Certificate fees: a fair price for a fair service. BASC statement.

[paul o']

+1
but only if the rules are the same in every county. no more silly add on's just plane sence ! then £fee ok but this is rip off uk and it needs fixing for say 10yrs !

Fair price for a fair service sounds like a good idea, and an increase from £50 to £94 does sound very fair considering how long they have been at £50

I did read somewhere that the true cost to the police is around £250 per certificate and allowing that some of that
​cost may be met by our council tax which pays for the police, I still think £94 sounds very fair.

 

[Wireless]

-1
If the original intention was that we pay one third of the cost, and if the true cost in Bedfordshire was £130 barely three years ago, then there's no way that its risen by 216% to £282, which is what ACPO are trying to push for when they recommend £94.

As far as I can see, in Bedfordshire at least, the FAC should be reduced to £43.33, based on the same figures, we all know it won't be, but fair's fair.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it on and decided that we bear the full cost plus a bit, since they usually end up going back on their word, given enough time, and enough apathy from the populous.

So it'll be our own fault when we stare at a renewal cost of £300, and £350 for a co-terminus certificate, we should have shouted louder, earlier, but we won't.
​

 

[timbrayford]

-1




I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it on and decided that we bear the full cost plus a bit, since they usually end up going back on their word, given enough time, and enough apathy from the populous.

So it'll be our own fault when we stare at a renewal cost of £300, and £350 for a co-terminus certificate, we should have shouted louder, earlier, but we won't.
​

+1 All the more reason for BASC to start negotiations from the viewpoint that the whole cost should be borne from general taxation rather than being meekly led up the garden path by ACPO's increased costs argument. To be clear on this I am a member of and support BASC but yet again they are being reactive rather than proactive and failing to look at the bigger picture. Would someone from BASC please let us all benefit from your views on this! atb Tim

 

[David63]

Far from being reactive, BASC have been lobbying on the issues around licencing practice and costs for many years. This is not the first time that an increase in licence fees had been proposed since the last increase. Remember the price of licencing has not changed for many years, I can’t think of any other product or service that has held its price for so long.

Turning to the bigger picture, BASC is most certainly on the case. As we have stressed to ACPO, before any change in costs can be discussed properly the licencing system needs to become more efficient, many of us have experienced the inefficiency generated not by the legislation, not by the Home Office guidance, not by ACPO best practice guides, but due to the licencing teams themselves adding layers of red tape and hoops for us to jump through.

So we are pushing ACPO to drive through positive changes to the licencing system across the boards and at the same time we will be reactive when we target licencing teams that are failing – you will remember perhaps the recent announcement from Nott’s police for example.

More to do I agree but I can’t see the full cost of licencing being taken by the state.

David

 

[finnbear270]

I can't think of any other product or service that has been deficient for so long, even Skoda & Lada have moved on!

 

[Labrat]

Some interesting discussions here from HOL Hansard in 1986

Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1986 (Hansard, 9 July 1986)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

 

[Virbius]

I can't think of any other product or service that has been deficient for so long, even Skoda & Lada have moved on!

With the actual number of FAC and SGC holders in the UK, I am still of the opinion that the vast majority of those receive an acceptable service from their respective Licensing Departments.

 

[timbrayford]

Far from being reactive, BASC have been lobbying on the issues around licencing practice and costs for many years. This is not the first time that an increase in licence fees had been proposed since the last increase. Remember the price of licencing has not changed for many years, I can’t think of any other product or service that has held its price for so long.

Turning to the bigger picture, BASC is most certainly on the case. As we have stressed to ACPO, before any change in costs can be discussed properly the licencing system needs to become more efficient, many of us have experienced the inefficiency generated not by the legislation, not by the Home Office guidance, not by ACPO best practice guides, but due to the licencing teams themselves adding layers of red tape and hoops for us to jump through.

So we are pushing ACPO to drive through positive changes to the licencing system across the boards and at the same time we will be reactive when we target licencing teams that are failing – you will remember perhaps the recent announcement from Nott’s police for example.

More to do I agree but I can’t see the full cost of licencing being taken by the state.

David

Oh dear David, BASC appears to have totally missed the point. You are entering into negotiations with ACPO and letting them set the agenda, this is a very bad tactic. I cannot agree that on this occasion BASC is being anything other than reactive. atb Tim

 

[Virbius]

Oh dear David, BASC appears to have totally missed the point. You are entering into negotiations with ACPO and letting them set the agenda, this is a very bad tactic. I cannot agree that on this occasion BASC is being anything other than reactive. atb Tim

The fact that BASC have stated to ACPO that 'before any change in costs can be discussed properly the licencing system needs to become more efficient', indicates to me not a reactive stance or abiding by ACPO's agenda but actually leaves the negotiations open to the extent that once efficiencies are improved, license fees could remain static or even reduce!

