Grand Burstin Hotel Investigation: Britannia Hotels, Alexander Langsam and the Moravcik Trust

At 1.06am on Saturday 19 September 2026, Kent Fire and Rescue Service was called to the Grand Burstin Hotel in Folkestone. At the height of the incident, 26 fire engines and specialist units were sent to the harbour. Around 280 people evacuated the building as firefighters wearing breathing apparatus fought a blaze believed to have started in the basement. Police are treating the fire as suspicious.

The consequences spread beyond the hotel. Ninety people were moved out of neighbouring Pavilion Court after safety inspectors became concerned that the intensity of the basement fire may have weakened the Burstin’s structure. An emergency prohibition notice was subsequently issued and structural specialists began investigating the building.

Two local people, a 38-year-old man and a 21-year-old woman, were arrested in connection with the fire and later released while enquiries continued. Their arrests do not establish responsibility for what happened.

The Grand Burstin belongs to the Britannia Hotels story. Britannia says it acquired the Folkestone hotel in November 2004 as part of a four-hotel purchase from Grand Leisure Group. More than two decades later, Britannia still markets the 550-bedroom property on its website, although the page now carries an important update: the Grand Burstin is closed.

To understand the company behind one of Folkestone’s largest buildings, however, the place to look is not simply its website.

It is the accounts. 31 March 2009

Britannia today is a substantial private hotel business. Its latest reported figures, for the year ending March 2025, show turnover of about £160.7 million and profit before tax of £27.2 million. A year earlier turnover was £162.462 million and pre-tax profit £31.320 million. In 2023 they were £154.790 million and £39.371 million respectively; in 2022, £117.847 million and £33.355 million.

The figures establish the size of the business, not the condition of one hotel. Britannia’s group accounts cannot tell us how much was spent maintaining the Grand Burstin in any particular year, whether a specific repair was carried out or what caused the September fire. What they do establish is that the company behind the Burstin has recently been generating tens of millions of pounds of annual pre-tax profit.

To see how Britannia reached that position, it is worth going backwards.

In 2009 the numbers looked very different. Britannia reported group turnover of £40.509 million and profit before tax of £889,000. Its tangible fixed assets were valued at £91.775 million, but the balance sheet showed another important figure: current assets of £17.464 million against £41.498 million of debts due within a year. In ordinary language, Britannia owed £24.034 million more in the short term than it held in short-term assets. 31 March 2009

The cash-flow statement sharpens the picture. Britannia recorded a £242,000 net cash outflow from its operating activities. After interest, investment and other movements, there was a £2.492 million cash outflow before financing. Financing then brought in £7.979 million, leaving the group with an overall £5.487 million increase in cash. Cash went up, in other words, but only after financing came in. 31 March 2009

Then comes one of the most interesting sentences in the accounts.

Britannia said it did not depreciate its freehold hotel properties, long hotel leases or the related plant, machinery, fixtures and fittings. Depreciation is simply the accounting recognition that buildings and equipment wear out or lose value over time. Britannia’s explanation was that these assets were maintained in a “continual state of sound repair”, while their expected lives were long and their residual values high. The company said it reviewed them annually for any loss in value instead. 31 March 2009

That was an accounting policy in 2009. It cannot tell us what condition the Grand Burstin was in during 2026.

It does, however, make the maintenance figures elsewhere in those same accounts particularly interesting. 31 March 2009

Britannia disclosed dealings with several “related parties”. That accounting phrase sounds technical, but the idea is simple: these were businesses connected to Britannia through its shareholders or directors rather than completely independent outside suppliers. One was A. Langsam & Mjalby Hotels Ltd – Hotel Management Services. 31 March 2009

The sums were substantial.

The Building Division of Hotel Management Services supplied maintenance and repair work to Britannia’s group worth £5,776,630 in 2008/09. The year before, the figure had been £13,052,351. Britannia said those amounts were included in its operating expenses. 31 March 2009

Hotel Management Services was also charging Britannia for management work. Those charges were £3,366,356 in 2008/09, compared with £1,465,884 the previous year. At the end of the financial year Britannia recorded £9.261 million as owed to Hotel Management Services. 31 March 2009

There is nothing inherently improper about a company buying services from a business connected with its shareholders or directors. Britannia disclosed the transactions in its audited accounts. What matters is what the disclosure allows us to see: millions of pounds of the group’s maintenance, repair and management spending historically passed through a related business.

