November 2020 international travel rules

epm-84

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

Nutty75 said:

I still haven’t found the answer if our reason for travel is valid during this lockdown - we have a property in Tenerife that we are hoping to rent out - but before we can rent it - we have a few plumbing issues to sort - and as my husband is a plumber he is carrying out these works himself.   The second reason is that we have been advised to have a Spanish Will drawn up so we have an appointment with our spanish Lawyer to go and sign the Will . Our daughters were due to fly out with us - but as they would be going for a holiday I have cancelled their flights as they obviously had no reason to travel - but I wish I could find out if our reasons are valid.  I did contact my travel insurance company and they thought that because my husband would be completing work on the apartment this would be acceptable - but they are coming back to me to confirm this and the Signing of the Will - I just wanted to check we would have insurance if we traveled - anyone have any idea? 

I'd say no.

Section 12 in the guidance refers to it not being permitted to stay overnight in your second home, as you don't currently rent it out it and don't live there it must be your second home.

Section 13 provides guidance for moving home and it's where people are claiming there's a loophole and you can pretend you're looking at buying a home abroad.  However, the section says "Follow the national guidance on moving home safely" and that links to a page where it specifically talks about moving to a new home in England, so there's nothing to suggest that extends to moving to a home abroad.

It's not your travel insurers responsibility to say whether a trip is legal, it's their responsibility to advise whether the cover you have is suitable for the trip you want to make.  

So you're saying it's illegal for someone to move abroad?

Not buying that.

Not everyone will be moving to a new home in England. Not legal advice, but IMO OP is therefore entitled to remain in that property overnight, as it's visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.

The legislation makes no reference to the property being in England, and therefore it must be assumed as intended to be anywhere within the world. If the Government haven't written the legislation adequately, the onus is on them. That said, the government hasn't adequately done anything since being elected, so getting a piece of legislation correct isn't exactly within their capabilities.

Whether it's legal or not, realistically you can't buy a house in 95% of Europe as either local restrictions would get in the way or you'd have to self-isolate for 2 weeks each time you return, which would prevent you from letting anyone view your home in England. If you argue you'd be buying a second home then you might have to prove that's covered, given travelling to a second home isn't covered.

I think for most people if they claimed they were going to the Canaries to buy a house, if either the police or border control asked a few basic questions about their plans, they'd quickly find out it's a lie as buying a house needs a lot of planning, not just phoning up some random estate agent in Spain and making an appointment you plan to cancel as soon as you arrive.

The big issue for the poster in question is it does specifically say staying in your second home is not permitted and that doesn't have an exception for those repairing a home ahead of sale.  In the circumstances it would probably be easier to just get a local workman to do the necessary work or to postpone it for a few weeks.

The reality is that if you want to go overseas it's extremely unlikely that you will questioned on your reason for doing so.

In the extremely unlikely event of some plod stopping you on the way to or at an airport I think you would be making a huge assumption that they would spend any time considering and analysing your reason for travel which would involve an in-depth knowledge of purchasing a property abroad.

Police are trained to spot when people are lying.  If they are convinced when someone says the purpose of their trip is to buy property abroad they could easily ask a few questions, which someone not buying a property abroad would struggle to answer.

Yes, theoretically a police officer could ask questions but I seriously doubt that they would be able to adequately exercise the correct discretion that their powers allow to prevent someone boarding a flight for which they have paid for and are legally entitled to board.

In a hypothetical situation where a passenger has 30 minutes to be able to board a plane you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think a uniformed officer would be able to correctly investigate if an reason for being away from home is valid. Far easier for them to wave you through warm and safe in the knowledge that their due diligence has been appropriate.

You're mistaken if you think the police would be standing at the departure gate.  While you didn't directly say they would but you've effectively said it by saying it would be happening 30 minutes before the plane departs.  Anyone who turns up at the airport 30 minutes before their flight is scheduled to leave has already missed their flight. 

The police would be likely outside the terminal where they can do a number of things like check people are not turning up to see people off or to plane spot, check taxis dropping people off are properly licenced and insured etc. (That is unless the airline or airport requests their presence at the departure gates.)

I don't know why you would think it would take a long time for a policeman to say to someone (not necessarily every arriving passenger):

"Are you travelling today?"

