Seems like my issuing force are sticking to the original agreement and have not adopted the "no medical report no fac" approach that many English chief constables have after the success of the Scottish model
Cost GP Medical Checks
- Thread starter Afro hunter
- Start date
There is clearly a lot of objection to paying for a medical form, and I'm not trying to stir the pot, but why are we as a group (FAC Holders) so against paying? I paid £25 so I'm not too concerned, others have paid 4x that or more. The payment is only every five years so that reduces the yearly cost. If I was a member of a shooting club, I could pay £135 every year plus an attendance fees and might consider that to be acceptable to carry out my hobby/past-time activities.
I am not in the medical profession
Just curious that is all.
1. There is no good reason why we should pay.
2. There is no specified service that we are paying for. When this was instituted it was on the basis that it was a one time only process at zero cost. The doctors reneged on that. Now we're finding out we have to go through the process each renewal despite the fact of it being wholly unnecessary and of zero benefit to anybody - even hypothetically.
3. The "cost" of doing this ranges from zero to £300. There is no justification for the sum charged, no ceiling and no service or product supplied for that money.
If you were a member of a shooting club you might be happy to pay £135/Yr. But what if you found that as well as that you had to pay up to five times as much for an active users' lifetime membership and then found out you'd paid 5 times as much as other members and the club secretary came back a couple of years down the line and demanded you pay the same again for a 5 year membership? If you're going to use an analogy, make one that reflects the situation.
Our practice charges £250 and have made it clear that they don't like shooting and are therefore making it as difficult as possible (AKA cashing in...), yet the husband of of the partners shoots with a local syndicate!
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
That's a pertinent observation and as the various differing policy developments arise at force level in England, Wales and Scotland I think we must not lose sight of the principle that any costs arising from police forces approaching applicants' GPs were meant to be administered and paid for by the police.There is clearly a lot of objection to paying for a medical form, and I'm not trying to stir the pot, but why are we as a group (FAC Holders) so against paying? I paid £25 so I'm not too concerned, others have paid 4x that or more. The payment is only every five years so that reduces the yearly cost. If I was a member of a shooting club, I could pay £135 every year plus an attendance fees and might consider that to be acceptable to carry out my hobby/past-time activities.
I am not in the medical profession
Just curious that is all.
We pay a statutory fee for our applications to be processed and I don't think we should be required to approach our GPs or third party medical professionals for letters confirming that the relevant medical information we declare is correct (it is an offence to intentionally give false info) and to also pay a 'postcode lottery' fee of anything up to £250+ additional to the (usually smaller) statutory fee for our applications to be vetted. Also as food for thought - given that this new process is an issue of mistrust of applicants providing correct information - who is vetting the GPs and medical professionals for their honesty in actually validating that the information we have provided is factual?
Many fundamental issues around firearms law and licensing were identified in 2015 in separate reports produced by the Law Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
The 2016 Home Office guidance did not address these issues nor could it. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 has not addressed these issues and the proposed new guidance that was consulted on in 2019 will likely make things worse.
BASC is working to resolve the myriad issues with firearms licensing at all levels.
All options for a solution remain on the table including a fundamental review of firearms law to take place with a new consolidated Firearms Act as the outcome; and for firearms licensing to be taken away from the police and administered by a dedicated body designed solely for that purpose.
Last edited:
Musketeer
Well-Known Member
I have no issue with your 3 point answer, in fact, I thank you. However, I am asking a question to understand the objection. I do not know what reflects the situation, this is why I am asking...
Musketeer
Well-Known Member
Thank you for a sensible and informative response.
Conor be careful what you wish for, did the attempt for the ten year certificate not result in this medical reporting mess?
Learnt recently that they go to the head teacher for a junior application, in addition to the normal references. Is that tenable or any safer as a reference than re your statement “ who is vetting the GPs?”
I paid £36, the form Cambs require to be filled in is downloadable from their website. I filled it in, handed it in at the GP collecting it within a week. I think I’m quite fortunate for the service I’ve received. That being said I haven’t read what’s been written on it yet!
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
I don't recall any discussions around a ten-year certificate being connected with the current situation around medical involvement in firearms licensing.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
Yes so do I.
My understanding is that BASC supported the proposal that the initial involvement of GPs would not be chargeable to applicants; but that any further involvement of medical practitioners which the FLDs thought appropriate, such as further (or 'specialist') reports in case of particular illnesses, would be at the applicants' expense.
It seems to me therefore that BASC did in fact 'lose sight' of the important principle that the having paid the statutory fee, applicants should not be placed at the hazard of any costs at all arising from requests for the involvement of medical practitioners in the process?
As pointed out at the time, welcoming the process described above not only placed an extra burden on those by definition already impacted by an illness of some kind, but also opened up the idea that the FLDs could demand reports/information from doctors at the applicants' expense - and if some applicants, then why not all of them?
This 2018 thread covers a good deal of this ground
BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees
BASC opposes new Home Office proposals to make every gun owner pay a fee to their GP when applying for a shotgun or firearm certificate. Following a meeting on Tuesday with Nick Hurd, the minister responsible for firearm licensing, BASC understands the Home Office plans to abandon the current...
www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk
Last edited:
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
You'd have to be mental to pay that . . . .
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Re the junior application.
They most certainly do not approach the applicants head teacher.
I have been involved with mentoring a few teenagers and I have refereed another and there was no approach to any of their teaching staff.
I can only assume that the referees were unable to provide a reference which satisfied the FEO, hence the approach made to thr head.
Different forces different rules again I guess 14year old lad applied for his shotgun certificate Kent, his mum told me they contacted the head teacher, however on a positive note it took Kent only 7 weeks from start to finish to issue the certificate.
This is the fundamental issue now each force can do as they please their is no national process, just what ever the Chief Constable decides.
Similar threads
