I’m going with Repton and Tony1968’s reasoning on this.
So I voted legal, but I’m not 100% sure.
My initial gut reaction was that it’s not legal.
But, it was Coffeeholic who posted this, so it isn’t going to be a straight forward, simple question and having a think made me change my mind.
On a side note, I disagree with Reef and Catclan about the pay-back of reduced weekly rest.
GV262 says
However, the reduction shall be compensated by an equivalent period of rest taken en bloc
before the end of the third week following the week in question.
I reckon that works something like,
1 - working week followed by reduced weekly rest.
2 - working week followed by full weekly rest.
3 - working week followed by weekly rest
4 - working week followed by weekly rest plus the compensation for the reduced rest at 1, if not already taken.
Anything less than 100 hours, I regard as reduced weekly rest to be compensated for the following week, so I’d argue it’s not legal.
legal ,i read that the new tacho rules were that you didnt have to compensate for reduced rest anymore and you could have 24 off at base and the 36 hour rest has been abolished or summat like that
stuff it ive confused meself now 
Carl:
i read that the new tacho rules were that you didnt have to compensate for reduced rest anymore
Reduced daily rest does not have to be compensated for since the new rules but weekly rest reductions still needs compensating for. That isn’t an issue here though as the reduced rest in week 2 doesn’t need to be compensated for before the end of week 5 and the one in week 3 before the end of week 6. We also don’t know the amount of reduction in these two rest periods, it could just have been 5 or 6 hours in each case and that may well have been paid back on the full rest at the end of week 3. In other words it is nothing to do with this scenario being legal or not. 
I know you have recently disgreed with this idea Neil but the poll results so far reinforce my belief that the hours laws are simply far too complicated.
They have been tinkered with again and again, ane re-interpreted by the courts in many different ways.
When even High Court judges can’t agree on what the law is saying, what chance have unwashed lowlife scum like us got?
Harry Monk:
I know you have recently disgreed with this idea Neil but the poll results so far reinforce my belief that the hours laws are simply far too complicated.
I can’t agree. They are only 13 pages long and it is all there in black and white. They just need reading. I would say this poll just shows that people over complicate them. The answer to this question is straightforward when you read the relevant section of the regulations, no grey area just black and white, yet things that have no relevance have been introduced. How many hours did he work each day? How much daily rest? What about compensation for the reduced weekly rests? etc. This just complicates things. The other thing it shows is the need for driver training in the regulations. For instance the rules on compensating for weekly rest haven’t changed for years yet several people on this thread have no idea on how and when the compensation must be made. One short paragraph in the regulations explains it clearly.
Coffeeholic:
Harry Monk:
I know you have recently disgreed with this idea Neil but the poll results so far reinforce my belief that the hours laws are simply far too complicated.
They are only 13 pages long
Exactly. Although you could have left out “only”.
my heads hurts even more now having just read those 13 pages
I voted Illegal due to the following conditions not being met.
- In any two consecutive weeks a driver shall take at least:
– two regular weekly rest periods, or
– one regular weekly rest period and one reduced weekly
rest period of at least 24 hours.
A weekly rest period shall start no later than at the end of six
24-hour periods from the end of the previous weekly rest
period.
However after re-reading the regulations and giving it more thought I’ve changed my mind and think it is legal due to the following paragraph in article four
(i) ‘a week’ means the period of time between 00.00 on
Monday and 24.00 on Sunday;
and the fact the the rule states that in any two consecutive weeks you must have at least two weekly rest periods.
To be honest I was thinking that after a weekly rest period a new week started but of course it doesn’t, we all know that for tacho rules the week starts at 00:00 Monday.
Well I hope this is correct anyway
Forty-five hours can be reduced to twenty-four at base or away from base. Reductions must be compensated by the end of the third week following the week of reduction. A full regular forty-five hour rest is required in any two consecutive weeks.
AG:
Forty-five hours can be reduced to twenty-four at base or away from base. Reductions must be compensated by the end of the third week following the week of reduction. A full regular forty-five hour rest is required in any two consecutive weeks.
So, is that a legal or not legal vote?
I wish you would stop sodding about and tell me I got it absolutely right, Coffee!!!
TheBear:
I wish you would stop sodding about and tell me I got it absolutely right, Coffee!!!
I can’t do that, because you didn’t.
TheBear:
[zb]!!!
That’s not being nice.
I can see the word behind the [zb
But I am positive that it is legal… maybe I got the reasoning wrong?
Shall I have a newbie go at this? My head definitely hurts, but I think its legal. The regs say that in any two weeks you need to have either 2 full rests or a full rest and a reduced rest…The compensation doesn’t have to be until the third week after you take the reduced weekly rest, so the compensation doesn’t apply here, not enough time. Because he’s taken two weekly rests in that third week, whichever way you count it there’s no two consecutive weeks where he hasn’t taken one regular rest and one reduced rest.
The tricky bit is the difference between counting where the weeks start. For the purposes of counting up the total hours of breaks, the weeks run between Monday and Sunday, but for the purposes of triggering when you should have one, they count number of days worked. So I reckon, because he took that second weekly rest period right at the end of week 3, he’s complied with the requirement to have one reduced rest and one full rest in the two calendar week period, and because he took the first reduced rest in the middle of week 3, he complied with the bit to have a rest after 6 calendar days.
Right, that’s done the insomnia a world of good…back to bed.
I’ve voted, but in mitigation it was late on last night so may have to have another look… 
