Doctors Fee for FAC

[Dalua]

hear what you are saying but the horse has already bolted, and the process is now fully embedded within the HO statutory guidance.
If my memory is correct Scotland was first then one by one other police services joined in, BASC knew what was happing as it was championed via the NPCC FEWLG meetings.
However BASCs legal advice, never shared with members, was they would not win a judicial review.
The rest is history.

It is an unjust and therefore bad arrangement contrary to the spirit of actual statute law in the form of the Firearms Act.
An unjust Act of Parliament would not be regarded as irreversible: nor therefore should the arrangements we're discussing - which are after all the machinations of an unelected cabal.
You'd think the fact that the BASC had supported that cabal - albeit perhaps by mistake - would make them all the keener with open eyes to try, at least, to sort the mess out.

 

[Liveonce]

It is an unjust and therefore bad arrangement contrary to the spirit of actual statute law in the form of the Firearms Act.
An unjust Act of Parliament would not be regarded as irreversible: nor therefore should that the arrangements we're discussing - which are after all the machinations of an unelected cabal.
You'd think the fact that the BASC had supported that cabal - albeit perhaps by mistake - would make them all the keener to try, at least, to sort the mess out.

However the Police don‘t think like we do, they don’t care about being fair or what is reasonable for us to pay,

quotes from the last minutes,

fees

“The cost of licences was discussed and cost recovery from licence holders. It was raised that in one area 2% of the population are licence holders and are subsidised by the other 98%. The recent APCC survey, which directly references this funding point was brought into the conversation and that there was a broader review of Firearms Licensing being undertaken following the tragic events in Plymouth.”

So they cock up and give a gun back to somebody who should not have had one, and they want to address that via the licensing fees, trying to push the blame away from them.

Then

zeroing a rifle the law set no maximum the police experts say

“It was raised within the meeting that several police armourers had stated that it should be 3 to 5 rounds and this would be the expectation and not ‘as many as you want’.”

They think they are above the law and can make it up as they see fit and we just follow like sheep, which is how the GP reporting came about to start with.

They attend these meeting with one agenda to continue to turn the screw on us owning firearms, it’s just not a level playing field.

your words:-

1. Our organisations must stop believing that the Police and the HO are their friends. They are cleverer and more slippery than you seem to imagine, and they don't like lawfully-held firearms.
2. In that context, don't feel flattered when they ask you for help. They only want your help to make things worse for us, so it's time to start disappointing them rather than (as currently) your members.

Are the best advice I have seen offered to BASC.

 

[nCognitos]

Medcert are slow, it certainly took a month longer than their stated six weeks to get my report, that's 8 weeks after they got the records from my GP. Anecdotally, many of my friends at the club have had the same service, it's OK if you apply in plenty of time but there have been a few occurrences of guns being bundled off to a friendly RFD while waiting for the medical report.

Here is a list of all the providers I could find, they all charge about the same

Medical reports for UK firearms and shotgun certificates
Medical Certificate Report for Shotgun & Firearms Licence UK: ShootCert
Firearms Medicals - Low-cost shotgun & firearms medicals nationwide
Shotgun and Firearms License & Medical Reports - Shotgun Medicals
Welcome to MedCert

 

[NorthDorset]

£50

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

A hypothetical question, but one to which you must already know the hypothetical answer: did BASC not 'work with' the HO to bring in to operation rules which mean that if I refuse to pay some GP or other to review my notes, I wouldn't get my certificates?
It is indeed an interesting ethical question, whether it would be unprincipled or hypocritical of me to pay up given my stance.
I'm no moral philosopher - so I'll just leave that question with the observation that as an employee of BASC, I'm not sure you're in a good position to ask it.

How to 'sort out' the 'crisis'? A few thoughts...
1. Our organisations must stop believing that the Police and the HO are their friends. They are cleverer and more slippery than you seem to imagine, and they don't like lawfully-held firearms.
2. In that context, don't feel flattered when they ask you for help. They only want your help to make things worse for us, so it's time to start disappointing them rather than (as currently) your members.
3. Point out that the fee an applicant pays on application or renewal of certificates is a statutory one, and in the interests of fair application of the law applicants should not have to pay additional fees of any kind. That is the way it has been hitherto, and with good reason.
4. Point out that if it is cost-effective and useful for public safety for every applicants' GP records to be reviewed, then that process should be taken in hand by the FLDs.
5. The FLDs locally or nationally should negotiate what they consider a fair price with the GPs and pay it. If a GP refuses, the FLD could send the GP notes to MedCert (or similar). We already give the FLD permission to ask the GP for this information, I think.
6. Medical chicanery aside, it sounds to me as though the 'crisis' is based largely on FLDs being understaffed - the remedy for which would seem to be a combination of reducing unnecessary work ('territorial restriction'-related land visits, servicing the discretionary conditions industry etc.) and giving them money for more staff.
7. It is not the responsibility of users of the FLD service to stump up to fund chronically the under-resourced and unnecessarily-overworked departments. These department exist for the safety of the public: not, as most of us are only too aware, for the convenience of lawful users of firearms.