"What's the reason for your journey?"

And only if they believe someone is lying would they ask anything further.  Further questions could be:

"Which town are you buying a new home in?"

"How many properties are you viewing/have you viewed?"

"When are you moving out to Spain?"

"Have you found a new job in Spain?"

That would take 1 minute for someone who is being honest and truthful to answer but for someone who is having to make things up because they are lying that might take longer, but it doesn't matter if it takes longer for people trying to break the law as the police are there to stop people breaking the law.   

None of this happened when I flew out of Bristol on Friday. The armed police on patrol have more important things to do than question law abiding members of the public especially as the UK terrorism threat is now extreme.

I didn't say the police will, I said the police could and what police do or don't do can vary between forces.  We do have a national counter terrorism police force now, as well as British Transport Police and the local police forces, so you might even see 3 different police forces if you arrive at an airport by train and then proceed to fly out of the airport.  It certainly isn't the job of the armed counter terrorism police force to check you are obeying lockdown restrictions, unless they think you are a terrorist! 

epm-84

sheramber said:

Leodogger said:

sheramber said:

Leodogger said:

ToxicWomble said:

Technically it might be allowed, but it’s not urgent and can wait 3 weeks. Nothing much else is happening across Europe

Whilst people continue to loophole and circumnavigate the law and justify why they should not follow rules and advice -  this mess is going to drag on for many months longer than it needs to.

Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family, in fact it may protect them from harm.

Personally I don’t agree with this lockdown, but I’m doing it and not trying to buck the system at every turn.
Yes high profile people have broken  the rules - but take the moral high ground and don’t sink to their level.

I haven’t had a holiday this year and won’t be booking abroad next year - it won’t kill me or hurt me - there’s always (hopefully) the year after. The world won’t end if you miss your oh so precious holiday but life might get back to normal quicker if you just do what’s right.

I see a lot of criticism of the government on here - I suggest the cause of a significant proportion of this mess is a lot closer to your home than you think.

I have ZERO sympathy for posters that don’t do what they know is right and believe their freedoms and life is more important than anyone else’s and even less for those who actively encourage this behaviour. 

Karma is a .... and it will come and get you when you least expect.

"Doing what is asked of you is NOT going to hurt you or your family".   I don't agree, for those of us who have limited incomes and had booked holidays and flights like us before this pandemic hit and the flights were constantly pushed back until pushed inside the lockdown by accident or design by the airlines, have lost a lot of money because we were made NOT to turn up by law which of course if it is flights like us, we may not get our money back.  Many people who couldn't afford to lose money have and are bitter about it !   It is no consolation when your airline is turning around like Ryanair and saying "tough", the flight was still running and you didn't notify us within 7 days, when we were only given 6 days notice by Boris, so that we could swap flights free of charge.     The upshot is that I have already written to my MP because we were not given enough notice and people like Michael O'Leary are trying to cash in on that because he uses any loophole he can find to try to rob people.  As for those who say it is not the airlines fault, some airlines have taken the honourable route and refunded money, albeit people will have to wait for it but other unscruplulous people revel in any circumstance to make money out of a pandemic !

And people paid more for a seat on that honourable company's plane. If you want better service then pay more for it.

You mind explaining what you  mean?    We were booked with Jet2 but they closed down their winter schedule and we were forced to book with Ryanair being the only airline left going out of Birmingham to Spain.

If you booked first class rail travel and the train was cancelled and you could only get second class tickets on the 
  next train would you expect first class service in that second class compartment?

Not a good analogy as if a train is cancelled your ticket is automatically valid on the next service.  If the last train with first class is cancelled, then you are entitled to a pro-rata refund if you choose to travel standard or a refund for the unused ticket if you decide not to travel.

A better one would be if someone bought a £25 advance ticket and found they couldn't travel anymore, they wouldn't be able to get a refund but someone who bought a £100 flexible ticket might be able to still travel on the same ticket, or get a refund (minus an admin fee if applicable.)

