New Fees - one for one variation?

[8x57]

The new fee for a variation will be £47, up from the current £20. At present a one for one variation is free (provided that the number of firearms does not increase).
Various press releases suggest that it will continue to be free for "like for like" variations. Some press releases say the new cost will be £47 for a "not like for like" variation.

Has there been a change in legislation or the guidance, if and when did they slip in "like for like"?
Also what is the actual legal definition of "like for like" if there has actually been a change in the legislation?

 

[andyk]

The answer should be that things stay the same.

s32(1) Firearms Act 1968 sets out the situations where a fee is payable. At sub-paragraph (c) it says:

“[a fee is payable] on any variation of a firearm certificate (otherwise than when it is renewed at the same time) so as to increase the number of firearms to which the certificate relates”

So, the ambiguity in the press releases ought to just be because they’ve used poor English/don’t really understand the subject matter.

Of course, some forces have historically taken the view that a 1:1 is for a like ‘class’ of cartridge only and some have also sought to place a time limit on how soon a 1:1 must be sought. Whether this leads them to place more focus on this will have to be seen.

 

[8x57]

That's exactly as I've always understood it to be andyk, but call me cynical if you like but I'm wondering if they are trying to slip something new in unnoticed.

 

[Lateral]

It seems like they have tightened up the "one for one" variation, where some FLD's would insist a rifle for a rifle, barrel for a barrel, mod for a mod, but others, would allow "one for anything", so a mod for a rifle, or barrel.

So common practise was to apply for a mod when applying for a rifle, or barrel, regardless, because it's considered a "firearm", and could be used as a "one for one".

Now, this would appear a mute point, IF they declassify moderators, which keeps getting mentioned. But as 8x57 says, it depends on the definition, will they allow a rifle for a rifle, or will it be calibre specific

And, I suspect it will vary form FLD to FLD, as everything does now

 

[andyk]

They can’t deny the principle of a 1:1 being free as it’s there in the Act.

The times I’ve heard (admittedly second hand) of this coming up is in relation to people who have waited a little from disposal of one firearm to apply to replace it. The FLD then says that, after a time set by them, the number of firearms to which their certificate relates has fallen, so the ‘1:1’ is actually an application to increase the number and attracts a fee.

It’s a superficially attractive argument but falls down when you consider that, absent some provision in the Act, the number of firearms would have to fall at the moment of disposal/sale were that to occur. Given that would render the above position in s32(1)(c) redundant, as it’s not possible to replace at the time of disposal, the only remaining position is that a disposal does not reduce the number of firearms on a certificate for the purposes of s32 (at least until renewal, if the ‘slot’ isn’t reapplied for).

I can’t comprehend how a FLD could reconcile a policy of saying that a 1:1 can only be for the same cartridge, or similar, with s32. If they accept the number isn’t increasing, then they can’t charge.

 

[Greenmist]

And yet, if moderators were removed form licensing and 1-1 (like for like only) were done as you can with sect 2, firearms depts won't be the shambles they currently are

 

[hendrix's rifle]

It seems like they have tightened up the "one for one" variation, where some FLD's would insist a rifle for a rifle, barrel for a barrel, mod for a mod, but others, would allow "one for anything", so a mod for a rifle, or barrel.

So common practise was to apply for a mod when applying for a rifle, or barrel, regardless, because it's considered a "firearm", and could be used as a "one for one".

Now, this would appear a mute point, IF they declassify moderators, which keeps getting mentioned. But as 8x57 says, it depends on the definition, will they allow a rifle for a rifle, or will it be calibre specific

And, I suspect it will vary form FLD to FLD, as everything does now

It should be slot for slot, irrespective what it is

 

[gixer1]

I’m having to put in a variation due to my son getting his FAC and not being able to purchase a firearm, so I have to on his behalf and so need to add 6 slots to my FAC, which is essentially money for nothing - I’ve sent a mail to the FEO today to ask him to respond asap as I would rather avoid the 135% increase in the fee for something that is no benefit to me.

 

[cjm1066]

The Home Office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law - December 2021 lists for "Deer and other large quarry" lists (.243, 6mm/.244, .25-06, 6.5mm x 55/ .256, 257 Weatherby, .264, .270, 7mm/.275, .284, .30-06, .303, 7.62mm x
51/.308, .444 Marlin, .45-70.

The list is a good start and who apart from SD members is concerned if you have a Blaser or Tikka, a 243 or a 45-70, the law should be amended so we don't need police consent for a variations within a class that can be done electronically at the RFD.

 

[Dickie]

The Home Office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law - December 2021 lists for "Deer and other large quarry" lists (.243, 6mm/.244, .25-06, 6.5mm x 55/ .256, 257 Weatherby, .264, .270, 7mm/.275, .284, .30-06, .303, 7.62mm x
51/.308, .444 Marlin, .45-70.

The list is a good start and who apart from SD members is concerned if you have a Blaser or Tikka, a 243 or a 45-70, the law should be amended so we don't need police consent for a variations within a class that can be done electronically at the RFD.

That list in the Guide is the home office playing god and creating restrictions, the deer act has minimums, calibres, bullet weight and MV if its within those parameters then it should be good, you can't make anything deader than dead no matter what you legally shoot it with.

 

[25 Sharps]

And yet, if moderators were removed form licensing and 1-1 (like for like only) were done as you can with sect 2, firearms depts won't be the shambles they currently are

I suspect taking moderators off would not make a jot of difference.

 

[Greenmist]

Perhaps, but its one less line on an application and no need for a variation (if done by the letter) if exchanged or sold, so less paperwork