When is a loophole not a loophole?

From the beeb

Ministers have said any local authority increasing levies by more than 2% must hold a referendum and an authority which loses such a vote should have to revert to a lower increase in bills.

Ok. I'm with you so far. A 2% rise means a referendum. Or maybe a 2.01% rise, as it does say 'more than' 2%. Well.. we can leave that to the lawyers. We can, for sure, agree that a rise of LESS than 2% will not requre a referendum, yeah?

But according to the Daily Telegraph, some councils have taken legal advice to put up taxes by 1.99% - a practice denounced by the communities and local government secretary as "dodging democracy".

Those bastards! They're not doing the thing that the government doesn't want them to do. How Very Dare They.

[Pickles] raised the prospect of lowering the threshold for a referendum in future and said he would legislate to close any other loopholes which enable councils to avoid such votes.

Hey, dumbnuts, that's no more a loophole than driving at 69.9mph on the M1.