PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Lockdown regulations
cp8759
post Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 15:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 are out: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

Regs 6 & 7 are those relevant to most people, interestingly the fixed penalty is on an escalator, see reg 10(7).

First FPN is £60 (discounted to £30 if paid within 14 days), second £120 (no discount), third is £240, the £480, then £960 which is the maximum (presumably you end up in court on the 6th occasion you get caught).


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
18 Pages V  « < 16 17 18  
Start new topic
Replies (340 - 350)
Advertisement
post Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 15:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 09:21
Post #341


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:03) *
At first glance this is a meaningless difference, but to me it seems to close the loophole of the person driving 100 miles to collect an ebay purchase having initially left the house to buy a loaf of bread (a reasonable excuse).

Not really, as the regulations stood previously, if you left your house for a lawful reason in the first place and bumped into a friend and decided to go round to his, this would be lawful as there is no restriction on gatherings in private places.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 09:27
Post #342


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:21) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:03) *
At first glance this is a meaningless difference, but to me it seems to close the loophole of the person driving 100 miles to collect an ebay purchase having initially left the house to buy a loaf of bread (a reasonable excuse).

Not really, as the regulations stood previously, if you left your house for a lawful reason in the first place and bumped into a friend and decided to go round to his, this would be lawful as there is no restriction on gatherings in private places.

Meaningless may be the wrong word, but it's not changing anything about the intent of the regulation, just fixing some sloppy drafting.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AscotGuy
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 09:52
Post #343


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Member No.: 36,876



QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:27) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:21) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:03) *
At first glance this is a meaningless difference, but to me it seems to close the loophole of the person driving 100 miles to collect an ebay purchase having initially left the house to buy a loaf of bread (a reasonable excuse).

Not really, as the regulations stood previously, if you left your house for a lawful reason in the first place and bumped into a friend and decided to go round to his, this would be lawful as there is no restriction on gatherings in private places.

Meaningless may be the wrong word, but it's not changing anything about the intent of the regulation, just fixing some sloppy drafting.


But under the redraft, technically, it is legal to leave the house to go to work but not legal to be at work as that is not listed as a reasonable excuse.

(BTW, this is not my theory but one put forward by a barrister)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:27
Post #344


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (AscotGuy @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:52) *
. . .

But under the redraft, technically, it is legal to leave the house to go to work but not legal to be at work as that is not listed as a reasonable excuse.

(BTW, this is not my theory but one put forward by a barrister)


It is clear that the "list" is not exhaustive, just as it is clear that "being at work" is a reasonable excuse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:44
Post #345


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,197
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (AscotGuy @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:52) *
But under the redraft, technically, it is legal to leave the house to go to work but not legal to be at work as that is not listed as a reasonable excuse.

(BTW, this is not my theory but one put forward by a barrister)

Then the barrister was an idiot. The list provided is nothing more than examples as guidance, there is no suggesting they are exhaustive or to be taken literally.

QUOTE
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
so it's clear other things can be a reasonable excuse, but as is what is reasonable is subjective parliament has chose to give examples to calibrate the 'reasonableness' of various actions.

As for using the word technically, that's a classic misuse, remove the word and it doesn't change the sentence one jot, it adds nothing at all, it would still either be legal or not without that word.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AscotGuy
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 11:35
Post #346


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Member No.: 36,876



I found the source. It was legal commentary not a barrister (it was retweeted by a barrister).

https://davidallengreen.com/2020/04/a-blund...excuse-unclear/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 11:39
Post #347


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,197
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So where he writes
QUOTE
Consider this post as something fun and instructive: an amusing example of how not to legislate, and of why rushed legislation without scrutiny is a bad thing


he should perhaps write
QUOTE
Consider this post as something fun and instructive: an amusing example of how to demonstrate you can't read


Yeah we all miss things reading but if you're going to write a full article on it......

Did the barrister retweet with a comment?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 11:45


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 14:04
Post #348


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 11:44) *
so it's clear other things can be a reasonable excuse, but as is what is reasonable is subjective parliament has chose to give examples to calibrate the 'reasonableness' of various actions.


Remind me of the process that Parliament employs to draft Regulations...

QUOTE
As for using the word technically, that's a classic misuse, remove the word and it doesn't change the sentence one jot, it adds nothing at all, it would still either be legal or not without that word.


Pot, kettle.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 07:40
Post #349


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,197
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So now we have face mask wearing and potential police 'fines' (yes, fixed penalties), there is no redraft of these reg's that I can find to make the non wearing of a face covering illegal, and I can't see how it could reasonable be covered under the 'reasonable' excuse either, anyone know better?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:51
Post #350


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 08:40) *
So now we have face mask wearing and potential police 'fines' (yes, fixed penalties), there is no redraft of these reg's that I can find to make the non wearing of a face covering illegal, and I can't see how it could reasonable be covered under the 'reasonable' excuse either, anyone know better?

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 have been repealed in their entirety (bar some savings provisions) so there is no restriction on being outside your home at all. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 contain various restrictions on businesses, gatherings and so on. The government has announced that the requirement to wear face masks doesn't come into force until 24 July and from prior experience, odds are the legislation will only be published one or two days before.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 05:25
Post #351


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



We will have to wait for the legislation but the talk has all been about face coverings not specifically face masks so a natty white silk scarf as sported by a WWI flying ace or an old school motorcyclist should be acceptable.

This post has been edited by nigelbb: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 05:25


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 16 17 18
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:56
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here