TVP - Restrictive conditions applied at renewal - removed

[Loki]

Hi All

This is a 'short' version if you are minded to bear with me:

I have held an 'open' Firearms Certificate for 40+ years, with calibres including .300WM & .375H&H. I have access to a variety of opportunity in the UK and hunt abroad whenever I can.

Following my renwal process in 2022, TVP Licensing Team deemed it appropriate, notwithstanding the evidence presented in the previous 5 years to restrict the use of my .300 & .375 in the UK.

Prior to my renewal application (a little under a year before actual renewal - yes, yes I know but mine have taken 15months+ in the past after expiry...) I understood from other TVP Service area Certificate holders that there had been a 'Changing of the Guard' and therefore to expect 'turbulant waters', particularly with regards to .300 and upwards.

My certificate was duly renewed but restrictive conditions applied to the .300 & .375.

Communications with the FEO, SFEO and the Licensing Manager were all rebuffed using the phrase 'High Muzxzle Energy' firearms and notwithstanding the evidence presented and
cross-referenced to the current Home Office Guidance on such matters, and in the absence on record of any other legal 'reason' refused to reinstate the previously 'open' conditions for these 2 firearms.

In the absence of 'Insurance Cover' that is not 'triaged', some 15months after exhausting 'common-sense' (yes, not much common about it...) I resorted to a SAR (Subject Access Request) to TVP Licensing Team (TVPLT) to establish what may be on 'Local Records' that may be the issue. I had already acquired my 'Rap-Sheet' from PNC Records to know nothing whatsoever ) The SAR was ignored by TVPLT so I resorted to a formal complaint - ignoring the SAR, arbitrary reduction in ammunition (500rds to 150 (apparently not having bought ammunition but a Relaoding Bench processing .270W was '...not proof I reload'....) and use of the .300 & .375 abroad only.

Nigh on a year on from the formal complaint the Investigating Officer (IO) found:

1. The SAR was superceded by the complaint process and therefore in obeyance - even though this was 6weeks after no reply to the SAR from TVPLT and therefore not complying with GDPR Regulations, before I made the complaint. I have let this go and will acquire the 'local' TVPLT records of my 2017 and 2022 renewals for future reference.
2. I seemed to have 'agreed' to the reduction of the ammunition at interview with the FEO - I had no choice as was told '...that was what it was going to be' by the FEO. I am minded to leave as is at this time.
3. Use of the .300 & .375 would be reinstated to 'open' use I had provided evidence of use abroad and a booking in Scotland (this was concluded between my complaint and the subsequent on-camera interview by a Uniformed Officer! accompanying the IO) and my experience. Great!, I will now continue to use these calibres in prepping to go abroad.

So, to sum up - do not give in if you meet all the criteria/legal requirements for 'High Calibre Rifles', sure it is time consuming and tiring but the outcome is worth it - albeit in my case 2.5yrs into my 5yr cycle!

L

PS - throughout the 'process' ongoing advice was taken from Richard Law at the SRA and a retired Firearms Licensing Manager.

 

[Stalker62]

First of all.

Well played for sticking with it.

Secondly.

I have had a .375 on my 'Open' certificate for ever.

This year I put in for a variation (8mm but that is not the point of the story).

Email from the FEO to say she had noticed a 'mistake' only FAC as the .375 was conditioned for deer.
A pal with the same Force has had the identical issue.

No mistake. That is why is was issued.

"Do you have proof of it being used?"

Send her some photographs of my recent trip to Harris - with me looking rather splendid.



No. She wanted proof of an upcoming trip.

Wait a minute. This is for a variation for an 8mm.

"Have you got a proof for an upcoming trip".

Happenstance I did. I sent her the confirmation.

The FAC came back with the .375 conditioned for ROE deer in Scotland.

Another flurry of emails and it is re-issued for DEER in Scotland.

When I told her that if I book (again) for Dorset on the Sika Stags, I will require yet another 'tweek' of the FAC, the irony seemed to escape her.

Days of nonsense, to introduce a previously un-needed (it is still un-needed), un-policeable condition, which is both illogical and against the HO guidance.

I don't know who is more frustrating. Them or British Airways at LHR T5.

On the upside - I will be picking up the 8mm next month...actually it is a 7.92x57 Mauser but that confused the bejesus out of them as well - so let's call it an 8mm...

