First NPCC firearms licensing performance table published for forces in England and Wales

[3595wilk]

@Conor O'Gorman - thanks for sharing. The way the analysts at NPCC have chosen to present the headline data is not massively helpful and needs a bit of explaining. Would have been great if they had....so let's have a go.

I think some are assuming the %age figure quoted relates to the TOTAL received in 12 months....it doesnt.

The table is saying, of the number received in the four month period being measured, they sorted a %age of THAT number.....

So for example, City of London received 3 applications in 4 months. They apparently, did finalise 3 in the period being assessed.........so they did achieve 100% according to NPCC metrics. They are also stating they RECEIVED 4 in 12 months - so 1 is still to be resolved.......

So, although 3 were completed and 3 were processed (and = 100%)......the one outstanding may actually have been received in the four months being assessed.....and the 4th application was from say 7 months ago....but was done in the assessment period.

Confusing eh? I get this after a career as a relatively senior copper being responsible for police performance......I understand how the police can present data to spin it for the best optics......

Bottom line is there are huge discrepancies in performance.........but at least does highlight areas of real concern.

My take would be 90% churn rate over each quarter should be the target........so maybe ask Dave Gardner what he feels is acceptable?

Between 75% and 90% is not good and between 75%-50% is unacceptable. And a special category for the Beds/Cambs/Herts collaboration. What a clusterf*ck....... Nothing against the men and women doing the thank less tasks in that joint team.....but the chief officer with responsibility for that department should be placed under the spotlight......

My force TVP (never my employer) is performing relatively well, and reflects my experiences with them. However, despite emails to the PCC I've had no response regarding the question on funding.....just more spin.

 

[Oracle]

Odd that Surrey and Sussex are listed separately, and also that Surrey have given assurances on funding whereas Sussex haven't.

It's my understanding that the two are now joined (even their email Addy is now surreysussex@)

With regard to funding, applicants apply to the Chief Officer in the area in which they reside, therefore, in the case of Surrey/Sussex application fees are only payable to the PCC/Chief Officer of that particular area.

 

[Webley]

Another suggestion for the table, firearms units that are merged together being grouped together. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire are one unit. They also have 1st, 2nd and 3rd highest temporary tickets. Their service had been fantastic previously. Variations turned around in under 5 working days level of service. Now the old FEOs are gone. You cannot phone them as the numbers have been removed. Emails take weeks to be responded to. Friends have been on temporary tickets for months.

 

[fixedwheel]

Another suggestion for the table, firearms units that are merged together being grouped together. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire are one unit. They also have 1st, 2nd and 3rd highest temporary tickets. Their service had been fantastic previously. Variations turned around in under 5 working days level of service. Now the old FEOs are gone. You cannot phone them as the numbers have been removed. Emails take weeks to be responded to. Friends have been on temporary tickets for months.

It is still the responsibility of each CC for their area though.

Sussex & Surrey FLDs operate together, but have two different Chief Constables, so I guess that is why they report separately.

 

[west_meon]

I suspect that the 4 months period is a rolling 4 months, and although they tell you how many 'Applications' they have received within a 12 month period, and how many they processed within that 4 months, they don't say whether the applications processed were the same ones as the applications received. West Mercia have a backlog goodness knows how long, and a wait time (according to their FLD) of 18 months to 2 years for an FAC, possibly a bit less for a SC. They are also prioritising renewals over new grants. So they may have received 6897 applications (renewals and new grant applications) in a 12 month period, and processed 3825 in a rolling 4 month period, but those 3825 could well be a mix of a very large proportion of renewals and a few grants from 2 years ago. The percentage given bears no resemblance to the wait time stated by the FLD.....

6897 is 30% of the total number of licenses (FAC & SGC) in West Mercia, so on a 5 year license life, that suggests that 4719 of the 6897 are renewals and 2181 are grants. I realise that some licenses may be given up so this is a bit broad-brush! We would need to know the breakdown of how many processed applications are renewals, how many are new grants and when the applications were submitted.

Also, if a rolling 4 months is being used, you can't multiply the number processed in 4 months by 3 to get an annual figure, as otherwise three quarters of the processed applications will be counted multiple times!

 

[finbar]

Dianne abbot doing the maths

 

[fixedwheel]

So, as @3595wilk & @west_meon point out, the figures are presented to suggest that the figures are linked, at a cursory glance, to show the FLDs in the best light.

It really needs to be condensed down to the most simple figure and set targets.