Many thanks. I will pass your advice and suggestions onto colleagues. I am rather bemused that you do not seem to wish to answer the question I posed about whether or not you would pay a GP fee as a principled stance, given that you appeared to be passing judgement on the various posters in this thread that have paid the GP fees requested of them. Just a thought.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

CPSA . For cover legal insurance . NGA . For general cover ( not needed so far) This Connor is just to make your organisation aware your on a stickey wicket. BASC is not taken seriously by any government body.

Thanks for that. Do you mean NGO rather than NGA?

 

[potshotpat]

Thanks for that. Do you mean NGO rather than NGA?

Yes.

 

[Ratel]

I paid £47 by cheque. However I am just wondering "Where have all the GPs gone" a la Pete Seeger song. Go to our practice, approx 14 doctors, a few people sat waiting in nurses clinic, nobody waiting for doctors. Not only once but several times I have seen this. You want an appointment, three weeks, if you're lucky might get to chat to one after a week. Nurses can't even make appointments any more than a week in front. The whole GP system is a farce, I really don't know what they do all day, no appoinents, no home visits, what the hell is going on. They call it Triage or something similar.

 

[Dalua]

given that you appeared to be passing judgement on the various posters in this thread that have paid the GP fees requested of them. Just a thought.

It certainly is a thought: for I can't, having gone through my posts in this thread, work out what it might be based on. If I've given that impression on this thread or anywhere else, I can only apologise - and I'd be pleased to be told which bits of any posts are suggestive of such a stance. To date, you are the first poster to have felt that I've been passing judgement in that way.

For the sake of absolute clarity, I have no word of criticism for any FAC/SGC applicant who pays to obtain a medical report when the alternative is not getting a grant/renewal of certificate.

In the hope of wrapping up what appears to be a mote vs. beam situation, and with the repeated rider that I am not a moral philosopher: any lack of principle I would display personally by coughing up additional cash to some medico in order to keep my certificates pales into insignificance in comparison to that shown by your employer: who still has either so little insight that it does not believe itself to have managed the situation badly (I speak euphemistically), or so much brass neck that it feels it unnecessary to apologise and promise to do better in future.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Yes.

Thanks for clarifying. Whilst you left BASC I am glad that you are supporting CPSA and NGO on the same issue as we are all working together on this.

Reps for BASC, CPSA and various other members of the British Shooting Sports Council have been working together to try to find a solution to the firearms licensing crisis in England and Wales.

NGO was an active member of the Medical Evidence Working Group leading up to the 2016 guidance and the latest NGO advice is here:

New Firearms Licensing Procedures

From 1 November 2021 applicants are now required to provide evidence from a medical practitioner regarding their fitness to possess firearms

www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

We are all in this together and the latest development is a firearms licensing fees review:

BASC outlines key demands in licensing fees review

BASC will not accept “rewarding failure” in the upcoming review of firearms licensing fees in England, Scotland and Wales.

basc.org.uk

 

[Dalua]

I am rather bemused...

So am I, by your 'liking' my response to your post.
I'm interested to know which bits you like. Also, of course, I'm interested to know what I might have said that made you believe I thought badly of folk who paid GPs in order to retain their certificates.

Especially, though, I wonder whether you agree with my comments on your employer's historical and ongoing position on this tiresome subject, as well as liking them?

 

[slider]

Medcert are slow, it certainly took a month longer than their stated six weeks to get my report, that's 8 weeks after they got the records from my GP. Anecdotally, many of my friends at the club have had the same service, it's OK if you apply in plenty of time but there have been a few occurrences of guns being bundled off to a friendly RFD while waiting for the medical report.

