BASC says don’t pay medical fee
- Thread starter David63
- Start date
I know some want to blame BASC for everything, but to say its BASC's fault that some GP's are asking for fees is simply ridiculous - look at the facts; BASC, the Home Office and the BMA all agreed there would be no fee for putting a marker on the rerecords and replying to the police if there were no concerns. Its the BMA that later changed its mind without any consultation with the others, this is what has caused the problem.
BASC's position has been not to pay the fee from the start and still is.
By the way the fee for BASC club membership is £63 not £75.
David
BASC's position has been not to pay the fee from the start and still is.
By the way the fee for BASC club membership is £63 not £75.
David
David,
Thank you for that but wasnt it BASC in discussions with the Home Office concerning various changes who suggested that a new system should be welcomed and all the details had been agreed. It would cost no more and be safer etc. Then, following the first series of requests for payment from doctors for previously inclusive services from them, did not BASC return to discussions and say the matter had been properly sorted - sadly but clearly it isnt. The £75 is what I am being charged for club BASC membership. I am sure you are correct but thats what I am being charged - I will mention it to the shoot committee and see what the reaction is.
Disappointingly, after turning over the fees ants nest, there are still shooters who feel obliged to pay to ensure they can shoot - its only £40 and y kit costs £2000 - I'm off to Scotland and it seemed the right thing to do; etc.
I would say a simple agreed rule should have been the outcome of the aforementioned negotiations or the issues should have been left well alone - its hard to see this and other recent outcomes as 'wins' for BASC or shooting. That, to me at least, is the plain honest truth.
Thank you for that but wasnt it BASC in discussions with the Home Office concerning various changes who suggested that a new system should be welcomed and all the details had been agreed. It would cost no more and be safer etc. Then, following the first series of requests for payment from doctors for previously inclusive services from them, did not BASC return to discussions and say the matter had been properly sorted - sadly but clearly it isnt. The £75 is what I am being charged for club BASC membership. I am sure you are correct but thats what I am being charged - I will mention it to the shoot committee and see what the reaction is.
Disappointingly, after turning over the fees ants nest, there are still shooters who feel obliged to pay to ensure they can shoot - its only £40 and y kit costs £2000 - I'm off to Scotland and it seemed the right thing to do; etc.
I would say a simple agreed rule should have been the outcome of the aforementioned negotiations or the issues should have been left well alone - its hard to see this and other recent outcomes as 'wins' for BASC or shooting. That, to me at least, is the plain honest truth.
The point is Kes, that there was a formal review and discussion, there had to be an agreement as the new HO guidance in licencing was ambiguous on who pays - so the situation could not simply be 'left alone'. It was BASC's position that the applicant should not pay for having a marker put on their records or for a simple declaration form the GP that there applicant was not being treated or had presented with the short list of relevant medical conditions.
So we all met and discussed this over several months, and an agreement was made that there would be no cost to the applicant unless a relevant medical condition was declared by either the applicant or their doctor. The fact is that the BMA clearly agreed to this at the formal meetings and that was the formal position of all.
Sadly the BMA seem to have changed their mind a short time later
So we all met and discussed this over several months, and an agreement was made that there would be no cost to the applicant unless a relevant medical condition was declared by either the applicant or their doctor. The fact is that the BMA clearly agreed to this at the formal meetings and that was the formal position of all.
Sadly the BMA seem to have changed their mind a short time later
It still seems odd to me that it is aparently considered reasonable for folk with relevant medical history to be exposed to the risk of unspecified charges (which could potentially run to several hundred pounds) from their GP to provide the police with medical reports: as if poor health were not burden enough.
If the FLD requires medical reports to support public safety, should the public purse not be paying for them?
If the FLD requires medical reports to support public safety, should the public purse not be paying for them?
In the search for funding and in the midst of cuts there are two options, cuts or income from charges - sadly this takes no account of the justification for the latter - just its susceptibility. I suspect more will come and suggest we are vigilant and resolute to protect ourselves, or maybe that should be BASC ?
I forgot it deliberately because its not a cut. More for less is the phrase. I have yet to see that in licensing terms and its more like 'charging the going rate' - hence both ends of the debate cannot agree on what the cost should be. Increased efficiency is difficult with reduced resource applied to the job in hand. However, if you increase the fee and cut the staff ?
Fact is that even before the latest increase, most constabularies were working perfectly well and effectively. Those that tended to have the biggest problems were those who added extra admin themselves like additional forms or requirements that were over and above the HO guidance. Following the HO guidance should be their first port of call.
So we then had an increase and added the medical marker. OK this may well cost more, but why should the shooter pay? That's been BASC's point all along.
