
The fed-up restaurants charging £50 per cancellation
How things change.
A growing number of upmarket restaurants are now charging their customers before they've even set foot in the doorway.
At Piraña, a Japanese Peruvian restaurant in Mayfair, diners now have to agree to spend a minimum of £95 on food between Tuesday and Sunday. Fail to show up for a booking, and you'll be fined £50.
It's a similar story at Gymkhana, the two Michelin-starred Indian restaurant in Mayfair, which recently introduced a £100 minimum spend.
Other examples include the high end sushi restaurant The Araki, where diners must pay a £310 fee in advance for its omakase tasting menu. An evening meal at Claridge's Foyer & Reading Room, meanwhile, comes with a minimum spend of £50 per person.
These are, admittedly, extreme examples of restaurants that cater to the wealthiest diners. However, up-front fees for reservations are increasingly common in restaurants – particularly in London.
Many are imposing steep cancellation fees on customers if they don't show up, or if they cancel but fail to give enough notice, while others now ask for a deposit to ensure diners stay committed to the booking.
'The costs have gone up, and so you've absolutely got to lock it in,' says Chris D'Sylva, the owner of the Michelin-starred Dorian restaurant in Notting Hill, which charges a £25 deposit per head that is then subtracted from the final bill.
Fresh shock from Reeves
Restaurants have battled with the surging cost of everything from food to energy in recent years as the industry navigated Brexit, the pandemic and the cost of living crisis.
Yet just as many costs were beginning to stabilise, Rachel Reeves has hammered the sector with a fresh shock.
In her Budget last October, the Chancellor announced a rise in employers' National Insurance (NI) contributions and a fall in the earnings threshold at which it kicks in.
At the same time, minimum wage is set to jump by an inflation-busting 6.7pc. Changes take effect from April.
Bosses argue the changes will disproportionately hurt hospitality because of the sheer number of part time staff in the sector.
The tax rise has already caused companies to slow or pause hiring and cancel investments. The number of people employed in accommodation and food services has begun to fall since the Budget, dropping by 58,000 in January 2025 compared with the same period last year.
Only 14pc of hospitality leaders said they felt optimistic about the sector's prospects in the year ahead, according to a survey by data firm CGA.
'Many consumers remain hesitant about their spending, and while inflation has eased in some areas, business costs remain very high across the sector ... Energy price rises and the Government's planned changes to National Insurance thresholds and rates could hardly be coming at a worse time,' says Karl Chessell, director of hospitality operators and food at CGA.
Responding to these higher costs may seen counter intuitive. Many diners might find the suggestion that they should lay down money in advance dispiriting, let alone the prospect of calculating who owes what after a large group meal and several glasses of wine have been knocked back.
'Painful' decisions
Yet, restaurant owners say these measures are necessary after years of soaring costs and economic chaos that have made it much harder to turn a profit.
'They're hesitant to do it,' says Nick Gross, a hospitality industry consultant who works with restaurateurs.
'It is quite painful to charge someone £50 a head to not sit in your restaurant. It's all about revenue protection. If I didn't sell it today, that that seat is lost.'
Chris Galvin, the co-owner of Galvin Restaurants, charges a £50 cancellation fee per person at his Michelin-starred London site, Galvin La Chapelle, if a cancellation is not made within 48 hours of the meal.
'I think people were [previously] afraid to offend customers, but everyone is on this bloody precipice, worried about business and counting every single cover,' he says.
'Why should it be that we're spending a lot of time securing the best, making sure we prepare it by hand, we rota in the staff, we're paying rent and we're turning down other bookings, and then people don't show?'
Of course, no-shows are not a new problem for hospitality. Restaurateurs have spent decades scratching their heads over how to handle the problem. But the precarious financial position that many now find themselves in means a more rigorous approach to the issue is needed.
Sunitha Southern, the owner of Kira restaurant in Cheshire, now charges customers deposits for meals on special occasions and holidays like Valentine's Day to protect her income.
'We had situations when people didn't turn up, and we had turned people away,' she says.
'It's c--p, everything is affected if they don't turn up. As soon as you open the door, you walk through, the electricity starts ticking.
'Then your staff are lined up – it's such a competitive market that if you don't give them the shifts you have promised, they will just go and they will get picked by somebody else.'
She chose to charge a deposit because after the frequency of no-shows increased in the wake of the pandemic. Southern blames online booking systems, arguing they have made booking a table so easy people feel like it is less of a commitment.