And the related-party network went further. Britannia Country House Hotel Limited and The Britannia Hotel Wolverhampton Limited were among businesses in which the accounts said A. Langsam and Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited, acting as trustee of the Moravcik Trust, were interested. At the year end Britannia recorded £6.328 million due from Britannia Country House Hotel Limited and £327,000 due from The Britannia Hotel Wolverhampton Limited.

Then, near the back of the accounts, comes Note 27.

It contains one sentence.

“The ultimate controlling parties are A. Langsam and Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited as trustee of The Moravcik Trust by virtue of their shareholdings in the company.” 

That sentence takes the story beyond Britannia’s hotels.

It tells us that, at that time, Britannia itself identified two ultimate controlling parties: Alexander Langsam (pictured) and a Jersey trust company acting as trustee of something called the Moravcik Trust.

The accounts do not identify who created the Moravcik Trust. They do not tell us who its beneficiaries were, whether it had a protector or who ultimately received its economic benefits. They certainly do not establish that Langsam was its settlor or beneficiary. What they establish is narrower and stronger: the trustee of the Moravcik Trust held a shareholding significant enough for Britannia to name it, alongside Langsam, as one of the company’s ultimate controlling parties. 31 March 2009

Langsam’s own tax history adds another important piece of context. The High Court records that by 5 April 1997 he personally held almost £18.6 million in various Isle of Man and Channel Island accounts, with the amounts increasing in subsequent years. On 2 September 1999, the Inland Revenue confirmed that he was entitled to be treated as non-domiciled in the UK. Under the tax rules then in force, that status meant he would not be taxed in Britain on interest earned offshore unless it was remitted to the UK.

In December 2000, that tax status was put to practical use. The High Court records that Langsam and his business partner Michael Morton arranged a £40 million overdraft facility with Israel Discount Bank. Each withdrew £20 million from their partnership and invested the money with the bank’s overseas subsidiaries, while Israel Discount Bank made an equivalent loan back to the partnership. The judge described it as “back-to-back” lending. In July 2001, the arrangement was replaced by loans from several banks, principally Bank Leumi, secured against the partnership’s property assets.

The purpose of the arrangement is set out unusually clearly in the judgment. Langsam’s case was that the bank borrowing allowed him to withdraw equity from the partnership and invest the released money offshore. As a non-domiciliary, he would not be taxed in Britain on the offshore interest, while interest paid on the borrowing by the partnership could qualify for tax relief. The High Court records that Langsam successfully implemented the arrangement in 2000.

None of this establishes a connection between those arrangements and the Moravcik Trust, and the judgment does not suggest one. What it establishes is that offshore investment and non-domiciled tax status were already part of Langsam’s documented financial affairs years before Britannia’s 2009 accounts identified Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited, acting as trustee of the Moravcik Trust, alongside Langsam as one of Britannia’s ultimate controlling parties.

There is also a distinction worth making about Austria. Companies House records for several of Langsam’s company and LLP appointments have listed his place of residence as Austria. Britannia’s current person-with-significant-control record, however, now lists his place of residence as England. The 1999 tax ruling and the corporate residence entries are therefore two different facts: the court establishes his historical non-domiciled tax status based on an Austrian domicile; Companies House records show that Austria has also appeared as his place of residence in corporate filings.

Today Companies House records Langsam as Britannia Hotels Limited’s sole active person with significant control (PSC). It describes the nature of that control as “Has significant influence or control.” He ceased to be a director of Britannia Hotels Limited on 11 December 2024, but remains its registered PSC.

The historical accounts and today’s PSC register therefore describe different positions at different times. That difference is something to investigate; it is not, by itself, evidence that either record is wrong.

The historical trail leads directly to Jersey.

The Jersey connection

There is an important change in the name appearing in Britannia’s accounts.

In 2009, Britannia identified Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited, as trustee of the Moravcik Trust, alongside Alexander Langsam as one of the company’s ultimate controlling parties.