CKhalvashi

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

Nutty75 said:

I still haven’t found the answer if our reason for travel is valid during this lockdown - we have a property in Tenerife that we are hoping to rent out - but before we can rent it - we have a few plumbing issues to sort - and as my husband is a plumber he is carrying out these works himself.   The second reason is that we have been advised to have a Spanish Will drawn up so we have an appointment with our spanish Lawyer to go and sign the Will . Our daughters were due to fly out with us - but as they would be going for a holiday I have cancelled their flights as they obviously had no reason to travel - but I wish I could find out if our reasons are valid.  I did contact my travel insurance company and they thought that because my husband would be completing work on the apartment this would be acceptable - but they are coming back to me to confirm this and the Signing of the Will - I just wanted to check we would have insurance if we traveled - anyone have any idea? 

I'd say no.

Section 12 in the guidance refers to it not being permitted to stay overnight in your second home, as you don't currently rent it out it and don't live there it must be your second home.

Section 13 provides guidance for moving home and it's where people are claiming there's a loophole and you can pretend you're looking at buying a home abroad.  However, the section says "Follow the national guidance on moving home safely" and that links to a page where it specifically talks about moving to a new home in England, so there's nothing to suggest that extends to moving to a home abroad.

It's not your travel insurers responsibility to say whether a trip is legal, it's their responsibility to advise whether the cover you have is suitable for the trip you want to make.  

So you're saying it's illegal for someone to move abroad?

Not buying that.

Not everyone will be moving to a new home in England. Not legal advice, but IMO OP is therefore entitled to remain in that property overnight, as it's visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.

The legislation makes no reference to the property being in England, and therefore it must be assumed as intended to be anywhere within the world. If the Government haven't written the legislation adequately, the onus is on them. That said, the government hasn't adequately done anything since being elected, so getting a piece of legislation correct isn't exactly within their capabilities.

Whether it's legal or not, realistically you can't buy a house in 95% of Europe as either local restrictions would get in the way or you'd have to self-isolate for 2 weeks each time you return, which would prevent you from letting anyone view your home in England. If you argue you'd be buying a second home then you might have to prove that's covered, given travelling to a second home isn't covered.

I think for most people if they claimed they were going to the Canaries to buy a house, if either the police or border control asked a few basic questions about their plans, they'd quickly find out it's a lie as buying a house needs a lot of planning, not just phoning up some random estate agent in Spain and making an appointment you plan to cancel as soon as you arrive.

The big issue for the poster in question is it does specifically say staying in your second home is not permitted and that doesn't have an exception for those repairing a home ahead of sale.  In the circumstances it would probably be easier to just get a local workman to do the necessary work or to postpone it for a few weeks.

It doesn't mention anything about second homes in that section.

The section states that there is a specific exemption to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property. That is what OP is doing, and therefore is bound by a clear exemption, whether it's a first, second, third or tenth home.

Whether someone needs to isolate on return is again completely irrelevant to whether OP can travel for work to be done on a property the the letting of that property. There is currently no isolation requirement from the Canaries, and last time I checked, Tenerife was one of the Canary Islands.

Please stop making the law up as you go along, it doesn't help OP.

I didn't say the Canaries was in the 95% of Europe where buying or selling a home would not be possible, did I?  That point is relevant though because the number of people planning to buy or sell property in Europe, who can actually do it, is almost zero and it'll mean the government haven't prepared proper guidance for doing it.

When you're trying to claim it'd be OK to go to Spain and claim you're doing it to attend a place of worship (as per your earlier post), given that's only permitted for private prayer or where the place of worship runs an essential community service e.g. a food bank, it's a bit rich to say other people are making it up as they go along.

However, let's ignore whether the property is outside the UK.  The criteria which needs to be met is it's to fulfill a legal requirement or an activity related to a property sale (or renting it out.)  Obviously no problem with visiting a solicitor but why is the plumbing work being done?  If there isn't running water in the building then that definitely meets the criteria, as you can't let out a property without running water.  However, if it's to replace functional bathroom furnishings with brand new ones then it's a grey area unless the property is due to change hands in the next few weeks and the agreement in place requires the work to be done first.  The reality is if someone wants to ensure what they are doing properly complies with the law, they can't post a couple of sentences on here and expect a definitive response.  If they want a definitive response they need to contact a UK solicitor.  Maybe if they contact someone like Nick Freeman (aka Mr Loophole) then his practice will find them a necessary loophole, if one is needed.  You post possible loopholes on here like they are the law because some guy posted it on another forum!