So we then had an increase and added the medical marker. OK this may well cost more, but why should the shooter pay? That's been BASC's point all along.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Why indeed, the question of who pays the GP is entirely down to revising their NHS contract to include their new duties, what the shooter pays is already laid down the Firearms Acts as amended by Statutory Instrument.
It is rather unfortunate that some GPs have sought to browbeat their patients in to paying what they should be asking the NHS for.
atb Tim
Well if anyone has they shouldn't have, the Home office guidance also clearly states that if a GP decided not to participate in the scheme it should not in any way hinder the progress of your application.
Ian.
I'm aware of a person in Tayside in exactly this situation. Their local medical practise has refused to provide the information and as such Police Scotland office in Dundee have said they cannot proceed with the renewal application.
BASC are aware of the situation and are looking into the matter.
BASC are aware of the situation and are looking into the matter.
Fursty Ferret
Well-Known Member
I had such a letter in the lead up to my renewal.
I ignored it and paid them nowt.
New FAC arrived in due course!
I ignored it and paid them nowt.
New FAC arrived in due course!
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
this has nothing to do with fees
the fee is just payment for work
The request to do the work is the concern
NO GP (General Practitioner) should be contacted for patient history at all
1) UNLESS the Police have reason to believe that a applicant has a medical condition
2) A GP is precisely that. A general Practitioner. They are simply not qualified to assess a patient's mental state
So the ONLY people that will be picked up in this are the one's with pre-existing conditions or diagnoses.
Presumably the same ones who ticked the box on the application anyway (as if they didn't they are committing an offence!)
so the GP's are being lumbered with a totally unfeasible task of trawling through patient history to date to find notifiable conditions and also keeping tabs on any future conditions that may be notifiable
this in principle is fine but to impose this on the applicant without having put any framework in place or getting the BMA involved to make sure it is even possible is totally negligent on the part of the HO and Police
They are relying heavily on the very loose interpretation of "The Chief of Police must be satisfied..."
What it does not detail is how far they can and will go in order to reach that point!
this is an official Police response that is floating round the internet, names withheld to protect the incompetent...
Dear Mr xxxxxx
I understand that you have recently applied for the renewal of your firearm and shotgun certificates but have raised question over the new medical evidence procedures.
As you will appreciate, medical evidence forms an important part of the overall assessment of an individual's suitability to be entrusted with guns. On the 1 April 2016, a new national system was introduced to improve information sharing between the Police Service and the Medical Profession. When a person applies for renewal or grant of a firearm and shotgun certificate, the Police now write to their medical practise to establish if that person suffers from any relevant medical issues. A request is also made that a firearm or shotgun reminder code be placed on that persons medical record in case of any future concerns. Police Scotland have no control or responsibility for any fee that a medical practise may or may not choose to charge for this service, albeit I appreciate that this is a contentious subject.
If no response or reply is received from the medical practise in respect of the request for information on relevant health conditions, further enquiry will be made with medical practise to establish why. If it transpires that the medical practise are refusing to release the information following dispute over a fee, that becomes a matter for the applicant and the medical practise to resolve.
Chapter 10 of the Home Office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law 2016 states that before granting or renewing a firearm certificate, the chief officer of police must be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm(s)/ammunition in their possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. This is provided under 27(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.
Section 28 (1) of the Act makes similar provision in respect of shotguns where a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace.
In both instances the Chief Officer of Police needs to be satisfied that no information exists that would preclude an individual's access to guns. Without confirmation that the individual does not suffer from any relevant health conditions, this satisfaction level cannot be met. In these circumstances the Police Scotland national policy decision is that the firearm or shotgun certificate application will not be routinely granted or renewed but referred to the National Firearms Licensing Unit for final decision and potential refusal.
If an individual's firearm or shotgun certificate should be close to expiry, then the onus rests on that individual to make suitable lawful arrangements for the secure storage of their firearms or shotguns prior to that expiry date and to that final decision being made.
Where an individual's application for grant or renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate is refused, they are notified in writing and have opportunity to appeal that decision in the terms contained within Section 44 of the Firearms act 1968 as amended.
I hope I have answered your query but if you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Yours Sincerely
Mxxx xxxxxxxx
Firearms Licensing Inspector
Divisional HQ
Queen Street
Aberdeen
AB10 1ZA
the fee is just payment for work
The request to do the work is the concern
NO GP (General Practitioner) should be contacted for patient history at all
1) UNLESS the Police have reason to believe that a applicant has a medical condition
2) A GP is precisely that. A general Practitioner. They are simply not qualified to assess a patient's mental state
So the ONLY people that will be picked up in this are the one's with pre-existing conditions or diagnoses.