 

[Whitefront]

"The SAR was ignored by TVPLT ..."
Then they were in breach of the law. You could have reported them to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which would have asked them for an explanation. If they didn't provide one, or provided one that was unsatisfactory to the ICO, then they could be sanctioned by the ICO - potentially being fined and officially reprimanded.

(I once complained to the ICO when a certain body refused to answer my SAR, responding with a lengthy lawyer's letter citing all sorts of legal gibberish. I sent it to the ICO, who promptly gave the errant body two weeks to produce the info I wanted or face the consequences. The body in question produced the info, which proved to be a gold mine.)

Anyway, glad you got it sorted.

 

[Donkey Basher]

Better start planning for your next renewal… make sure you have invites from as many people as possible to places where you can shoot your larger calibre rifles! Oh, and join a target shooting club & request at least double the ammo allowance you used to have

 

[Namman]

Hi All

This is a 'short' version if you are minded to bear with me:

I have held an 'open' Firearms Certificate for 40+ years, with calibres including .300WM & .375H&H. I have access to a variety of opportunity in the UK and hunt abroad whenever I can.

Following my renwal process in 2022, TVP Licensing Team deemed it appropriate, notwithstanding the evidence presented in the previous 5 years to restrict the use of my .300 & .375 in the UK.

Prior to my renewal application (a little under a year before actual renewal - yes, yes I know but mine have taken 15months+ in the past after expiry...) I understood from other TVP Service area Certificate holders that there had been a 'Changing of the Guard' and therefore to expect 'turbulant waters', particularly with regards to .300 and upwards.

My certificate was duly renewed but restrictive conditions applied to the .300 & .375.

Communications with the FEO, SFEO and the Licensing Manager were all rebuffed using the phrase 'High Muzxzle Energy' firearms and notwithstanding the evidence presented and
cross-referenced to the current Home Office Guidance on such matters, and in the absence on record of any other legal 'reason' refused to reinstate the previously 'open' conditions for these 2 firearms.

In the absence of 'Insurance Cover' that is not 'triaged', some 15months after exhausting 'common-sense' (yes, not much common about it...) I resorted to a SAR (Subject Access Request) to TVP Licensing Team (TVPLT) to establish what may be on 'Local Records' that may be the issue. I had already acquired my 'Rap-Sheet' from PNC Records to know nothing whatsoever ) The SAR was ignored by TVPLT so I resorted to a formal complaint - ignoring the SAR, arbitrary reduction in ammunition (500rds to 150 (apparently not having bought ammunition but a Relaoding Bench processing .270W was '...not proof I reload'....) and use of the .300 & .375 abroad only.

Nigh on a year on from the formal complaint the Investigating Officer (IO) found:

1. The SAR was superceded by the complaint process and therefore in obeyance - even though this was 6weeks after no reply to the SAR from TVPLT and therefore not complying with GDPR Regulations, before I made the complaint. I have let this go and will acquire the 'local' TVPLT records of my 2017 and 2022 renewals for future reference.
2. I seemed to have 'agreed' to the reduction of the ammunition at interview with the FEO - I had no choice as was told '...that was what it was going to be' by the FEO. I am minded to leave as is at this time.
3. Use of the .300 & .375 would be reinstated to 'open' use I had provided evidence of use abroad and a booking in Scotland (this was concluded between my complaint and the subsequent on-camera interview by a Uniformed Officer! accompanying the IO) and my experience. Great!, I will now continue to use these calibres in prepping to go abroad.

So, to sum up - do not give in if you meet all the criteria/legal requirements for 'High Calibre Rifles', sure it is time consuming and tiring but the outcome is worth it - albeit in my case 2.5yrs into my 5yr cycle!

L

PS - throughout the 'process' ongoing advice was taken from Richard Law at the SRA and a retired Firearms Licensing Manager.

I had a similar experience with my 375 which I had on open FAC for 40 years and which was restricted to range use at renewal.
I and BASC got nowhere with the
FlD who just referred it back to the FEO who refused to reinstate it.
In the end I used the FOI and requested a copy of SAR for the records of meetings about this issue concerning me.
The FOI showed that there were more than ten FAC holders in my force area who had 375 and larger for deer stalking including some personally known to me who had recent renewals and were not asked about shooting abroad or larger deer species in this country.
Result 375 reinstated for deer stalking and no restrictive conditions.
Never had a reply about SAR which I should have insisted on.