 

[Virbius]

+1 All the more reason for BASC to start negotiations from the viewpoint that the whole cost should be borne from general taxation rather than being meekly led up the garden path by ACPO's increased costs argument. To be clear on this I am a member of and support BASC but yet again they are being reactive rather than proactive and failing to look at the bigger picture. Would someone from BASC please let us all benefit from your views on this! atb Tim

This is not just the responsibility of BASC, all pro-shooting organisations should be heavily involved in this process as should each and every individul FAC/SGC holder. Write to and/or visit your local MP, Police Commissioner etc otherwise as Wireless states we will only have ourselves to blame.

 

[Greymaster]

With the actual number of FAC and SGC holders in the UK, I am still of the opinion that the vast majority of those receive an acceptable service from their respective Licensing Departments.

Possibly you are referring to those holders who only need to make contact on renewal, and not those requiring original grant, variations, one-for-ones etc. It might seem like service when you don't need it, it's when you do need it that you realise that you have and are paying for a sub-standard, non-standard "service".

 

[finnbear270]

Possibly you are referring to those holders who only need to make contact on renewal, and not those requiring original grant, variations, one-for-ones etc. It might seem like service when you don't need it, it's when you do need it that you realise that you have and are paying for a sub-standard, non-standard "service".

"Renewers" are not immune either. (Just had mine)

 

[Virbius]

Possibly you are referring to those holders who only need to make contact on renewal, and not those requiring original grant, variations, one-for-ones etc. It might seem like service when you don't need it, it's when you do need it that you realise that you have and are paying for a sub-standard, non-standard "service".

No, I'm referring to all and every part of the service. By default, every one has been through the original grant and everyone every 5 years has to go through renewal. I have never experienceed sub-standard service on 'needs' either, including two separate variations, sponsoring visitors permits and two house moves between two separate licensing authorities in the last two years.

 

[finnbear270]

No, I'm referring to all and every part of the service. By default, every one has been through the original grant and everyone every 5 years has to go through renewal. I have never experienceed sub-standard service on 'needs' either, including two separate variations, sponsoring visitors permits and two house moves between two separate licensing authorities in the last two years.

Must be an East West divide?

 

[bogtrotter]

Can't fault the service I receive and I deal with them a lot, and while part of that service is subsidised by the council tax , I for one am happy to contribute to the service I receive, if I was receiving an inferior service
I would maybe feel differently of course.

 

[Virbius]

Must be an East West divide?

And maybe managing expectations? I wonder how many delays in renewals, for example, are due to delays in returning forms to licensing deaprtments, and unreasonable requests and expectations from the certificate holder.....?

 

[finnbear270]

And maybe managing expectations? I wonder how many delays in renewals, for example, are due to delays in returning forms to licensing deaprtments, and unreasonable requests and expectations from the certificate holder.....?

Mine always go in well in advance of the deadline, & all my requests have been granted EVENTUALLY, excepting a request for twenty tac...... but that's another chapter!

 

[timbrayford]

The fact that BASC have stated to ACPO that 'before any change in costs can be discussed properly the licencing system needs to become more efficient', indicates to me not a reactive stance or abiding by ACPO's agenda but actually leaves the negotiations open to the extent that once efficiencies are improved, license fees could remain static or even reduce!

Oh dear, someone else cannot grasp the bigger picture either. This discussion is about the wider issues of the ethos of firearms controls and the funding thereof. It has apparently passed over the heads of some shooters and BASC alike. I had hoped that with the departure of Mr Swift that someone a bit more worldly-wise would be leading from the front. atb Tim

 

[Virbius]

Oh dear, someone else cannot grasp the bigger picture either. This discussion is about the wider issues of the ethos of firearms controls and the funding thereof. It has apparently passed over the heads of some shooters and BASC alike. I had hoped that with the departure of Mr Swift that someone a bit more worldly-wise would be leading from the front. atb Tim

Tim, what exactly are you expecting BASC/the shooting organisations to be doing/have done, what is the bigger picture - please elaborate?

 

[David63]

There are some good examples of how the licencing system can work smoothly from all around the UK, and BASC have been working hard with ACPO, the Home Office and at licencing department level to try and push for more and more licencing teams to improve their efficiency, This has been augmented along with others particularly the NGO in my experience.

This has been an on-going programme for years and all the time the cost of the licence has remained static.

However, we know that the minority of licencing teams offer a poor service and frankly there is no need for this, as demonstrably a good and efficient service can be delivered. We want to see that in place before any change in costs.

I am sure we all want a smooth efficient service with no daft conditions put in our way as obstacles. Don’t we?

In the grand scheme of things I don’t think £10-20 per year is too much to pay, provided I get a good hassle free service in return.

David