Here is a list of all the providers I could find, they all charge about the same

Medical reports for UK firearms and shotgun certificates
Medical Certificate Report for Shotgun & Firearms Licence UK: ShootCert
Firearms Medicals - Low-cost shotgun & firearms medicals nationwide
Shotgun and Firearms License & Medical Reports - Shotgun Medicals
Welcome to MedCert

All providers are only as quick as they can get the medical records from your GP.

I used medcert about 15 months ago and they were fine, happy to speak to you on the phone and keep ypu updated. Responded to my FAO in ample time for my renewal.

I suppose it is possible that they have become vicims of their own success

 

[MAH]

one of these...

That's my favourite...

 

[MAH]

Doctors declaration

I'm in Cheshire, I paid £50 in January. Which I am happy with.
I'd suggest you contact Medcert.
M.

 

[Liveonce]

Cannot remember the source of this HO letter but it was February 2019 sums up why we are where we are.

edited to add the consultation was carried out, but needless to say responses from the shooting side were ignored And the process was embedded into the statutory guidance.

 

[potshotpat]

Thanks for clarifying. Whilst you left BASC I am glad that you are supporting CPSA and NGO on the same issue as we are all working together on this.

Reps for BASC, CPSA and various other members of the British Shooting Sports Council have been working together to try to find a solution to the firearms licensing crisis in England and Wales.

NGO was an active member of the Medical Evidence Working Group leading up to the 2016 guidance and the latest NGO advice is here:

New Firearms Licensing Procedures

From 1 November 2021 applicants are now required to provide evidence from a medical practitioner regarding their fitness to possess firearms

www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

We are all in this together and the latest development is a firearms licensing fees review:

BASC outlines key demands in licensing fees review

BASC will not accept “rewarding failure” in the upcoming review of firearms licensing fees in England, Scotland and Wales.

basc.org.uk

Conor thanks for your reply. The point I was trying to make was about how I felt my subs to shooting organisations was being used to the benefit of the run of the mill shooters.BASC are, in my opinion not doing this, other shooting Orgs are. I'll be the first person to join BASC again,WHEN they get their act together. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[nCognitos]

All providers are only as quick as they can get the medical records from your GP.

I used medcert about 15 months ago and they were fine, happy to speak to you on the phone and keep ypu updated. Responded to my FAO in ample time for my renewal.

I suppose it is possible that they have become vicims of their own success

As I said, they took 8 weeks after getting my records from the GP. I'm not unhappy, anyone who reviews 50 years of medical records for £50 (with club discount) is offering a good service at a very fair price.

I don't mind, if I know their real lead time is 10 weeks plus I can plan accordingly but there are people in my club who have been seriously caught out by believing their 6 week published turnaround.

I'm not suggesting that you do not use them, but rather that you allow an extra month, apply early!

 

[Liveonce]

The bottom line for the process to work as was intended then the applicants registered GP must complete the report as in the process expects.
Excluding the cases where the GP refuses to engage in the process, the cherry picking away from the registered GP to save the applicant money, potentially reduces the effectiveness of the process.

Clearly the powers that be don’t care so long as they get a report that may be used to take the blame away from them, god forbid, next time a mass shooting happens.

I am still at a loss to wonder why the shooting organisation do not think their is sufficient grounds for a judicial review, yes it may fail but even the initial pre action protocol JR notification would put on record the failings and weakness in the process. I bet WJ would not sit on the fence.

 

[Tazz]

I have my combined renewal for SGC/FAC coming up towards the end of this year, my intention is to contact the doctors surgery that I use in our village and see what there approach is. There must be an element where the more rural GP Surgery’s get mor requests and therefore understand the process and do/don't have a charging system versus the more urban GP’s who don’t encounter requests very often it’s it’s a hassle to them. I am happy to pay a fee, as per a previous post if you divide it back through the 5 year period it’s not that onerous in most cases

 

[nun_hunter]

The whole thing is a pointless joke which is why I oppose paying any fee.

For example my sister works for adult social care and recently had to go and assess a male for dementia who had shotguns. They were debating if they needed to contact the police to let them know. The GP had no idea this male was being assessed for dementia as initially it was his wife they were dealing with so all the markers on his records at the GP would do the square root of fu&k all. The current system is flawed beyond a joke and making people pay for it when it should be under the statutory fee set out is frustrating to say the least.

Unless the marker gets linked to an NHS number or the entire health service is overhauled and one system covers everything (never going to happen) then it's just paying a fee for the sake of paying a fee and does nothing for public protection