 

[shakey jake]

why do the police feel the need to flex muscles like this, why not just work for us?

 

[Loki]

H Whitefront at #3

I made the SAR and with no response 6wks later, whilst awaiting reply I read up on reporting breaches to the IC, deciding a formal complaint was simpler to do regarding the issue (conditions) over the potential for information that may have assisted me had I continued with the SAR through the IC, then used any helpful information in my complaint.

TVP said that as the complaint had been lodged they can hold back on the SAR (point 1 of my complaint), now that it has concluded I can reapply for the SAR, and obviously will do for future reference.

L

 

[Stalker62]

I can reapply for the SAR, and obviously will do for future reference.

@Loki

It would (I suspect) make for interesting reading.

 

[Bowland blades]

why do the police feel the need to flex muscles like this, why not just work for us?

Because power corrupts perhaps ?

 

[stubear]

Because power corrupts perhaps ?

I don’t think it’s malicious like that - it’s just if you pay people to “licence guns” they will licence guns, and go and impose conditions as they see fit in the absence of any firm guidelines to follow.

It’s the same as politicians - pay people to govern and create laws and you can’t be surprised when they come up with a raft of laws and taxes and centralised everything to attempt to govern with.

And there are people who are in these sorts of jobs who think if they’re not being overly cautious or otherwise draconian/difficult with those they are licensing then they’re not doing the job properly.

Same as traffic wardens. Some have some common sense and allow a bit of leeway when you come frazzled out of the shops with a screaming toddler, others are sitting there writing the ticket the second your session expires.

 

[Loki]

Hi All

Stalker1962 #8 - I will be submitting an SAR for the 2017 renewal and the 2022, I may even ask for the 2012 details as the Investigating Officer referred to this in her report.
The opening remark at my 'interrogation', sorry interview, by the FEO was 'TVPLT have been too slack in the past and its all changed, we have been brought in to tighten it all up.......'?!! I know previous SFEO's and FEO's had retired so sure a change of 'mind-set. This opening comment left no room for discussion so my copy of current HOG to hand stayed closed.

Stubear #10 - I used the word 'maliciously' in my complaint, perhaps 'mischievious' would have been better - I did cogitate and decided 'malicious' as there seemed to be some intent (leastways in the New Cabal at TVPL) to hamstring my lawful use.

L

 

[Stalker62]

The opening remark at my 'interrogation', sorry interview, by the FEO was 'TVPLT have been too slack in the past and its all changed, we have been brought in to tighten it all up.......'?!! I know previous SFEO's and FEO's had retired so sure a change of 'mind-set. This opening comment left no room for discussion so my copy of current HOG to hand stayed closed.

That is a shame.

A change of "mind-set" is no excuse to ignore legislation or HOG.

For what it is worth, I would never engage with an "on camera interview" without legal representation.

I am unsure why this happened.

 

[Loki]

That is a shame.

A change of "mind-set" is no excuse to ignore legislation or HOG.

For what it is worth, I would never engage with an "on camera interview" without legal representation.

I am unsure why this happened.

Hi Stalker 1962

The change of 'mind-set' seems to be a SFEO has HME (High Muzzle Energy) rifles as not acceptable, though HME was not quoted to me but others in similar in TVPS area. BASC advised I was the 6th person with similar problems.
I did raise with the Investigating Officer why is HOG issued if it is 'just guidance' and can be just set aside - no reply. In the final report it is referred to as 'non-statutory guidance'

The 'on-camera' was apparently 'standard procedure', or it would have been at some TVPS Establishment - I not comfortable and where I have no doubt they would have recorded anyway. I made clear I would have a copy of the recording, but was informed await the investigation closing.

Legal representation - good point but organising would have been difficult particularly if wanting someone with Firearms Law knowledge/experience.I had a neighbour sit in and recorded the audio.

L

 

[Hanechdene]

My renewal two or so years ago also was inflicted with the same approach by TVP. However, they also decided that my land was suddenly unsuitable to use a 300 WM and a 375 after a significant passage of time.

I took a slightly different approach, as I had legal cover insurance, starting legal proceedings against TVP. I was put in touch with Alan Barrel from the NGO who played a major part in helping me.

At end of some 18 months, it concluded with a meeting with the senior FEO where we drove round the land so that he could make his own assessment on the ground’s suitability, following a report commissioned by the lawyers from Alan Barrel on myself and the land, the land was classed as suitable to use both calibres. However, my certificate still remains “closed” after being “open”.