By 2025, however, Britannia’s accounts name a different Hawksford company in connection with the Moravcik Trust: Hawksford Jersey Limited.

The distinction matters. Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited and Hawksford Jersey Limited are separate legal entities, not different names for the same company. They are nevertheless closely connected within the same regulated Hawksford trust-company business. The Jersey Financial Services Commission lists Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited as the “Affiliation Leader” and Hawksford Jersey Limited as a “Participating Member”. Both are listed at 15 Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 1RB.

So the documentary trail needs to be precise. In 2009 the Hawksford entity named by Britannia was Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited. By 2025 it was Hawksford Jersey Limited. The continuing thread through the accounts is the Moravcik Trust.

And Jersey is not incidental to the story.

Jersey has been described as a tax haven — even a “tax paradise”.

None of that establishes why the Moravcik Trust was created, or that it was used for tax avoidance, tax evasion or any other wrongdoing. Offshore trusts can be used lawfully. What Britannia’s accounts establish is more limited: a Jersey trust-company business has appeared in connection with the private Moravcik Trust in Britannia’s ownership disclosures, although the particular Hawksford legal entity named changed between 2009 and 2025.

Then there is the address shared by those two Hawksford entities: 15 Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 1RB.

That address matters for another reason.

It appears in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ Offshore Leaks Database. The principal Paradise Papers record for 15 Esplanade contains 14 connections: three entities and eleven officers. Among the officers using the address are Hawksford Secretaries Jersey Limited, Hawksford Fiduciaries Jersey Limited, Hawksford Nominees Jersey Limited and Hawksford Trustees Jersey Limited.

But those 14 connections are not 14 appearances of Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited, Hawksford Jersey Limited or the Moravcik Trust. They are connections attached to that particular Paradise Papers address record.

The same physical address also occurs elsewhere in ICIJ’s data under different forms. A separate Pandora Papers record for 15 Esplanade has two officer connections — Hawksford Fiduciaries Jersey Limited and Hawksford Nominees Jersey Limited — while Panama Papers records contain further variants of the address, including “Hawksford House; 15 Esplanade; St Helier; Jersey JE1 1RB”.

The variations matter. ICIJ’s Panama Papers index contains different punctuation and spellings of the address, including “Jersery”, while one record gives the postcode as JE1 1RS rather than JE1 1RB. Simply adding every database entry together would therefore risk presenting different versions of the same physical address as separate locations.

The defensible finding is narrower: 15 Esplanade appears across Paradise Papers, Pandora Papers and Panama Papers records in the ICIJ database, while the principal Paradise Papers address node alone has 14 connections. The material examined does not establish that Britannia Hotels or the Moravcik Trust itself appears in those leaks.

That boundary is important. Britannia’s accounts lead to the Moravcik Trust and the Hawksford companies connected with it. Both Hawksford entities named by Britannia at different points are listed at 15 Esplanade. ICIJ separately records that same physical address in offshore datasets and associates it with other Hawksford entities. That does not mean Britannia or the Moravcik Trust was exposed by the Paradise, Panama or Pandora Papers.

There is another part of the Hawksford record — and here the distinction between the two companies becomes particularly important.

In August 2021, the Jersey Financial Services Commission issued a public statement concerning Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited. That is the Hawksford legal entity named in Britannia’s 2009 accounts, not Hawksford Jersey Limited, the different entity named in Britannia’s 2025 accounts. The regulator found that Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited had breached certain principles of Jersey’s Trust Company Business Code and requirements governing customer money. Its findings included shortcomings in corporate governance, systems and controls, and policies and procedures, as well as four instances of cross-charging fees affecting three customers. The JFSC also recorded that Hawksford had reported findings arising from its own review, reimbursed an affected customer and undertaken remedial work.

Nothing in that regulatory statement connects those failings to Britannia Hotels or the Moravcik Trust. Nor should the JFSC findings against Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited be attributed to Hawksford Jersey Limited.

