies

Understanding these factors can help mitigate risk and ensure a smoother transaction.

Conclusion

House buying companies have established themselves as a viable and growing segment of the UK property market.

While the sector includes a wide range of operators, companies such as Springbok Properties, The Property Buying Company and Good Move demonstrate how scale, structure and transparency can differentiate businesses in an increasingly competitive landscape.

As market conditions continue to evolve, the demand for fast, reliable property transactions is likely to remain strong — ensuring that house buying companies play an increasingly important role in the future of UK real estate.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Business

Celldex Therapeutics stock hits 52-week high at 32.8 USD

Published

on


Celldex Therapeutics stock hits 52-week high at 32.8 USD

Continue Reading

Business

Wales needs to deliver more than 10,000 a year to hit government target

Published

on

Business Live

Lichfields has published comparative figures to the previous Welsh Government measure including the backlog in unbuilt homes.

Builder working on roof of a partially constructed house.

House building.(Image: Rui Vieira/PA Wire)

Wales may need to deliver more than 10,600 homes a year over the next five years if it match the Welsh Government’s latest housing need figures on a comparable basis, according to new analysis from planning and development consultancy Lichfields.

The Welsh Government’s updated estimates of housing need, published in February, identify a central requirement of around 8,700 homes per year between 2025 and 2030. That is already well above recent delivery levels, with housing completions averaging around 5,000 homes a year and 4,631 delivered in 2024/25.

READ MORE: The latest appointments in Welsh business

However, Lichfields’ review shows that the way the new figures are presented differs from the approach taken in 2019. The latest estimates separate newly arising need from the existing backlog of unmet need, currently identified as 9,400 households.

Advertisement

In 2019, that backlog was factored into the first five years of the plan period. If the same method were applied to the new dataset, the annual requirement for 2025–2030 would equate to 10,620 homes per year – a 43% increase on a like-for-like basis.

The updated figures also suggest a shift in the balance of housing required. For the next five years, the central estimate indicates around 65% market housing and 35% affordable housing.

Gareth Williams, senior Director at Lichfields, said: “Even the central estimate of 8,700 homes a year represents a significant uplift on recent delivery. On a comparable basis with the previous methodology, the annual requirement would exceed 10,600 homes.

“That gap between identified need and actual delivery is substantial. There is an urgent need for planning policy reform to ensure continuity of housing delivery where Local Development Plans are failing to progress. In our view, this should be a priority for whichever party forms the next Welsh Government after the May elections.”

Advertisement

The analysis also explains that the published estimates should be viewed as a minimum, given the way they have been calculated.

Arwel Evans, planning director at Lichfields’ Cardiff office, added: “The latest household projections will form a key part of the evidence base for regional and local development plans. Authorities bringing forward new or revised plans will need to consider these figures carefully.

“If Wales is to move closer to meeting identified need, there will need to be confidence in land supply, up-to-date plans and a consistent policy framework to support delivery.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Walmart – All-Weather Status Ironically Creates Risk For Investors (NASDAQ:WMT)

Published

on

Walmart - All-Weather Status Ironically Creates Risk For Investors (NASDAQ:WMT)

This article was written by

The Value Investor has a Master of Science with specialization in financial markets and a decade of experience tracking companies via catalytic company events.
As the leader of the investing group Value In Corporate Events they provide members with opportunities to capitalize on IPOs, mergers & acquisitions, earnings reports and changes in corporate capital allocation. Coverage includes 10 major events a month with an eye towards finding the best opportunities. Learn more.

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025