So you've moved from 'it's illegal', to 'it's not feasible in 95% of Europe' to 'It's possible in OP's circumstances and there are no restrictions', but only after being repeatedly challenged, and yet I'm giving wrong advice?

I have clearly shown how I see the law is to be applied. I'm not sure if you've ever bought a house, but usually a mortgage offer is time limited, whatever country it's in.

Whether or not I may have encouraged some malicious compliance is irrelevant, I haven't encouraged the breaking of any law, haven't explicitly told others that their actions would be illegal when they blatantly wouldn't be to fit my personal agenda, have explicitly stated that anything I give is not legal advice, merely my opinion and you're obviously not in a position where part of your household income is dependant on the travel industry. I'm sure like a house purchase, my mortgage and other payments can wait until next month because EPM-84 on some forum told me that this should be the case.

I have not been on any other forum since these rules were announced. I am not posting loopholes, I have explicitly shown which areas of the law anything I have said applies and clearly explained my reasons for doing so.

epm-84

@CKhalvashi Stop changing my words. I said the government probably didn't consider someone buying or selling a property abroad, given there's restrictions in place for 95% of Europe at the moment. That isn't a statement replacing a previous statement I made, it's a new statement, the previous one related to doing up a second home ahead of renting it out if you recall. I also notice the government have made FIVE revisions to the guidance since it was first published, so perhaps you should focus your anger on an incompetent government instead of trying to argue I've changed my mind.

Anyway as the poster is question was planning to go and stay in their second home in Spain and spend some time doing it up, in the hope of renting it out, I questioned if the work being done was important for a letting which had been agreed. As they've not returned to answer that, we aren't better place to advise them.  Although, perhaps they took my other suggestion and have asked a legal expert who is much better placed to advise them than anyone on here.

CKhalvashi

epm-84 said:

@CKhalvashi Stop changing my words. I said the government probably didn't consider someone buying or selling a property abroad, given there's restrictions in place for 95% of Europe at the moment. That isn't a statement replacing a previous statement I made, it's a new statement, the previous one related to doing up a second home ahead of renting it out if you recall. I also notice the government have made FIVE revisions to the guidance since it was first published, so perhaps you should focus your anger on an incompetent government instead of trying to argue I've changed my mind.

Anyway as the poster is question was planning to go and stay in their second home in Spain and spend some time doing it up, in the hope of renting it out, I questioned if the work being done was important for a letting which had been agreed. As they've not returned to answer that, we aren't better place to advise them.  Although, perhaps they took my other suggestion and have asked a legal expert who is much better placed to advise them than anyone on here.

On that part, I do agree with you, hence not legal advice but merely my opinion.

Naturally the case would be stronger for OP if they have had rental income on this property before, or are in serious negotiations with agents dating back to before the rules were announced, however I still can see a clear exemption there on the basis that OP has presented it as long as they have genuine intention, again, not legal advice, we don't have all the facts.

Just so we don't clog up the thread further, truce? I think we do agree on a lot with this (including the fact that the government is indeed incompetent), but have come at it from different angles. I do try to give the benefit of the doubt here, and that has factored in.

sheramber

If the last train with first class is cancelled, then you are entitled to a pro-rata refund if you choose to travel standard or a refund for the unused ticket if you decide not to travel.
But th OP got a refund from Jet2  just like th refund for the   unused first class rail  ticket.
He then   booked a cheaper  ticket for a lower class of travel and expects to get the service of the first class ticket.

epm-84

sheramber said:

If the last train with first class is cancelled, then you are entitled to a pro-rata refund if you choose to travel standard or a refund for the unused ticket if you decide not to travel.
But th OP got a refund from Jet2  just like th refund for the   unused first class rail  ticket.
He then   booked a cheaper  ticket for a lower class of travel and expects to get the service of the first class ticket.

The thing which makes that a bit debatable is both airlines are budget airlines, so you pay extra if you don't check in online or want hold baggage or want to select your seat, they both operate Boeing 737 planes with new style seating (with thinner backs so you can get more rows in) and neither offer you complimentary refreshments and both offer refreshments to purchase for very high prices.  While Jet2 are usually more pricey than Ryanair, that's partly down to economies of scale with Jet2 being a much smaller operation than Ryanair, rather than Jet2 offering a higher standard of travel.  