The ownership trail can therefore take us only so far. We know that Britannia’s 2009 accounts identified Hawksford Trust Company Jersey Limited, as trustee of the Moravcik Trust, alongside Langsam as an ultimate controlling party. We know that by 2025 Britannia was instead naming Hawksford Jersey Limited in connection with the Moravcik Trust. We know the two are separate companies within the same Hawksford business affiliation and share the same 15 Esplanade address. What the material examined does not tell us is who ultimately benefited from the Moravcik Trust or why it was established.

Then the trail comes back across the Channel.

Back to Folkestone.

What was happening to the building?

On 21 November 2022, render fell from the Grand Burstin and struck people below. A man and a woman suffered injuries, including head injuries, and were taken to William Harvey Hospital. Kent Police said render had fallen from the building; the fire service said strong winds had damaged the hotel.

The following year, Britannia commissioned substantial work.

JDF RS Limited says Britannia Hotels was its client for a £700,000 Grand Burstin project carried out between June and September 2023. Its published description of the building is striking. The hotel, it said, was in “desperate need of refurbishment”.

The contractor said the external render system dated from the mid-1980s and had reached “the end of its usable life”.

But the work went deeper than the hotel’s exterior.

JDF RS said the roof structure of the underground car park had spalled in numerous places because of water ingress. In ordinary language, sections of concrete had broken away after water got into the structure. The contractor says car-park beams and columns were broken back to the steel inside and repaired, with new steel support beams added. Concrete and masonry repairs were also carried out elsewhere.

JDF RS also carried out an abseil survey to assess the condition of the remaining hotel elevations. Its project page said continued refurbishment was expected to begin within the following few months.

That leaves an obvious question: what did the survey find, and what happened next?

There is an earlier chapter in the Burstin’s maintenance history too. During refurbishment of a wing of the hotel in 2010, Britannia failed to ensure that a full asbestos assessment had been undertaken before work began. A surveyor called in after the project had started found widespread asbestos in the eaves and asbestos on the second floor. Britannia Hotels later pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £160,000, with £40,051 in costs.

The asbestos prosecution, the falling render, the 2023 repairs and the 2026 fire are separate events. The evidence examined does not establish that the earlier maintenance problems caused or contributed to the September fire.

They should not be forced into a connection the evidence cannot support.

What they do provide is a documented history of significant building and maintenance issues at the same hotel: refurbishment followed by a health-and-safety prosecution; falling render that injured two people; a £700,000 project whose contractor recorded ageing render, water ingress, concrete spalling and structural steel repairs; and now a severe basement fire followed by structural investigations serious enough to force 90 people from neighbouring homes.

That is where Britannia’s old accounts become more than historical numbers.

In 2009 the company said major hotel assets were maintained in a “continual state of sound repair”. The same accounts disclosed millions of pounds of maintenance and repair work supplied by a related business. Fourteen years later, a contractor working specifically on the Grand Burstin recorded render at the end of its usable life, water ingress, spalled concrete and repairs to beams and columns. Those statements come from different periods and were made for different purposes. They are not proof of a contradiction. They are a compelling reason to establish exactly what work was recommended at the Burstin, what was completed and what remained outstanding.

What needs answering now

The police investigation is concerned with how the September fire started and whether a criminal offence was committed. The structural investigation has a different purpose: establishing what the fire did to the building and whether it is safe.

Britannia can answer questions its published accounts cannot.

What have the structural engineers found? What did the 2023 abseil survey reveal? Was the further refurbishment described by JDF RS completed? What inspections followed the repairs to the underground car park, beams and columns? And were there continuing problems with water ingress or deteriorating concrete?

There are fire-safety questions too. When was the hotel’s fire-risk assessment last reviewed? What did it say about the basement and underground areas? What fire detection, compartmentation and suppression systems were in place? Had defects been identified, and if so, had they been put right?

For the people next door, the question is simpler.

When can they go home?

The documents examined for this investigation do not tell us what caused the fire. Nor do Britannia’s accounts tell us what condition the Grand Burstin was in on the night it happened.

They do, however, leave questions that now require answers.

The Grand Burstin remains closed. Structural specialists have been investigating the building and people living next door have been displaced from their homes. After more than two decades under Britannia, the question for Folkestone is no longer simply what happened inside the hotel in the early hours of 19 September.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime