- Reaction score
- 17,126
Appreciate your interpretation but that's deffo not what it states.
What it states, word for word is,
NOTE 2: The implementation date for this regulation is the 1st January 2016, but does not preclude compliance with the regulation prior to that date.
And that's the problem, ask different people how they would interpret, and like you they will come up with there version.
Not your fault or anyone else's but I take issue with a statement that's based on regulations that's unclear and appears to contradict itself.
Whole ruddy Idea is a half thought out shambles, that fails to address the real problem any way.
There's nothing to misinterpret in that particular statement.
The regulation comes in to effect on that date, but that doesn't preclude compliance beforehand.
What is there to misinterpret?
It is required after that date but may be complied with before that date