What percentage of grants, renewals, 1-4-1 variations, additional variations, are done in the target time from receipt.

I'd be thinking along the lines of 95% would leave enough room for the more complex ones, and maybe put it so 99% are completed in double the target timescales, and the PCC should be getting answers from the CC if those aren't met.

Now, as for sensible target times? Howsabout 16 weeks grant, 8 weeks renewal, 2 weeks 1-4-1, 4 weeks additions?

I'd suggest that those FLDs that are not already there should be able to achieve those targets within 12 months, with the aim of then halving those times within 3 years.

 

[Donkey Basher]

In January the policing minister stated that the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) firearms lead DCC David Gardner (Deputy Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police) was developing a new performance framework for firearms licensing teams to provide greater transparency on application turnaround times.

This was to include a performance target for forces to complete applications for the grant or renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates within four months, unless there were concerns about the suitability of the applicant.

In addition, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services would later this year be undertaking a thematic inspection of police forces’ arrangements in respect of firearms licensing.

The first performance table has been published and this shows wide disparity between forces.

https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/firearms-licensing-q4-headlines.pdf

View attachment 421099

Consider that against the following list of police forces in England and Wales that have given, or not given, assurances to BASC to back up a Home Office pledge that money raised by increasing firearms licensing fees would be ploughed back into firearms licensing.

The police forces that have provided assurances to BASC on the resourcing of firearms licensing departments are:

• Cheshire
• Cumbria
• Derbyshire
• Dorset
• Dyfed Powys
• Essex
• Gloucestershire
• Hampshire
• Kent
• Lancashire
• Norfolk
• Northumbria
• North Yorkshire
• Staffordshire
• Suffolk
• Surrey
• West Mercia

The police forces that have not yet provided assurances, or have not responded to BASC, are:

• Avon & Somerset
• Bedfordshire
• Cambridgeshire
• Cleveland
• Devon & Cornwall
• Durham
• Greater Manchester Police
• Gwent
• Hertfordshire
• Humberside
• Leicestershire
• Lincolnshire
• Merseyside
• Metropolitan Police Service
• Northamptonshire
• North Wales
• Nottinghamshire
• South Wales
• South Yorkshire
• Sussex
• Thames Valley Police
• Warwickshire
• West Midlands Police
• West Yorkshire
• Wiltshire

Silence on firearms licensing fees speaks volumes

The majority of forces in England and Wales have failed to confirm that fee increases will be used to fund firearms licensing departments.

basc.org.uk

@Conor O'Gorman

Could you please check/challenge these stats as published.

If I have read it correctly, the table shows that Hampshire, where I live & who took longer than 4 months to process my renewal in 2024, received 4739 applications & completed 3163 of these within 4 months.

However, it then states that they have completed 93% of applications within 4 months which based on the other two figures is incorrect!

For them to have processed 93% of the applications they received within 4 months the number would be 4407 not 3163.

The 3163 applications they processed in 4 months is actually only 67% of those received.

 

[fixedwheel]

If I have read it correctly, the table shows that Hampshire, where I live & who took longer than 4 months to process my renewal in 2024, received 4739 applications & completed 3163 of these within 4 months.

However, it then states that they have completed 93% of applications within 4 months which based on the other two figures is incorrect!

For them to have processed 93% of the applications they received within 4 months the number would be 4407 not 3163.

The 3163 applications they processed in 4 months is actually only 67% of those received.

Post #21 & #25 give a bit more flesh to the massaging of the figures!

 

[spanj]

One DVLA for vehicle licensing, multiple FLDs for firearms licensing rather tells its own tale. But not many people appear to be aware that when driving licences first came out that too was a job for the local police.

Please do not cite DVLA as a shining example, they really arent !

 

[Twodogs]

More smoke and mirrors.
Column 4, applications completed within 4 months. Nothing about when those completed applications were received.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

OK @Conor O'Gorman , whats next? How are we tackling this problem?

Through continued political pressure on the Home Office, continued discussions with PCCs, CCs and other routes.

 

[charlie222]

If we had crystal ball to look into, would it show us these failing forces saying thanks for the extra cash, but its not worked so we need some more? I think we can agree that table is either misleading or just wrong. I expect arse covering and nonsense from MP's, it's definitely not a good look for the police force.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Can I make an observation please @Conor O'Gorman
The use of temporary firearms permits issued as a metric of a failing constabulary is fundamentally flawed as some constabulary’s were refusing to issue temporary permits even when the certificates had lapsed. They were openly telling people to continue shooting even though their certificates had lapsed and were even suggesting that they got friends to buy (section 1) ammunition for them when certificates had lapsed. Were this to be followed both the lapsed certificate holder and the friend buying the ammunition would have been breaking the law!
If you PM me I can confirm which constabulary this was.

