GP fees for releasing medical information

[Highlandsjohn]

John, much as I don’t agree with paying the GP’s extortionate fee, I have been told by three police officers that’s it’s the only way I can proceed. It now appears to be TVP policy that if they hear nothing back from the GP they will not progress the application, so the 21 day rule seems to no longer apply in my area. The BASC told me to ignore the GP letter, but I’m certain that will merely result in the Police halting the application, so that approach no longer works under TVP. Different forces have different approaches, as do different GPs. The Home Office Guidelines would appear to be just that, guidelines, and very much open to interpretation. What I have read on this thread very much mirrors the other thread about TVP on this forum. I know TVP are receiving many calls from applicants about the GP fees. Their position is consistent in that they state this is a matter between the applicant and the GP and nothhing to do with them, adding that no letter equals no licence, or even the possibility of one.

Hello Dom, I know exactly where you're coming from, I too paid my(£20) here in Scotland. Police Scotland were the first to apply the No tick box no FAC.
So my post in no way reflects or criticizes anything you have done. On the contrary, exactly the opposite. My criticism goes to the orgs for allowing this debacle to unfold.
As paying members we have been left as individuals to be picked off one at a time,instead of them taking it to them as our representatives, is that not what we pay them for among other things,representation.?
Good luck to both you and your lad,he is the future,a 'Young shot'. john

 

[Farmer_J]

I’m awaiting a letter from my docs anytime now asking for payment, I enquired with my practice and was informed it is £100 for a firearms/sgc medical report.

What I would like to know is the guys who have held FAC/SGC coming up to a decade or more have they had to pay a fee in the Thames valley for a report? My father has held his certs for over 40 yrs recently renewing last year and did not have to pay a fee.

 

[Fdt]

I just spoke to the secretary at my practice. The fee does relate to the generic response that she said the practice hold themselves. The fee range for my practice is £90-£120 for a first application and £65 for a renewal. The secretary said that the practice had consulted with the LMC and that the fees were made in agreement with the Police. This contradicts what three Police officers have told me; they clearly said that the fees are a matter between the applicant and his or her practice and that they have no involvement with this side of things. The secretary also said that the production of the (generic) letter to be sent to the Police constitutes private work (not NHS) and therefore attracts a fee. It seems if you’re under TVP, you must pay, even for the initial response and even if no further medical investigation is warranted.

I'd be inclined to get that in writing if you're going to take it further or pass it on; moreover find out who stated the fee range. I've found in the past asking for things in writing gives people the fear and may focus their thoughts that it's not the end of the matter. Just a thought.


What's really needed is BASC/CA/SACS/NGO to sit with with ACPO and the GMC/BMA and produce some recognised guidelines.

 

[kes]

I'd be inclined to get that in writing if you're going to take it further or pass it on; moreover find out who stated the fee range. I've found in the past asking for things in writing gives people the fear and may focus their thoughts that it's not the end of the matter. Just a thought.


What's really needed is BASC/CA/SACS/NGO to sit with with ACPO and the GMC/BMA and produce some recognised guidelines.

This now verges on Blackmail with sanctioned police approval, - I'm not saying anything about our representation but what else do they need?

 

[Orion]

I just spoke to the secretary at my practice. The fee does relate to the generic response that she said the practice hold themselves. The fee range for my practice is £90-£120 for a first application and £65 for a renewal. The secretary said that the practice had consulted with the LMC and that the fees were made in agreement with the Police. This contradicts what three Police officers have told me; they clearly said that the fees are a matter between the applicant and his or her practice and that they have no involvement with this side of things. The secretary also said that the production of the (generic) letter to be sent to the Police constitutes private work (not NHS) and therefore attracts a fee. It seems if you’re under TVP, you must pay, even for the initial response and even if no further medical investigation is warranted.

I'd be inclined to get that in writing if you're going to take it further or pass it on; moreover find out who stated the fee range. I've found in the past asking for things in writing gives people the fear and may focus their thoughts that it's not the end of the matter. Just a thought.

Agree with this 100%. Dom, not just for your son but for anyone else in a similar situation this information would be very helpful. It may well be that the practice may reconsider when asked to produce the goods. There is nothing showing on the LMC website in relation to firearms that indicates a fee has been set so well worth a challenge - see this and the related guidance and emails linked from it.

What's really needed is BASC/CA/SACS/NGO to sit with with ACPO and the GMC/BMA and produce some recognised guidelines.

