I really don't understand what he is referring to - there may be an implied "reasonable excuse" which relates to the care of a child (I actually think there probably is) but there is no explicit mention of it.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e8e85/e8e853817c7e13d25fbdc4a6a0dabc8c76125121" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09d95/09d95718bb11bed78c295391cf6b92f1f370d519" alt=""
As I said last night, the guidance was always stricter than the law
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd7bf/dd7bf92154b5628160648f9fc09a2f946929a175" alt=""
1. It wouldn't be in breach of the law as it would be a "reasonable excuse" under reg 6
2. It would potentially breach the guidance
Amazing how confusing the difference between the law and guidance has been