 

[HonestJohn]

One wonders why we bother sometimes. Had many, even 404J legal for UK deer, but utterly pointless I admit. Even let go of the 9.3, 8x57 equally effective. Let go of the 8x57 as well.
We should have the right to own and use any calibre IMHO, even pistols and full/semi auto’s, but that will never happen.

 

[timbrayford]

Hi All

This is a 'short' version if you are minded to bear with me:

I have held an 'open' Firearms Certificate for 40+ years, with calibres including .300WM & .375H&H. I have access to a variety of opportunity in the UK and hunt abroad whenever I can.

Following my renwal process in 2022, TVP Licensing Team deemed it appropriate, notwithstanding the evidence presented in the previous 5 years to restrict the use of my .300 & .375 in the UK.

Prior to my renewal application (a little under a year before actual renewal - yes, yes I know but mine have taken 15months+ in the past after expiry...) I understood from other TVP Service area Certificate holders that there had been a 'Changing of the Guard' and therefore to expect 'turbulant waters', particularly with regards to .300 and upwards.

My certificate was duly renewed but restrictive conditions applied to the .300 & .375.

Communications with the FEO, SFEO and the Licensing Manager were all rebuffed using the phrase 'High Muzxzle Energy' firearms and notwithstanding the evidence presented and
cross-referenced to the current Home Office Guidance on such matters, and in the absence on record of any other legal 'reason' refused to reinstate the previously 'open' conditions for these 2 firearms.

In the absence of 'Insurance Cover' that is not 'triaged', some 15months after exhausting 'common-sense' (yes, not much common about it...) I resorted to a SAR (Subject Access Request) to TVP Licensing Team (TVPLT) to establish what may be on 'Local Records' that may be the issue. I had already acquired my 'Rap-Sheet' from PNC Records to know nothing whatsoever ) The SAR was ignored by TVPLT so I resorted to a formal complaint - ignoring the SAR, arbitrary reduction in ammunition (500rds to 150 (apparently not having bought ammunition but a Relaoding Bench processing .270W was '...not proof I reload'....) and use of the .300 & .375 abroad only.

Nigh on a year on from the formal complaint the Investigating Officer (IO) found:

1. The SAR was superceded by the complaint process and therefore in obeyance - even though this was 6weeks after no reply to the SAR from TVPLT and therefore not complying with GDPR Regulations, before I made the complaint. I have let this go and will acquire the 'local' TVPLT records of my 2017 and 2022 renewals for future reference.
2. I seemed to have 'agreed' to the reduction of the ammunition at interview with the FEO - I had no choice as was told '...that was what it was going to be' by the FEO. I am minded to leave as is at this time.
3. Use of the .300 & .375 would be reinstated to 'open' use I had provided evidence of use abroad and a booking in Scotland (this was concluded between my complaint and the subsequent on-camera interview by a Uniformed Officer! accompanying the IO) and my experience. Great!, I will now continue to use these calibres in prepping to go abroad.

So, to sum up - do not give in if you meet all the criteria/legal requirements for 'High Calibre Rifles', sure it is time consuming and tiring but the outcome is worth it - albeit in my case 2.5yrs into my 5yr cycle!

L

PS - throughout the 'process' ongoing advice was taken from Richard Law at the SRA and a retired Firearms Licensing Manager.

Well done!

 

[Stalker62]

I do not have the stats.

I wonder if the Police have the stats.?

Does anyone have the stats.?

"What bad thing has ever happened with a .375/300WM/Whatever HME you like - that would not have happened with a firearm with less muzzle velocity/bullet size/who knows what"?

What 'additional safety' is being achieved? Actually 'safety'?

Perhaps I am being a wee bit thick (always a good possibility), but what 'good' is being achieved?

 

[HonestJohn]

“Perhaps I am being a wee bit thick (always a good possibility), but what 'good' is being achieved?”

Reduction in firearms, death by a thousand cuts.

 

[JTO]

Because power corrupts perhaps ?

Like planning officers!

 

[Liveonce]

“Days of nonsense, to introduce a previously un-needed (it is still un-needed), un-policeable condition, which is both illogical and against the HO guidance.”

So much for the HO guidance being “statutory”.

“why do the police feel the need to flex muscles like this, why not just work for us?”

yet they expect goodwill from us like keeping spent cases.

It will also be such them and us.