'They will say 'oh, sorry, we have double booked' or 'my partner's booked another restaurant' – and this will be when we call them. It is the most frustrating thing,' she says.
While he does charge a deposit, D'Sylva of Dorian says he makes exemptions for regulars and locals who he trusts.
'They don't pay the deposit, but they know how to behave: they honour their reservations, or they cancel them with appropriate time – everyone else, I will put them on £25 per person to keep them committed to the booking.
'We used to have a cancellation fee, but with [payment apps] Monzo, Revolut and all that, it's all two-step payment approval. They don't show up, you go to charge them and you can't – they reject the payments.'
As well as no-shows, the fee has managed to put off those who 'reservation squat', where people book several restaurants for the same evening to allow them the option to choose on the night.
While his upfront charge has been a success, D'Sylva worries the industry is going down a dangerous path.
'It's in conflict with hospitality. It's not welcoming, it's like 'let's talk about the money first, before I've delivered you anything' – that's not what I want to feel from the outset when I come to a restaurant.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
74 years on - and Britain is still struggling to balance the books
The past often looms larger than the present as one grows older. So I was grateful to receive a letter from a loyal reader who found a newspaper cutting revealing the contents of the 1951-52 Budget. At the time I was still in my Silver Cross pram blissfully unaware of the privations of the nation. But as a financial journalist who has reported on Budgets since the mid-1970s, the news was depressingly familiar. It dated to the final days of the post-War Government. The occupant of No 11 seeking to balance the nation's books was Hugh Gaitskell. Hailing from the moderate wing of Labour, he was the Rachel Reeves of his time. Tax and spend were the order of the day, but the welfare state was still in its infancy and handouts on today's scale were a dream. Dominating the Budget was defence of the realm. On the eve of the Korean War, Britain was spending 8.5 per cent of national output on the military. That was sharply down on the peak during the Second World War. It puts in perspective Keir Starmer's pledge to devote 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product to defence by 2027 and the undertaking at the recent Nato summit to eventually raise this to 5 per cent of GDP. In contrast the big consumers of Government resources in 2025-26 are welfare, the NHS and education. Spending on these was minuscule, compared with arms, in 1951-52. A key similarity with today is that the UK of 74 years ago was up to its neck in borrowing, debt and interest payments. Defeating Hitler was the only goal that mattered for Winston Churchill's Cabinet and in 1951 the ratio of debt-to-GDP stood at a huge 200 per cent. Britain has suffered three successive shocks to the public finances this century. The global financial crisis, Covid and soaring energy bills after Russia's invasion of Ukraine have sent the national debt soaring to 100 per cent of annual output. But remarkably that is half the level of 1951. The cost of servicing all that debt – including war loans from the US, savings certificates and Government bonds – was also far higher then. The annual interest bill was £215 billion in today's money – almost twice the £126 billion cost of servicing the national debt today. Those urging Reeves to loosen her fiscal straitjacket may find solace in the 1951 deal. Britain was deep in debt but survived. Taxation then was a simpler affair. Dominated, as it is today, by income tax, it was boosted by a surtax on the wealthy. National Insurance, now worth £199 billion a year to the exchequer, was near invisible. The biggest change to the tax system came after Britain joined the EU in 1973. It brought the Revenue the gift of VAT, which this year is set to raise £214 billion, making it the second biggest revenue-raiser after income tax. In 1951, when consumer spending power was modest, purchase tax raised a miserable £310 million or £3.8 billion today. One ever-present element of Budgets is alcohol duty. A few pennies off a pint is still seen by No 11 as a way of soothing the troubles of working people. As long as they can find a pub that's still open after the Chancellor's latest tax raid.