I'd say it's more like National Express coaches vs Megabus.

cubegame

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

Nutty75 said:

I still haven’t found the answer if our reason for travel is valid during this lockdown - we have a property in Tenerife that we are hoping to rent out - but before we can rent it - we have a few plumbing issues to sort - and as my husband is a plumber he is carrying out these works himself.   The second reason is that we have been advised to have a Spanish Will drawn up so we have an appointment with our spanish Lawyer to go and sign the Will . Our daughters were due to fly out with us - but as they would be going for a holiday I have cancelled their flights as they obviously had no reason to travel - but I wish I could find out if our reasons are valid.  I did contact my travel insurance company and they thought that because my husband would be completing work on the apartment this would be acceptable - but they are coming back to me to confirm this and the Signing of the Will - I just wanted to check we would have insurance if we traveled - anyone have any idea? 

I'd say no.

Section 12 in the guidance refers to it not being permitted to stay overnight in your second home, as you don't currently rent it out it and don't live there it must be your second home.

Section 13 provides guidance for moving home and it's where people are claiming there's a loophole and you can pretend you're looking at buying a home abroad.  However, the section says "Follow the national guidance on moving home safely" and that links to a page where it specifically talks about moving to a new home in England, so there's nothing to suggest that extends to moving to a home abroad.

It's not your travel insurers responsibility to say whether a trip is legal, it's their responsibility to advise whether the cover you have is suitable for the trip you want to make.  

So you're saying it's illegal for someone to move abroad?

Not buying that.

Not everyone will be moving to a new home in England. Not legal advice, but IMO OP is therefore entitled to remain in that property overnight, as it's visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.

The legislation makes no reference to the property being in England, and therefore it must be assumed as intended to be anywhere within the world. If the Government haven't written the legislation adequately, the onus is on them. That said, the government hasn't adequately done anything since being elected, so getting a piece of legislation correct isn't exactly within their capabilities.

Whether it's legal or not, realistically you can't buy a house in 95% of Europe as either local restrictions would get in the way or you'd have to self-isolate for 2 weeks each time you return, which would prevent you from letting anyone view your home in England. If you argue you'd be buying a second home then you might have to prove that's covered, given travelling to a second home isn't covered.

I think for most people if they claimed they were going to the Canaries to buy a house, if either the police or border control asked a few basic questions about their plans, they'd quickly find out it's a lie as buying a house needs a lot of planning, not just phoning up some random estate agent in Spain and making an appointment you plan to cancel as soon as you arrive.

The big issue for the poster in question is it does specifically say staying in your second home is not permitted and that doesn't have an exception for those repairing a home ahead of sale.  In the circumstances it would probably be easier to just get a local workman to do the necessary work or to postpone it for a few weeks.

The reality is that if you want to go overseas it's extremely unlikely that you will questioned on your reason for doing so.

In the extremely unlikely event of some plod stopping you on the way to or at an airport I think you would be making a huge assumption that they would spend any time considering and analysing your reason for travel which would involve an in-depth knowledge of purchasing a property abroad.

Police are trained to spot when people are lying.  If they are convinced when someone says the purpose of their trip is to buy property abroad they could easily ask a few questions, which someone not buying a property abroad would struggle to answer.

Yes, theoretically a police officer could ask questions but I seriously doubt that they would be able to adequately exercise the correct discretion that their powers allow to prevent someone boarding a flight for which they have paid for and are legally entitled to board.

In a hypothetical situation where a passenger has 30 minutes to be able to board a plane you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think a uniformed officer would be able to correctly investigate if an reason for being away from home is valid. Far easier for them to wave you through warm and safe in the knowledge that their due diligence has been appropriate.

You're mistaken if you think the police would be standing at the departure gate.  While you didn't directly say they would but you've effectively said it by saying it would be happening 30 minutes before the plane departs.  Anyone who turns up at the airport 30 minutes before their flight is scheduled to leave has already missed their flight. 

The police would be likely outside the terminal where they can do a number of things like check people are not turning up to see people off or to plane spot, check taxis dropping people off are properly licenced and insured etc. (That is unless the airline or airport requests their presence at the departure gates.)

I don't know why you would think it would take a long time for a policeman to say to someone (not necessarily every arriving passenger):

"Are you travelling today?"