Waste of time for the first mentioned given the the previous debacle. There was no interest from the Home Office to revisit the scene of the crime and sweet FA was the order of the day, until Lord Shrewsbury backed the HO into a corner by tabling an amendment to the Offensive Weapons Bill on firearms licensing guidance. No prizes for guessing where the impetus for that came from. BTW. it's the NPCC now that ACPO was effectively shut down at the end of 2014 following the independent review led by Sir Nick Parker.

 

[Fdt]

Waste of time for the first mentioned given the the previous debacle. There was no interest from the Home Office to revisit the scene of the crime and sweet FA was the order of the day, until Lord Shrewsbury backed the HO into a corner by tabling an amendment to the Offensive Weapons Bill on firearms licensing guidance. No prizes for guessing where the impetus for that came from. BTW. it's the NPCC now that ACPO was effectively shut down at the end of 2014 following the independent review led by Sir Nick Parker.

Good links!! Makes me glad I back the CA horse (back in the 90s/00s when BASC weren't supportive of the Hunting Act(s)). I really am behind the times on my T/FLAs though!

Without opening a political can of worms; there is such a limit on parliamentary time at the moment and has been for a couple of years.

 

[Orion]

Without opening a political can of worms; there is such a limit on parliamentary time at the moment and has been for a couple of years.

This is the current problem with Brexit dominating the time available. However you can bet your bottom dollar that the CA will not let it go away.

BTW. for those that missed it there is AFAIK a still valid special 30% saving on Direct Debit payments with the voucher code FIREARMSDD if you sign up. Probably other offers as well.

 

[CharlieT]

This is the current problem with Brexit dominating the time available. However you can bet your bottom dollar that the CA will not let it go away.

BTW. for those that missed it there is AFAIK a still valid special 30% saving on Direct Debit payments with the voucher code FIREARMSDD if you sign up. Probably other offers as well.

A little more info from the latest Govt. briefing paper on the subject http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8521/CBP-8521.pdf

 

[Orion]

A little more info from the latest Govt. briefing paper on the subject http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8521/CBP-8521.pdf

Excellent.

Here we go again!

"In the UK gun ownership is a privilege not a right" And they've simply referenced that to the statement at 1.2 of the HOG 2016.

Deffo some backpedaling and a*rse covering in there!

"There is also agreement between the BMA and Home Office that the charging of a fee may be appropriate for the initial general report but no agreement has been reached regarding the funding of this."

A total reversal from 'no expectation of a fee' originally agreed then!

 

[Highlandsjohn]

They all speak in forked tongue...john

 

[Miki]

A little more info from the latest Govt. briefing paper on the subject http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8521/CBP-8521.pdf

With BASC (and others) supporting the 'tick form' and involvement of Doctors Surgeries the information is not surprising. What is worrying (IMO) is section 2.2 Licensing Fees, in particular the last paragraph "In April 2018 the Government said it was reviewing the fees to assess any changes in police cost and ensure that the system continues to achieve full cost recovery for the police and Home Office."

 

[CharlieT]

With BASC (and others) supporting the 'tick form' and involvement of Doctors Surgeries the information is not surprising. What is worrying (IMO) is section 2.2 Licensing Fees, in particular the last paragraph "In April 2018 the Government said it was reviewing the fees to assess any changes in police cost and ensure that the system continues to achieve full cost recovery for the police and Home Office."

Exactly what I thought. I know the police have been pushing for it for some years, but to see it stated in black and white rather makes it a fait accompli.

 

[gonzo]

Cost recovery is fine. It should rightly be recovered from those who benefit.
But, it is not shooters, we would have a much easier time of it if the whole system were abolished. It's the public who benefit from the licencing system.

 

[Orion]

Exactly what I thought. I know the police have been pushing for it for some years, but to see it stated in black and white rather makes it a fait accompli.

But isn’t it dependent on the implementation of eCommerce as mentioned earlier in that section, and also amplified in the (largely critical) HMIC report ‘Targeting the Risk’?

That until the licensing process is proven to be efficient and effective, they can’t expect full cost recovery.

 

[CharlieT]

But isn’t it dependent on the implementation of eCommerce as mentioned earlier in that section, and also amplified in the (largely critical) HMIC report ‘Targeting the Risk’?

That until the licensing process is proven to be efficient and effective, they can’t expect full cost recovery.

