MAH
Well-Known Member
Did you se the completedcproforma, before it was sent to the Met?
Renewal application rejected
- Thread starter Shootgun
- Start date
I don't think that is what it says there. It seems to me to be giving various good reasons why the Chief of Police might have grounds for making fewer on 'additional' checks on an applicant - one of which is that the certificate has been held for 10 years/two cycles.
The medical info from a GMC-registered practitioner is required at each application, as per 2.64 - but it doesn't say there any length of time that should be covered. However, I guess it is implicit that the medico completing the form has access to the whole record in order to answer questions on lifetime incidence of various conditions, and to declare that the record is both 'full' and continuous'.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Thankyou, but it's okay.
The trouble with Law is that there's just too many words.
Trial by forum is so much easier.
I think the sense on 'having a pop at the police' seems here to be based on their rejecting an entire application for a reason which has not been made especially clear to the disappointed applicant, and which based on the assorted experience-based views of other FAC-holders might well have been a problem relating to a minor error on the medical form - something which it might have been possible to sort out in a more-considerate way than using it as grounds for rejecting the entire application; even it was the applicant's fault - which it might well not have been.
ColinJ
Well-Known Member
In a perfect world Firearms Licensing Departments would have enough staff to have a dedicated team member resolving issues with incorrectly completed applications.
But as we all know, we don't live in a perfect world. And apart from Devon & Cornwall I doubt that there is an FLD in the country that is properly resourced.
So applications are rejected and the team move on to the next one.
But as we all know, we don't live in a perfect world. And apart from Devon & Cornwall I doubt that there is an FLD in the country that is properly resourced.
So applications are rejected and the team move on to the next one.
I suppose some consider that unacceptable and feel justified in complaining about it, and others think it's OK.
My view is that as a responsible and law-abiding British subject applying with significant expenditure of time and money for the documents to allow me to exercise a right in law, I'd expect my application to be handled in a less-discourteous manner.
Last edited:
ColinJ
Well-Known Member
And if they had the time and the resources I'm sure the teams would prefer to be less discourteous. But they don't.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Precisely, plod need picking up on this, it's not their prerogative to add to and embelish the Firearms Act, that's Parliament's job.
That doesn't make it OK, though, in my opinion at least.
They are not going to save time by sending the rejected applicant an email which doesn't seem to elucidate the problem to the extent that he'll be able to get it right next time. Someone's going to have to spend time returning his money. When his re-application comes in, they'll have to go through the whole thing again from the top.
An email explaining the problem with the medical form and asking for a correction would have wasted less time, you'd imagine?
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
The flip side is that all the time they spend chasing after applicants who haven't provided the correct information (either through genuine accident or careless submission) means that they aren't processing the correctly submitted applications, causing further delays.
The further flip-side of that is that, as I tried to point out in post 50, kicking the can down the road might not actually save any time if it means reprocessing from the beginning. Particularly if it's likely to be wrong again, as the problem with its first iteration was not clearly explained.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
That is possibly true but it also makes people send in a complete application that can be processed in a set order in the most effective way so making future savings. A bit like the online applications, they're a pain and some people don't like them and so insist on filling out a paper version because it's easier for them in the short term, but long term it's just going to cause more issues.
This is a very curious argument to hear from a FAC-holder.
We should not be expected to pay more than the token statutory fee, because we are apply to exercise a right in law - and to make the ability to exercise a right dependent in any meaningful sense on the ability to pay would be unjust.
Firearms 'licensing' is allegedly for the good of the public as a whole. It certainly is nothing but inconvenience to SGC/FAC-holders as such - but as we are all also members of the public both benefit from the increase in public safety and reduction in crime that results from the system, and contribute to its funding.
There seems to be no escaping the fact that FLDs should be properly-resourced from public funds, to which the shooting public already contributes.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
That's a whole other argument
We are the law abiding ones who benefit least from paying for a SGC or FAC. The benefit is seen by the wider public as those unsuitable for an Certificate are prevented from getting one and yet if they are refused they get their money back???
I pay my council tax (a portion of which funds the police) to stop or at least reduce the chance of me getting robbed at knife point (just one example) so I don't expect to have to pay an additional fee when I buy a kitchen knife to fund the police to stop knife crime? I'm not going out committing it and am highly unlikely to ever do so.
Good job you don't reside in Scotland then as Police Scotland would bin your application for not being their prescribed procedure.
You will get an extension letter from s/s regardless of time schedule.
Similar threads