Presumably the same ones who ticked the box on the application anyway (as if they didn't they are committing an offence!)
so the GP's are being lumbered with a totally unfeasible task of trawling through patient history to date to find notifiable conditions and also keeping tabs on any future conditions that may be notifiable
this in principle is fine but to impose this on the applicant without having put any framework in place or getting the BMA involved to make sure it is even possible is totally negligent on the part of the HO and Police
They are relying heavily on the very loose interpretation of "The Chief of Police must be satisfied..."
What it does not detail is how far they can and will go in order to reach that point!
this is an official Police response that is floating round the internet, names withheld to protect the incompetent...
Dear Mr xxxxxx
I understand that you have recently applied for the renewal of your firearm and shotgun certificates but have raised question over the new medical evidence procedures.
As you will appreciate, medical evidence forms an important part of the overall assessment of an individual's suitability to be entrusted with guns. On the 1 April 2016, a new national system was introduced to improve information sharing between the Police Service and the Medical Profession. When a person applies for renewal or grant of a firearm and shotgun certificate, the Police now write to their medical practise to establish if that person suffers from any relevant medical issues. A request is also made that a firearm or shotgun reminder code be placed on that persons medical record in case of any future concerns. Police Scotland have no control or responsibility for any fee that a medical practise may or may not choose to charge for this service, albeit I appreciate that this is a contentious subject.
If no response or reply is received from the medical practise in respect of the request for information on relevant health conditions, further enquiry will be made with medical practise to establish why. If it transpires that the medical practise are refusing to release the information following dispute over a fee, that becomes a matter for the applicant and the medical practise to resolve.
Chapter 10 of the Home Office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law 2016 states that before granting or renewing a firearm certificate, the chief officer of police must be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm(s)/ammunition in their possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. This is provided under 27(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.
Section 28 (1) of the Act makes similar provision in respect of shotguns where a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace.
In both instances the Chief Officer of Police needs to be satisfied that no information exists that would preclude an individual's access to guns. Without confirmation that the individual does not suffer from any relevant health conditions, this satisfaction level cannot be met. In these circumstances the Police Scotland national policy decision is that the firearm or shotgun certificate application will not be routinely granted or renewed but referred to the National Firearms Licensing Unit for final decision and potential refusal.
If an individual's firearm or shotgun certificate should be close to expiry, then the onus rests on that individual to make suitable lawful arrangements for the secure storage of their firearms or shotguns prior to that expiry date and to that final decision being made.
Where an individual's application for grant or renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate is refused, they are notified in writing and have opportunity to appeal that decision in the terms contained within Section 44 of the Firearms act 1968 as amended.
I hope I have answered your query but if you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Yours Sincerely
Mxxx xxxxxxxx
Firearms Licensing Inspector
Divisional HQ
Queen Street
Aberdeen
AB10 1ZA
Orion
Well-Known Member
Nice one. Somewhat difficult to prove something that you've not had or suffered from.
BTW have a listen to the Pace Brothers 'Into The Wilderness' podcast no. 25 - it's in two parts - interview with the heads of Police Scotland Firearms Licensing. They cover just this point of GP surgeries refusing to engage with the process.
Last edited:
I've just been through this with my Doctor and Police Scotland (Glasgow). My Doctor said - that'll be £50, 'I think not' I replied. Calling the very helpful Firearms Licensing ladies in Glasgow I discover that this additional "tax" is widespread with some doctors charging up to £200. Some are refusing to sign and those 'patients' who refuse to pay find that their licence to hold shotguns or firearms is reccinded. If the forms are not returned within 21 days then the Police simply state that they cannot assume that there are no concerns and your application/licence is revoked. Making you a criminal if you haven't "stored" your guns.
Some Doctors are not charging and some are - i'm told....
The form is 3 tick boxes followed by a 'Practice Stamp' and a signature (see attached)
It's not law.
It's not even legislation in the making.
It's just a reccomendation ...
Doctors get paid when we are on their patients list - if the Doctor wants to charge you to fill out this form, tell him you are going to move to/register with a doctor that doesn't.
You can call your/any surgery/practice and ask for the 'centre manager' who will tell you if they are charging or not.
Some Doctors are not charging and some are - i'm told....
The form is 3 tick boxes followed by a 'Practice Stamp' and a signature (see attached)
It's not law.
It's not even legislation in the making.
It's just a reccomendation ...
Doctors get paid when we are on their patients list - if the Doctor wants to charge you to fill out this form, tell him you are going to move to/register with a doctor that doesn't.
You can call your/any surgery/practice and ask for the 'centre manager' who will tell you if they are charging or not.
Similar threads