"What's the reason for your journey?"

And only if they believe someone is lying would they ask anything further.  Further questions could be:

"Which town are you buying a new home in?"

"How many properties are you viewing/have you viewed?"

"When are you moving out to Spain?"

"Have you found a new job in Spain?"

That would take 1 minute for someone who is being honest and truthful to answer but for someone who is having to make things up because they are lying that might take longer, but it doesn't matter if it takes longer for people trying to break the law as the police are there to stop people breaking the law.   

None of this happened when I flew out of Bristol on Friday. The armed police on patrol have more important things to do than question law abiding members of the public especially as the UK terrorism threat is now extreme.

I didn't say the police will, I said the police could and what police do or don't do can vary between forces.  We do have a national counter terrorism police force now, as well as British Transport Police and the local police forces, so you might even see 3 different police forces if you arrive at an airport by train and then proceed to fly out of the airport.  It certainly isn't the job of the armed counter terrorism police force to check you are obeying lockdown restrictions, unless they think you are a terrorist! 

I think you're a bit naive about how these things are being policed. Presumably you were under the impression that UK border force officials or someone else was actually checking the arrival forms this summer whereas the reality was completely the opposite.

During the travel corridor period I have entered the UK five times at three different airports. Twice I was travelling from a destination which required quarantine holding the appropriate documents from my employer outlining why I was exempt. On both of these trips the flight I was arriving on was OBVIOUSLY the only place ALL the passengers were arriving from and yet every passenger had the opportunity to pass unhindered through E-passport gates. My passport doesn't work at e-gates and so I saw an officer who had absolutely no interest in an arrival form.

CKhalvashi

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

cubegame said:

epm-84 said:

CKhalvashi said:

epm-84 said:

Nutty75 said:

I still haven’t found the answer if our reason for travel is valid during this lockdown - we have a property in Tenerife that we are hoping to rent out - but before we can rent it - we have a few plumbing issues to sort - and as my husband is a plumber he is carrying out these works himself.   The second reason is that we have been advised to have a Spanish Will drawn up so we have an appointment with our spanish Lawyer to go and sign the Will . Our daughters were due to fly out with us - but as they would be going for a holiday I have cancelled their flights as they obviously had no reason to travel - but I wish I could find out if our reasons are valid.  I did contact my travel insurance company and they thought that because my husband would be completing work on the apartment this would be acceptable - but they are coming back to me to confirm this and the Signing of the Will - I just wanted to check we would have insurance if we traveled - anyone have any idea? 

I'd say no.

Section 12 in the guidance refers to it not being permitted to stay overnight in your second home, as you don't currently rent it out it and don't live there it must be your second home.

Section 13 provides guidance for moving home and it's where people are claiming there's a loophole and you can pretend you're looking at buying a home abroad.  However, the section says "Follow the national guidance on moving home safely" and that links to a page where it specifically talks about moving to a new home in England, so there's nothing to suggest that extends to moving to a home abroad.

It's not your travel insurers responsibility to say whether a trip is legal, it's their responsibility to advise whether the cover you have is suitable for the trip you want to make.  

So you're saying it's illegal for someone to move abroad?

Not buying that.

Not everyone will be moving to a new home in England. Not legal advice, but IMO OP is therefore entitled to remain in that property overnight, as it's visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.

The legislation makes no reference to the property being in England, and therefore it must be assumed as intended to be anywhere within the world. If the Government haven't written the legislation adequately, the onus is on them. That said, the government hasn't adequately done anything since being elected, so getting a piece of legislation correct isn't exactly within their capabilities.

Whether it's legal or not, realistically you can't buy a house in 95% of Europe as either local restrictions would get in the way or you'd have to self-isolate for 2 weeks each time you return, which would prevent you from letting anyone view your home in England. If you argue you'd be buying a second home then you might have to prove that's covered, given travelling to a second home isn't covered.

I think for most people if they claimed they were going to the Canaries to buy a house, if either the police or border control asked a few basic questions about their plans, they'd quickly find out it's a lie as buying a house needs a lot of planning, not just phoning up some random estate agent in Spain and making an appointment you plan to cancel as soon as you arrive.