Scottish Sun
6 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Is your new job a scam? How to spot the red flags and avoid losing £1,000s
Find out how crooks go about gaining your trust SCAM ALERT Is your new job a scam? How to spot the red flags and avoid losing £1,000s Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SCAMMERS are preying on desperate job hunters struggling to find work as unemployment rockets to a four-year high. With figures showing the unemployment rate at 4.7 per cent, those scrambling for work have become prime targets for fraudsters. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up Criminals are posing as recruiters to trick victims into handing over money or personal financial information. Lloyds Bank has reported a 237 per cent rise in job scams this year, with victims losing £1,420 on average. Mark Sitton, from TPF Recruitment, says: 'The current economic climate and rising unemployment has created the perfect environment for fraudsters to thrive in and carry out job scams.' Blathnaid Corless explains what to look out for . . . HOW THEY GET YOU THERE are lots of different scams to watch out for. You may get an unexpected text, email, call, WhatsApp or message on social media from fake agents offering flexible roles. They come with pay cheques of up to £1,000 a day, says Mark. His company has seen a spike in con artists pretending to be recruiters from the firm. Mark says: 'They will lead the victim through a seemingly legitimate recruitment process, which may include video interviews, requests for references and even fake offer letters, all of which create the illusion of credibility.' To gain your trust, crooks may even pay you a small fee for accepting the job offer. AI tricks to beat scammers as scam texts, calls and emails surge 'However, the real intention is to extract sensitive personal and financial information,' says Mark. Be wary if you are asked for personal details, such as your full name, address, date of birth and copies of your passport or driver's licence, as well as your National Insurance number, which can all be used to commit identity fraud. They may ask for your bank details in order to process your pay, but in reality, they are doing everything they can to get their hands on your cash. Some fake job ads have dodgy links that take you to websites designed to steal your logins or put viruses on your computer, says HSBC head of fraud David Callington. Sophisticated scammers will also create fake websites to draw you into the con. Victims will be shown an 'earnings dashboard' and told to pay a fee to unlock higher-paying tasks, Mark adds. As victims complete more tasks, they will see their 'earnings' rise on the dashboard and will be more inclined to pay in more money to level up to higher-paid tasks — but of course, it is all fake. Similarly, you may be told to sign up for a certain type of crypto wallet, which the fraudsters will secretly have access to. You will be told your pay will be sent to the wallet but that you need to put money into it first before you can do the work tasks. Then the scammers swipe the money. Victims may be asked to pay the company for computers or other tech needed as part of the job. And beware of the 'overpayment trick', David warns. 'Scammers will send you a cheque that is more than your 'salary' and ask you to send the difference back. 'Then their cheque bounces, and you're out of pocket.' THE RED FLAGS THERE are warning signs to watch out for if you have been approached by a recruiter. David Callington says: 'If a job offer seems too good to be true, pays higher than expected for little effort, asks for money upfront, or demands too much personal information too soon, be very, very suspicious.' 3 There are lots of different scams to watch out for A real recruiter would never ask you to pay them to secure a job, says Melissa Mhondoro, from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, as this would be a breach of industry laws. A recruiter does not need to know your date of birth, financial information or your National Insurance details. You would never be asked for your bank details before you have signed a contract. Check any documents and contact details, such as the recruiter's email address, for poor spelling and grammar. Beware if the recruiter's email address contains @yahoo or @hotmail, or if you have been added to unknown apps or group chats where you will be spammed with job ads. Stick to applying for jobs directly on company websites or on well-known, trusted job boards such as LinkedIn, Indeed or Reed. If you think you have fallen for a fake job offer, you should stop talking to the 'agent' immediately. Take a note of their details and report it to Action Fraud (0300 123 2040, If you have handed over any money, tell your bank immediately. And scam-proof your phone by blocking unknown calls. BT INCREASES PRICE HIKE WATCH out for hefty mid-contract bill hikes if you are signing up for a new broad- band or mobile phone deal with BT, Plusnet or EE. BT, which owns the other two, has announced the three brands will increase their mid-contract price rises for broadband customers from £3 to £4 a month. 3 BT is set to increase their mid-contract price rises for broadband customers This affects new customers signing up for contracts any time from now. BT and EE customers will see the hike hit their bills on March 31 next year and again on March 31, 2027. Plusnet will roll out the higher charges to new customers signing up from Tuesday. For mobile plans, any BT, EE and Plusnet customers on Sim-only and Flex Pay plans will see their contracts rise by £2.50 in April. Bundled handset and airtime plan customers will face a £4 rise, also in April. Uswitch telecoms expert Ernest Doku described the changes as 'another pounding for consumers' wallets'. He added: 'BT's price updates have often set a precedent for other providers to follow suit. 