That is so and what our shooting organisations have always stressed.

However, CC's seem to take a more robust view, irrespective of theoretical future e-commerce cost savings.......... (I should point out that this is from a 2017 document)

5 Fees / Home Office Update
GW gave update in relation to fees – Section 5 – Preliminary meeting with shooting organisations to discuss S5 fees, and differentiate fee depending on size of dealers.
Fees for certificates – proposal to ministers is that there should not be an increase in fees this year.
DO has spoken to NPCC colleagues – there is reducing tolerance from many Chief’s in relation to the total cost to policing of licensing provision versus what is recouped from the fees.
DO was clear he did not want to waste police time to attend multiple working groups if there was no ministerial appetite for full cost recovery, as anything other than this figure would be arbitrary. As such DO requests the fee is either not touched, is inflation linked, or there is full cost recovery – the emphasis being on full – everything that it costs policing to provide the licensing function. Clearly the police position is that we would want full recovery, though this is now a matter for the Home Office.
DO has no problem in mobilising staff to provide robust accurate data, but this must be predicated on an appetite to recover costs in full, not a bench mark to begin a negotiation / auction scenario, which has what has happened in the past. DC made the observation about statutory guidance, and that if Chief Officers were to follow that guidance, it would require significant investment, which may cause tensions between Chief Officers and the Home Officers. DO acknowledged this, and also added that PCC’s may well have strong views on this matter.

 

[kes]

Interesting statement (presumably from NPCC - we must not forget that Teresa May abolished the ACPO, only for it to reappear virtually the next day).
NPCC is a lobbying organisation - any thoughts that it may be related to spreading best practice was lost years ago. Police Chief challenge parliamentary authority on a regular basis. Its high time there was a review of the service.

Given the cost to issue licences why are the police suggesting there is 'reducing tolerance' that sort of statement more befits autocracies than public servants. Time we stopped being in 'thrall' of our police service and demoted a lot of chief constables now we have PCC's.
If one presumes Brexit was negotiated by the best we have in the 'mandarin shed' then it need a hard prime minister to challenge the police view of themselves.

I would also add that a police state would only be a possibility with NPCC, without it, there is no real 'collective power', much better for all citizens I feel.

 

[EMcC]

Nothing to do with Firearms but still a document from my GP.
I have a pre-printed form that requires two boxes filling in with dates and a signature and surgery stamp, needed to claim a refund for a flight I have been told I will not be fit to use after Surgery and Chemo.
I was asked for £25 but queried it.
A few days later I received a letter from my GP's administrator asking for £30, the extra £5 was for the letter telling me I had to pay it as it was deemed a 'Non NHS Service'
Got me over a barrel really.
I did ask if I could claim mileage and time for an appointment they sent me to in February at their Surgery in the next village some six miles away when my regular GP/Surgery is only 50 yards form my house.
Only to be told that as there was nothing on his screen to indicate why I had been sent for so it must have been a mistake and the GP apologised for wasting my time .
They are now saying it was for a check-up on medication given me in January and still insist that I must pay the £30.00 !!

 

[CarlW]

Nothing to do with Firearms but still a document from my GP.
I have a pre-printed form that requires two boxes filling in with dates and a signature and surgery stamp, needed to claim a refund for a flight I have been told I will not be fit to use after Surgery and Chemo.
I was asked for £25 but queried it.
A few days later I received a letter from my GP's administrator asking for £30, the extra £5 was for the letter telling me I had to pay it as it was deemed a 'Non NHS Service'
Got me over a barrel really.
I did ask if I could claim mileage and time for an appointment they sent me to in February at their Surgery in the next village some six miles away when my regular GP/Surgery is only 50 yards form my house.
Only to be told that as there was nothing on his screen to indicate why I had been sent for so it must have been a mistake and the GP apologised for wasting my time .
They are now saying it was for a check-up on medication given me in January and still insist that I must pay the £30.00 !!

I love that they added a fiver onto the bill to teach you a lesson...

 

[Orion]

I love that they added a fiver onto the bill to teach you a lesson...

I’d pay them the fiver but invoice them £10 for my subsequent letter querying the bill (and inform them that any further correspondence would be at the same rate).

 

[EMcC]

I have written them another letter querying the charge and the fact he used a letter in the first place as I live less than 50 yards from the local surgery and that I called in most days to see what the latest was