The big issue for the poster in question is it does specifically say staying in your second home is not permitted and that doesn't have an exception for those repairing a home ahead of sale.  In the circumstances it would probably be easier to just get a local workman to do the necessary work or to postpone it for a few weeks.

The reality is that if you want to go overseas it's extremely unlikely that you will questioned on your reason for doing so.

In the extremely unlikely event of some plod stopping you on the way to or at an airport I think you would be making a huge assumption that they would spend any time considering and analysing your reason for travel which would involve an in-depth knowledge of purchasing a property abroad.

Police are trained to spot when people are lying.  If they are convinced when someone says the purpose of their trip is to buy property abroad they could easily ask a few questions, which someone not buying a property abroad would struggle to answer.

Yes, theoretically a police officer could ask questions but I seriously doubt that they would be able to adequately exercise the correct discretion that their powers allow to prevent someone boarding a flight for which they have paid for and are legally entitled to board.

In a hypothetical situation where a passenger has 30 minutes to be able to board a plane you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think a uniformed officer would be able to correctly investigate if an reason for being away from home is valid. Far easier for them to wave you through warm and safe in the knowledge that their due diligence has been appropriate.

You're mistaken if you think the police would be standing at the departure gate.  While you didn't directly say they would but you've effectively said it by saying it would be happening 30 minutes before the plane departs.  Anyone who turns up at the airport 30 minutes before their flight is scheduled to leave has already missed their flight. 

The police would be likely outside the terminal where they can do a number of things like check people are not turning up to see people off or to plane spot, check taxis dropping people off are properly licenced and insured etc. (That is unless the airline or airport requests their presence at the departure gates.)

I don't know why you would think it would take a long time for a policeman to say to someone (not necessarily every arriving passenger):

"Are you travelling today?"

"What's the reason for your journey?"

And only if they believe someone is lying would they ask anything further.  Further questions could be:

"Which town are you buying a new home in?"

"How many properties are you viewing/have you viewed?"

"When are you moving out to Spain?"

"Have you found a new job in Spain?"

That would take 1 minute for someone who is being honest and truthful to answer but for someone who is having to make things up because they are lying that might take longer, but it doesn't matter if it takes longer for people trying to break the law as the police are there to stop people breaking the law.   

None of this happened when I flew out of Bristol on Friday. The armed police on patrol have more important things to do than question law abiding members of the public especially as the UK terrorism threat is now extreme.

I didn't say the police will, I said the police could and what police do or don't do can vary between forces.  We do have a national counter terrorism police force now, as well as British Transport Police and the local police forces, so you might even see 3 different police forces if you arrive at an airport by train and then proceed to fly out of the airport.  It certainly isn't the job of the armed counter terrorism police force to check you are obeying lockdown restrictions, unless they think you are a terrorist! 

I think you're a bit naive about how these things are being policed. Presumably you were under the impression that UK border force officials or someone else was actually checking the arrival forms this summer whereas the reality was completely the opposite.

During the travel corridor period I have entered the UK five times at three different airports. Twice I was travelling from a destination which required quarantine holding the appropriate documents from my employer outlining why I was exempt. On both of these trips the flight I was arriving on was OBVIOUSLY the only place ALL the passengers were arriving from and yet every passenger had the opportunity to pass unhindered through E-passport gates. My passport doesn't work at e-gates and so I saw an officer who had absolutely no interest in an arrival form.

I've noticed differently. I came in from Poland twice and Lithuania once into Luton, twice the form was checked (not on the one I did need to isolate on), other time not.

I needed to speak to an officer once, he checked the form on my phone and actually asked me to turn the mobile data on to check the form, before checking whether Lithuania was exempt. This was in early August.

Coming into Gatwick I don't remember being asked for a form, this was on a flight from Minsk in late August (so peak holiday season, I'd have expected checks to be made at this time). I'd been in Belarus and Albania, which is also a non-exempt country.

Coming into Heathrow with LOT in late September resulted in no checks, and there were several non-exempt flights (although I highly doubt everyone on my flight was exempt as LOT have a reasonable Eastbound network operating) in the queue at the same time.

I also make this 5 times at 3 airports, with a 40% check rate.

silvercar

I thought using the e-gates, meant a check was made automatically that your passport number matched a completed PLF. so at least it would detect that you had submitted a form,