Thanks yes please get in touch on that and I will raise with relevant BASC regional firearms officer.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Have friends in Hants. that have been told recently that they are currently processing applications from Sept. '24,

If Hants. have received 4,739 applications, and processed 3,163 in under 4 months, I make that 66.74%, not 93% as stated in the table.

Even City of London lists 4 applications, and 3 processed in under 4 months, I make that 75%, not 100% as stated in the table.

Sussex is listed as having received 4,811 applications, and processed 1,995 in under 4 months, I make that 41.46%, not 71% as stated in the table.

Kent is listed as having received 5,001 applications, and processed 4,073 in under 4 months, I make that 81.44%, not 97% as stated in the table.

Kent, Hants. and Sussex have similar numbers of holders, (19,049 vs 19,654 vs 17,613) yet numbers actually processed within the 4 months target is quite different. (4,073 vs 3,163 vs 1,995)

Maybe BASC might ask how the NPCC are coming up with these figures?, and which spreadsheet program they are using?

Please note @Conor O'Gorman I am not having a pop at you, or at BASC, but I know BASC have been pushing for the figures, as without the figures it is impossible to hold the CCs feet to the fire.

Yes we are following up on that.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Conor O'Gorman - thanks for sharing. The way the analysts at NPCC have chosen to present the headline data is not massively helpful and needs a bit of explaining. Would have been great if they had....so let's have a go.

I think some are assuming the %age figure quoted relates to the TOTAL received in 12 months....it doesnt.

The table is saying, of the number received in the four month period being measured, they sorted a %age of THAT number.....

So for example, City of London received 3 applications in 4 months. They apparently, did finalise 3 in the period being assessed.........so they did achieve 100% according to NPCC metrics. They are also stating they RECEIVED 4 in 12 months - so 1 is still to be resolved.......

So, although 3 were completed and 3 were processed (and = 100%)......the one outstanding may actually have been received in the four months being assessed.....and the 4th application was from say 7 months ago....but was done in the assessment period.

Confusing eh? I get this after a career as a relatively senior copper being responsible for police performance......I understand how the police can present data to spin it for the best optics......

Bottom line is there are huge discrepancies in performance.........but at least does highlight areas of real concern.

My take would be 90% churn rate over each quarter should be the target........so maybe ask Dave Gardner what he feels is acceptable?

Between 75% and 90% is not good and between 75%-50% is unacceptable. And a special category for the Beds/Cambs/Herts collaboration. What a clusterf*ck....... Nothing against the men and women doing the thank less tasks in that joint team.....but the chief officer with responsibility for that department should be placed under the spotlight......

My force TVP (never my employer) is performing relatively well, and reflects my experiences with them. However, despite emails to the PCC I've had no response regarding the question on funding.....just more spin.

Thanks, my take is that this is the start of the reporting by quarter. It's already interesting as a snapshot but I would imagine the data and trends will become clearer from that intial report with each subsequent report.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Conor O'Gorman

Could you please check/challenge these stats as published.

If I have read it correctly, the table shows that Hampshire, where I live & who took longer than 4 months to process my renewal in 2024, received 4739 applications & completed 3163 of these within 4 months.

However, it then states that they have completed 93% of applications within 4 months which based on the other two figures is incorrect!

For them to have processed 93% of the applications they received within 4 months the number would be 4407 not 3163.

The 3163 applications they processed in 4 months is actually only 67% of those received.

Yes, we are following up on the details. One thing that could help is if you write to your PCC on the back of this to query your situation relative to the stats for Hampshire as a constituent.

 

[LE9219]

Shocked to see north wales pcc hasnt replied to the funding thing, i have nothing but praise for them personally, everytime ive dealt with them they have been brilliant

 

[VSS]

Shocked to see north wales pcc hasnt replied to the funding thing, i have nothing but praise for them personally, everytime ive dealt with them they have been brilliant

Same here.

 

[Greenmist]

I'm shocked Northumbria are so poor, other than post covid, I've had nothing but great service from them which leads me to my following question.
Might I ask @Conor O'Gorman as devils advocate, how many of the delays have been caused by certificate holders (incorrect fee, not completing forms correctly or fully, late applications etc)