WTF Lawyers

So let's take as an example the parking loophole which allowed people to get off fines on the basis that the yellow lines weren't terminated in a T-shape. Does the fact that the line isn't terminated in a "T" indicate to a competent, impartial person that it is not intended to restrict parking? Of course not, therefore the loophole should not be available.

Why's that a 'loophole'? The law said that a fine would be paid if you parked on a yellow line, and defined how the yellow line had to be painted. If it wasn't painted properly, there was no fine. That's the problem with anti-loophole general provision clauses - you end up having to define 'loophole'. And one man's loophole is another man's integral part of the law, and so you end up with the uncertainties and ambiguities which the law is supposed to avoid, so that everyone can know what is lawful and what is not.

The answer is better drafted legislation, and less of it. Unfortunately most legislation these days (no doubt due to the vast volume of it) is poorly conceived, poorly drafted and ineptly implemented.

One example which springs to mind is the RTE provisions of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, introduced in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. In the pre-2002 Act consultation, the government was told that they'd never be able to implement those provisions because they hadn't thought them through properly. They enacted them anyway. 8 years later they had a further consultation about repealing those provisions (which they'd never brought into force) because, lo and behold, it was going to be rather difficult to implement them. They then had the temerity to complain about the low response rate, having ignored the consultees' responses the first time round. Stuff like this reflects the poor quality of modern legislation, not the need for a sticking-plaster 'spirit of the law' rule which attempts to make good poor drafting.