'If this trend continues, the telecoms industry runs the risk of creating its own accelerated rate of inflation.' BT said in a statement said: 'We're focused on providing value and customer satisfaction, making new technologies available to our customers such as 5G standalone and WiFi 7.' BLATHNAID CORLESS LOVE AFFECTS PREMIUMS YOUR relationship status could be pushing up your car insurance by hundreds of pounds but there are ways to slash costs. Single drivers pay the most, at an average of £859 a year, according to data from MoneySuperMarket. 3 Your relationship status could be pushing up your car insurance But separated drivers are charged an average of £496 – £363 less. Marital status is a big factor insurers look at when assessing how risky you are. Single drivers are usually regarded as more risky to insure than married couples, who pay £799 on average for their annual premiums. Married couples have a reputation as financially stable and less accident-prone. Widowed motorists pay an average of £515, while those who are listed as a 'partner' pay £760. Making a simple tweak to your relationship status could save you hundreds of pounds – but don't lie, otherwise you could invalidate your insurance. For example, if you are no longer married, state 'divorced' instead of single, and save £349. Other ways to slash your premiums include parking in a garage instead of on the road. Pay annually, not monthly, otherwise you will be charged interest and pay more. If you don't have enough cash to pay upfront, consider using a zero per cent credit card, which charges no interest for a set period. SAM WALKER


Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves making bigger mistakes than Truss, says Badenoch
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are making 'even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss and have not learnt the lessons of her mini-budget, Kemi Badenoch has warned. Writing in The Telegraph, the Tory leader accuses the Government of taking Britain's finances 'to the brink' over concerns that it is pushing the country into a 'debt spiral'. Comparing Labour to Ms Truss marks Mrs Badenoch 's first major public criticism of the former Conservative prime minister, whose tax-cutting 2022 mini-budget was followed by a market meltdown. Mrs Badenoch says: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. 'They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Her comments are a bid to blunt Labour's continued efforts to pin Britain's current economic woes on the Tory legacy of Ms Truss's premiership. Almost three years on, Ms Reeves and Sir Keir still regularly resort to blaming the mini-budget for unpopular decisions on tax and spending. But the remarks also risk reopening old wounds within the Tories, with some allies of Ms Truss arguing that she had the right vision for a low-tax economy. A source close to Liz Truss told The Telegraph: 'Kemi has not learned the lessons of the Mini Budget, which is that when Conservative MPs fail to back tax cuts, fracking and welfare restraint, they get booted out of office. 'The Bank of England has since admitted that two thirds of the market movement in 2022 was down to their failure properly to regulate pensions. 'Kemi needs to do the work and actually look at what happened in 2022 and hold the Bank of England to account.' The former Tory prime minister has said it was failures by the Bank of England, rather than her tax cuts, which led to the subsequent financial turmoil. Her supporters have also pointed out that borrowing costs on Government bonds have risen to a higher level now than in the aftermath of the mini-budget. In her now infamous mini-budget in September 2022, Ms Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor at the time, announced a series of surprise tax cuts, including the abolition of the top 45p income tax rate. It was not accompanied by a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, nor did it contain any spending restraints to balance the books. The budget provoked a calamitous market reaction, with the pound hitting an all-time low against the US dollar, government borrowing costs surging and increased mortgage rates. Ms Truss was swiftly forced to abandon the 45p cut and sack Mr Kwarteng, replacing him with Jeremy Hunt, to try and calm the financial markets. She resigned two weeks later. Since coming to power last year, Labour has also been criticised for its financial decisions. Ms Reeves used June's spending review to set out a £300bn spree over the next five years, to be funded by higher taxes and more debt. She has handed a £190bn increase to public services, paid for by the tax raid on businesses which has been blamed for stalling economic growth. A further £113bn will be ploughed into infrastructure projects after the Chancellor tore up her fiscal rules to allow herself to borrow more for investment. Last month's borrowing figure came in at £20.7bn, the second-highest level on record behind June 2020, when the Treasury was funding furlough payments. As a result, Mrs Badenoch warns that Britain is entering a 'debt spiral'. She says the reversal on £5bn of cuts to sickness benefits has added 'more pressure to the public purse' and has fuelled fears of further growth killing tax rises. The UK now faces higher borrowing costs than once-bankrupt Greece and is spending more on debt interest repayments every year than the entire defence budget. Mrs Badenoch writes: 'Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have taken profligate spending to a different level. The UK economy is teetering on the brink. 'Bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. This is how countries enter a debt spiral. 'But it is not inevitable, it is a choice. A debt crisis would make everyone in the country a lot poorer and ruin people's lives. 