Are we allowed 7 people in our house in different rooms?

[Firefliess]

DSD and her BF have come to stay this weekend. We also have DD and DSS and me and DH at home, so that makes 6 of us. DD wants her BF to stay over tomorrow night. I can't figure out whether that's allowed or not. It would mean 7 people in the house, but in no sense would we be "gathering" DD and her BF would get in late and go straight to her room. Rest of us probably we wouldn't even see him. Is that allowed? Or are people considered to be "gathering" simply by being in the same house? We're in England by the way and not in an area with any local lockdown

And tbh even BBC news talks about "meetings". Personally, if I have a meeting with a friend at their house I quite like us to sit in the same room and have some interaction with each other. If we sit in different rooms and never see each other, there is not much meeting going on.

So the law is you can have as many people to your house as you like as long as they stay in separate groups of 6. Crack on everyone!

Bollocks to that.

I like your style, @EarlGreyJenny

FFS. The 'how would a clever lawyer get round the wording of the rules' rather than 'what seems a common sense way to avoid spreading CV' approach is why we're having a second lock down.

OP has not asked "should she" - she's asked if she is allowed. And the answer is "yes", despite the number of people claiming the contrary. Whether it's sensible and/or risky to meet is a whole other question.

Personally I think that what OP wants to do (bringing a 7th person into her normal household who will not come into contact with most of them) is much less risky than 6 people from different households getting together to mix freely. And nobody on this thread would be arguing about her doing the latter. So common sense doesn't necessarily win.

DD she'd to change her plans to go out to a pub near to BF's house and stay there instead tonight. So we're at 6 in the house tonight.

We did end up briefly at 7 earlier when DD's friend called round with her after college. DD asked if it was ok as DSD was out so I said it was. But then DSD got back earlier than I'd expected. I heard her arrive but was on a work call by then. DD hadn't realised (attic bedroom) and it seemed stupid to me to leave my work call to demand that DD's friend leave instantly because someone else had stepped into the house.

The more I think about it the more it seems to me that it's not a loophole but quite a deliberate wording - a gathering of people is people in the same room (or mingling in and out of the same rooms) where a) you'd know how many of you there were and b) if someone present had the virus they could potentially infect a lot of others. So gatherings are risky and people under the same roof but in different rooms much less so.

And no I don't want to hear sarky comments about counting to 6 or that I'm somehow response for a second lockdown by thinking about something that appears to be within the law, and is definitely much lower risk than DH and I heading down the pub for an evening sharing toilets etc with over 50 others - something we've not done since March.

This really isn't a matter of "loopholes" or clever lawyers finding a way to get round the wording of the rules. It is literally a matter of acting in accordance with the pretty unambiguous wording of those rules. No lawyer on here is inventing the definition of a gathering as "when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other": if anything, it is the people who claim that this prohibits six people from being under the same roof under all circumstances who are twisting what the law says.

In the early days of lockdown, the police had a lovely time arresting people for loitering in public places and/or failing to give their personal details when asked, and they even secured convictions. Until it was pointed out to them that the wording of the legislation only permitted them to charge "potentially infectious people" with this offence and they had no evidence whatsoever that any of the people concerned were potentially infectious - whereupon they voluntarily agreed to convictions being set aside. Was that people taking advantage of a loophole, or were the police in the wrong for arresting totally innocent people?

Think of what the legislation is trying to prevent - the spread of the virus (obviously) which largely seems to occur by people breathing on one another. Hence the definition of "gathering" in the legislation. Two groups of people in separate areas of a house are not breathing all over one another.

I'm a lawyer too and, reading the legislation, I think it is legally fine provided that there is no social interaction between the gathering and other people in the property.

DH is also a lawyer, and he has previously been involved in drafting legislation. He agrees too.

Saying that, I personally couldn't be bothered to be the test case that breaks this one and takes it to court.

The BBC and the government have been very poor at explaining the difference between law and guidance throughout this crisis, and the law is often not published until a few minutes before it comes into force.

Bringing toilets, kitchens and stairwells into the picture isn't useful. So what if the boyfriend or dd use any of these things, they could use them while everyone is out, leave, and then the other residents in the household could return and touch all of these surfaces - there is no difference.

The point of the legislation is to stop get togethers larger than 6. This isn't a get together.

Fair enough if anyone wants to stick rigidly to the rules, but accusations that the op cannot count or is actually doing something more risky is tiresome.

@PermanentMarkerSniffer

You could each take it in turns to sit on a deckchair in the street, rotating throughout the night.

This made my day

I am not in the UK, but to paraphrase our premier "If you have to wonder if it is okay, then you shouldn't do it"

In any case, I was just making the point that an interpretation of "participate in a gathering" (the wording in legislation) which applies to people being in separate rooms o don't interact and may not even know that each other are present is very strained and unfair, particularly given how the term "gathering" is defined in legislation.

