IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Gladys]

But they weren't arbitrary rules, they were the regulations.  The CS had the final say as to whether anyone is in fact resident.  Given that there was someone renting his house, it is hard to say he was resident here as he had nowhere to live.  The failing was not explaining what the position would be should he return to take up occupation. 

The only other area that is not clear is when you have to have a principal place of residence, at the time of application or when you arrive on the island or both? To a degree that is part of the explanation which was missing, but as I read the regs anyone who has (present tense) a principal place of residence can apply to be registered,  not that you can apply in anticipation of gaining a place of residence.  

Edited December 29, 2021 by Gladys
Typo corrected.With thanks to MTP.

[ManxTaxPayer]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

 arbtitray rules....

....ok.

[Declan]

The man was being an arse. But Greenhill's correspondence was pretty poor.

He never addressed the point that if the man evicted his tenants would he be able to enter the island to live in it? I think Greenhill would argue that a rented house suddenly becoming vacant doesn't become the landlord's principal home, but he never says that.

[Roger Mexico]

5 hours ago, Paulos The Great said:

I’d hope for some leniency if I’d had a place here I had family ties to for 20 years, I was stuck living in a hotel for 5 months, and my personal stuff was going to end up in a skip.

But the house had been let out to the current tenants for at least five years and there may have been others before that.  So there's hardly any ties left there and it's difficult to see how anyone could claim that it was really their main residence on those grounds.  As for his personal stuff (presumably safely stowed away in the attic or wherever), after they bought the house his ex-tenants were quite happy to keep it for another  seven months before it went into storage, so it was hardly likely to end up in a skip.

The judgment actually actually strikes me as a poor one because it seems to have taken Bayley's sob-story lines at face value regardless of how implausible they were[1] and the implications on residency and the duty of reply seem foolish to put it mildly.

 

[1]  For example in suggesting that the current tenants would have been happy to move out at the end of their tenancy despite practically no notice, a shortage of other property due to the Island being in lockdown and a belief that they were in the middle of buying the property.

[747-400]

6 hours ago, Gladys said:

But they weren't arbitrary rules, they were the regulations.  The CS had the final say as to whether anyone is in fact resident.  Given that there was someone renting his house, it is hard to say he was resident here as he had nowhere to live.  The failing was not explaining what the position would be should he return to take up occupation. 

The only other area that is not clear is when you have to have a principal place of residence, at the time of application or when you arrive on the island or both? To a degree that is part of the explanation which was missing, but as I read the regs anyone who has (present tense) a principal place of residence can apply to be registered,  not that you can apply in anticipation of gaining a place of residence.  

For me what was lacking in the replies was a definition of ”resident”.  

Telling him he was not resident riled him.

Edited December 29, 2021 by 747-400

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, 747-400 said:

For me what was lacking in the replies was a definition of ”resident”.  

I think that's because no one has a definition of resident. 

Normally resides is often used. 

[WTF]

as long as people still keep taking LFT's  there will be numbers to help the state justify restrictions.   i think 95% are hoping to test positive to get out of going to work  and 98% of those are state employees. 

[WTF]

even more 'record cases'   

[Happier diner]

10 minutes ago, WTF said:

as long as people still keep taking LFT's  there will be numbers to help the state justify restrictions.   i think 95% are hoping to test positive to get out of going to work  and 98% of those are state employees. 

Do you have a source or reference for your numbers?

[Gladys]

48 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I think that's because no one has a definition of resident. 

Normally resides is often used. 

There is a definition of what qualifies a person to be registered as a resident for these purposes in the regs and this was included in the email of 30 December.  You must own, lease or occupy premises as your only or principal residence.  He owned property but it could not be his principal place of residence as it was rented out to other occupants, he wasn't residing there.  

What was not engaged with or explained was the option of returning to take up occupation rather than sell. 

ETA In fact, he clearly had no intention of resuming his residency because he was returning only for the purpose of selling the house, and would be staying in a hotel for the 2 days he expected this to take him.   He never intended to reside there again.  

Edited December 29, 2021 by Gladys

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There is a definition of what qualifies a person to be registered as a resident for these purposes in the regs and this was included in the email of 30 December.  You must own, lease or occupy premises as your only or principal residence.  He owned property but it could not be his principal place of residence as it was rented out to other occupants, he wasn't residing there.  

What was not engaged with or explained was the option of returning to take up occupation rather than sell.  

What that boils down to is that if he had waited until after 14/2 and the tenants had moved out, and he had then wanted to move back, with his wife and children, and applied then, he’d have been fine.

He had already decided to sell, way back in November.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

What that boils down to is that if he had waited until after 14/2 and the tenants had moved out, and he had then wanted to move back, with his wife and children, and applied then, he’d have been fine.

He had already decided to sell, way back in November.

Quite, he could not have been a resident as he had nowhere to reside, so could not be registered as one under the regs at the time of his application. 

[Ramseyboi]

UK news this morning - NHS staff shortages can be avoided by relaxing isolation rules.  No mention of staff actually being ill.

It is beyond stupid now.

[Lost Login]

7 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

UK news this morning - NHS staff shortages can be avoided by relaxing isolation rules.  No mention of staff actually being ill.

It is beyond stupid now.

Maybe but if you relax the rules in health and care settings and a load of patients etc get seriously ill and die there would be an outcry. Over react to new strains and the result is, in the main, inconvenience to the public, under react to a strain and you may find is more serious illness and deaths.

Like it or not I can totally understand why they err on the side of caution. Certainly if I was responsible for advising or setting rules I would be reluctant to get wrong by being too optimistic.

My gut feeling as a member of joe public with no specialist knowledge on the matter, is that relaxing the rules re this strain is probably fine, but I totally understand why at this time of year with parties etc they might want to take steps to reduce spread or see what the cases etc are like a week or so after new year before taking any action. 

[2112]

Have they or are they going to change the isolation period from 10 to 7 days as has happened in the UK?