'The Prime Minister must not let pride stop him doing what, I sincerely hope, he knows deep down is essential – cutting government spending.' Mrs Badenoch's comments also come against the backdrop of internal disagreement over whether the Tory party should continue to apologise for its time in office. She used her first speech as leader, delivered in December last year, to directly say sorry to voters for the Conservatives' failures on immigration. One of her closest allies, Baroness Maclean of Redditch, told a meeting in June that the party had 'done the apologies' and should now move on to setting out policies. But a few weeks later Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told activists that the Tories should keep acknowledging their mistakes. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, had led internal Tory criticism of the mini-budget, vowing last month that the party would 'never, ever' repeat it. Until now Mrs Badenoch had held her fire, though she did privately tell her shadow cabinet that it would be helpful if Ms Truss made fewer public interventions. Her warning comes after the International Monetary Fund and senior City figures sounded the alarm about Britain's spiralling debt. Ray Dalio, a billionaire US hedge fund investor, warned last week that the UK has entered a 'doom loop' of more borrowing, higher taxes and low growth. Ms Reeves has repeatedly refused to rule out returning with more tax rises in the autumn despite warnings that doing so would further damage the economy. The Chancellor is under growing pressure from Left-wing backbenchers to introduce a wealth tax, which would probably prompt a fresh exodus of entrepreneurs. Starmer and Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget By Kemi Badenoch Picture the scene: a new Prime Minister and Chancellor spending billions without also making the necessary savings to offset their splurge and balance the books. The markets react adversely, interest rates spike and the cost of living gets worse with prices soaring. For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books. They are egged on by a Left-wing Reform Party, chasing Labour votes with ever more outlandish promises of nationalisation and welfare giveaways. The Conservative Party is now under new leadership, and my abiding principle will be that the country must live within its means. Before you dismiss us as being part of the problem, (after all, the mini-budget happened on our watch), the difference is that in 2022 we recognised what had gone wrong and took action to fix it. Labour aren't doing this. In fact they're making a bad situation even worse. Since the pandemic, Britain has become more and more reliant on debt to pay for public services. We now spend almost twice as much on debt interest than we do on defence. And the deficit is over £70bn. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have taken profligate spending to a different level. Labour politicians are used to entering office with a surplus built up by cost-cutting Conservatives. Their instincts are simply to spend more, and they were wholly unprepared for the post-Covid economic situation. We saw it when both Starmer and Farage refused to back my call to keep the two-child benefit cap, a policy that saves £3 billion a year. And we saw it again when the Prime Minister watered down his own Welfare Bill. Instead of making savings, it now actually increases welfare spending – adding more pressure to the public purse. Before that debate, I made a straightforward offer: Conservative MPs would give him the numbers in Parliament to get the Bill through, if the Prime Minister committed to cutting welfare costs, getting people into work, and ruling out further tax rises this autumn. He refused. So instead, we watched as the Government stripped its own legislation of any serious reform. The markets were also watching. The UK's borrowing costs are reaching levels not seen for 30 years – higher than even those in Greece. Incredibly, borrowing costs are higher now than after the mini-budget. That means prices rising and the long-running cost of living crisis continuing. The UK economy is teetering on the brink. There are now warnings, in the City and in Westminster, that a fiscal crisis may even be on the horizon. Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, said this week that Britain had entered a 'doom loop' of rising debts, higher taxes and slower growth. Dalio's warnings came days after the International Monetary Fund said the government must take radical action to avoid a debt spiral. As we all saw in 2022, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are reliant on the bond markets. Yet those bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. Rachel Reeves's unfunded series of U-turns have only added to the pressure. She is boxed in by her party on one side, and her fiscal rules on the other. Everyone now assumes tax rises are coming in the November Budget and the Government isn't denying it. The OBR is warning that higher tax is not good for growth. They are right. The Institute of Directors say that taxes and dire economic outlook is leading to the worst business confidence since the pandemic. Labour's mismanagement of our economy is having real consequences, and it's working people, savers and business owners who will pay more for declining public services. At the same time, rising welfare and poor incentives are pushing more people out of the workforce, making our problems even harder to fix. This is how countries enter a debt spiral. But it is not inevitable, it is a choice. A debt crisis would make everyone in the country a lot poorer and ruin people's lives. The Prime Minister must not let pride stop him doing what, I sincerely hope, he knows deep down is essential: cutting government spending. He should do so, for all our sakes.