I think you would have problems with the mischief rule first off. Are you trying to make a mockery of the law? You would really need to establish that the two groups of 5 in your example share no facilities, not the bathroom or kitchen and somehow are never in the hall at the same time.

You may also just lose on public policy grounds. Does the court want to risk the increase in infections by making exceptions that can never be verified by the police. How can anyone know if the 5 in the front room interact with the 5 in the kitchen? The intention of the rule is clearly to reduce infection by stopping large groups interacting. Does the court want to allow a way to defeat this objective?

@LostFrog

It is a stupid illogical rule. Someone I know has 6 children all living together so they are a family of 8. They can’t do anything together at the moment or have anyone round but they are all out at work or school every day

Of course they can, there is nothing to say that 8 people all living in the same house can't do something together. They can't do things with people from another house but that's life.

2.2 How many people am I allowed to meet with outdoors?

When meeting with people you don’t live with (or who you have not formed a support bubble with) you can socialise in groups of up to 6. If your household (and/or support bubble) is larger than 6 people, this is your largest permitted group and you cannot meet as a group with any additional people.

I posted on this thread this morning, and having just had a long day working as a lawyer thought I'd see where it has got up to.

It's made me smile, the amount of people spectacularly missing the point while calling others stupid.

In defence of those of us who actually answered the question, I genuinely don't think we were looking to exploit a loophole. I think the legislation was drafted that way deliberately based on a belief that the virus is mostly spread through gatherings.

@notevenat20
I haven't looked at the mischief rule since law school but I don't think that's what it's for. I think it only applies when you have an existing piece of common law which the government has made statutory but the statute doesn't correct the defect in common law. That isn't the case here - there's no pre-existing common law rule of six. It's not clear that separate gatherings in the same house is a mischief anyway.

These rules of interpretation don't allow judges to ignore what the law actually says and substitute something which they think would rectify a mischief or be more in line with public policy. As others have said, what the law says is fairly unambiguous. Plus criminal law tends to be interpreted in favour of the defendant in the case of ambiguity.

In defence of "clever" lawyers, I think it's important that people understand what the coronavirus / lockdown law actually says rather than what they think it should say or what the guidance says. The police spent a lot of time earlier in lockdown trying to enforce rules which weren't law and there needs to be some kind of check on that.

Another lawyer here. It’s the “gathering” point that the Six-ers are overlooking. I don’t think its a “loophole” either - its a key part of the relevant legislation, gets its own definition and everything.

Here’s my eg. I have a 3 storey house. My 2 teen DC have rooms on the top floor (plus a bathroom and access to Netflix). If we were to have people round for dinner, I think I can have 2 more couples, so there are 6 of us downstairs in a “gathering”. Normally the DC would not come down as they generally like skulking and in these circumstances I would specifically tell them not to (and its no problem for them, they can have a wee, watch tv and I can send provisions up in a basket on a rope or something if there is a genuine snack emergency). I think that is entirely within both the letter and the spirit of the law. I would have the same view if I had younger children who were asleep.

Everyone counts even if it's kids upstairs asleep

I think the word gathering is confusing you here - it does not mean having a party; it means you are gathered together in one place.

It’s been cited before but the legislation actually says:

“For the purposes of this regulation —

(a)there is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other;...”

So I think the inert sleeping children, or the person working in a home office, or my teen DC watching Netflix 2 floors away don’t count. There is no social interaction or activity with each other.

I think I disagree about the 6 excluding children on a different floor. I think the spirit of the legislation is to restrict the spread of the disease. If two adults visit and one has asymptomatic covid that's a total of six in the house re potential infection. If one of four visitors has asymptomatic covid there are 8 people in the house re potential infection. And if a parent catches it, the children upstairs are at risk and the number potentially spreading is higher.

Having said that I do think if one of the stepchildren, referred to in the op, was under 18 they may be exempt from the legislation. If they live alone they may also be part of the "bubble".

I dunno. It would be v odd - assuming it did not involve Lord Denning - to imply a “spirit of the legislation” to override something that is covered by the actual legislation, which has wording that says specifically that there has to be “social interaction” among the people in the gathering.

As a point of legal interpretation, you can usually only imply things when the actual wording is deficient or unclear.

@Florrieboo

I am not in the UK, but to paraphrase our premier "If you have to wonder if it is okay, then you shouldn't do it"

This. Everyone who is is thinking I'm not sure if I should be doing this.,. The answer is no.

TBF @TawnyPippit there are people who don't socially interact even if part of a group.

To all the lawyers out there... and this isn't an argumentative point, just for my own curiosity and clarity... do you consider it legal to have different groups of people of no more than 6 within a household as long as there's no interaction? And, if so, I assume no limit legally on such households?

DD and her BF would get in late and go straight to her room.

Regardless of the number of people in the house, they should not be doing this. You have to stay socially distanced from people who don't live with you.