Police delay

[Apthorpe]

It's ok, I'm sure they answer the phone and don't just fob you off with a voicemail telling you to email...

The erosion of all public services is shocking.

And they get away with it because people actively condone it by accepting their bogus excuses for it - lack of funding, politicians' fault, simply unreasonable to expect them to do their job/turn up for work etc. See below.

I don't necessarily blame the firearms departments as they're victims of their funding.

No they aren't. They are fully funded and research has proven that many departments are grotesquely inefficient. And they have stitched up applicants by officially extending their target time service standard by 100%. Who else is responsible?

Public schools are basically run on the goodwill of the staff at this point, with a huge percentage projecting deficit.

We need to scrap private contractor usage in the public sector. Bring every contract in house. I bet you'd see huge savings

I bet you wouldn't, or that you would see very significant declines in service. Apart from anything else, the private contractor route sees more tax recycled back.

 

[Jeff8861]

Having worked in a fld for some years and being a certificate holder I have seen both sides of this awful process. What our basc rep Connor commented on has been the procedure for a while. They may have tweaked a bit of the wording. The use of section 7 shot through the roof during and after covid. What were fld meant to do this was the only way to keep the system ticking over. Then combine this with ever increasing reporting of certificate holders not acting appropriately and the subsequent police investigation. Some fld are blessed with having a dedicated police office who can deal with minor instances and minor breaches. Unfortunately the majority of fld dont have a dedicated officer. This means minor and serious incidents involving cert holders will have to be out sourced to a non fld officer. This in itself takes a long time as response cops will priorities their workload. So these matters will take months or years. Due to these pending investigation the fld cant progress till the investigation in finalised.
Another point is that police forces dont see the fld as a priority safeguarding mash teams operations detectives response neighbourhood rape teams traffic arv are priority. So why would the cc dedicate resources from these to prop up fld. Some forces do but the majority dont. Staffing retainment and training are also factors. The amount of errors by cert holders whilst submitting thier grants renewals is a problem. Minor issues need an email a call a visit all take time. Then the issues around medical reports and the over cellous reporting by medical staff informing the fld of none related medical concerns. Combine all this and its a perfect storm. So unfortunately alot of fld staff are dealing with other issues and are falling behind completing the bread and butter workload. We are now some years on since covid and for me fld should not be in this position. Cc are aware of the delays and they can implement procedures however as mentioned they dont want to. So if you need to complain send youre complaint directly to the cc or pcc. Sending it to the fld only takes up more of their time.
in regards to having to put your guns in storage. If you follow the procedures and submit your application in a timely fashion you are entitled to the the extention. Again if its not sorted you are entitled to the temp permit. What's strange is that if you receive the section 7 why not just issue the full cert the workload are virtually the same. You shouldn't be paying for storage you have paid enough already.
Anyone require help assistance relating to licensing drop me a dm.

 

[Jeff8861]

This thread ties in with the other one on the go here in 'Legal Issues' which is referring to a friend & 3rd party. As the OP's issue on that might be hypothetical I don't care to answer it, apart from saying that the ground rules changed in August last year.
The police can no longer issue a Section 7 Temporary Permit at will. If the 8-week S.28 extension elapses without a renewed FAC or SGC, they can now legally insist that firearms/shotguns are lodged with an RFD (6.7 - 6.10 need to be read as a whole).

FIREARMS LICENSING: Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police – 2025 issue

Limited automatic extension of certificates

6.4 The chief officer should normally make a decision on an application for renewal before the expiry of the certificate or registration, provided that the application has been made at least 8 weeks before the date of the expiry of the certificate. In the case of firearms and shotguns, where an application for renewal has been made at least 8 weeks before the date of the expiry of the certificate, and the police have not been able to make a decision on the application by the date of expiry, a limited extension of the certificate automatically comes into effect.

The extension begins from the original expiry date of the certificate for a period of 8 weeks or until the police decide the application, whichever occurs first. This extension period allows the police a further period in which to decide the application. This is a statutory extension provided by section 28B of the Firearms Act 1968 and is intended to provide a safety net for applicants in exceptional circumstances where the police are unable to process and decide a case before the original expiry date of the applicant’s certificate. During this period of extension the applicant will remain entitled to possess, purchase and acquire firearms and ammunition as per the conditions of the original certificate. Chief officers should facilitate this extended entitlement by ensuring that the applicant is provided with a letter or other clear evidence that the certificate benefits from the automatic statutory extension. (A suitable letter is provided on the National Firearms Licensing Management System (or SHOGUN in Scotland)).

6.5 The chief officer must always endeavour to make a timely decision on an application that benefits from the extended 8 week period before expiry of the extension period. A failure to do so will leave the applicant without a lawful basis for the possession of their firearms or shotguns and associated ammunition. Should such circumstances arise, the police should work with the applicant to make the necessary arrangements for the safe, legal storage of their property until such time as the application is decided, or the police may consider the issue of a temporary permit, issued in accordance with section 7 of the Firearms Act 1968 (see below).

Section 7 police permit

6.6 Section 7 of the Firearms Act 1968 allows chief officers to issue a temporary permit to allow for the lawful possession of a firearm and ammunition in accordance with the terms that are set out in the permit. These permits may be used to allow a certificate holder to continue to possess their firearms and ammunition where their certificate is about to expire and an application for renewal has been received. This can apply to circumstances both where an application has been received more or less than 8 weeks before expiry. These permits should not be used routinely to benefit applicants who do not submit timely renewal applications e.g. less than 8 weeks, unless in exceptional circumstances. Temporary permits should not be issued to those who are uncooperative with the police while consideration is being given to their application.

6.7 The police must be satisfied that the issue of a section 7 police permit does not give rise to any public safety risk, which can normally only be determined after full consideration of their renewal application. Therefore, section 7 permits issued to provide more time to consider a renewal application should only be on an exceptional basis and where unavoidable.
Police are encouraged prior to issuing the temporary permit to check if there are other options, for example in cases of bereavement of a certificate holder, whether they go to another licence holder or RFD. Where required, temporary permits should be supplied with an end date no longer than is reasonable to cover the expected period of processing and should not be issued if no renewal application has been received.

6.8 Chief officers should also avoid routinely using temporary permits as a means of managing licensing caseloads within their force.

6.9 Chief Officers should ensure that their firearms licensing departments are sufficiently resourced to enable effective processing of applications, to avoid the need to rely routinely on the use of section 7 permits.

6.10 While it is the case that some police forces have made significant use of section 7 permits in the past to help manage certificate renewal backlogs with large numbers of people subject to these permits, this practice must now be avoided as it conflicts with the principle of maintaining efficient and effective licensing arrangements.

6.11 Certificate holders must not be asked to rely on an expired certificate or registration. It is unlawful for them to do so.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68de5436ef1c2f72bc1e4d12/Statutory+Guidance+_August+2025_+1.pdf

This is what is required as soon as they dont agree to the section 7.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to formally challenge the decision (or stated position) that a Section 7 authority cannot be issued due to firearms licensing backlog, and that I must instead lodge my firearms elsewhere.

Background I submitted my renewal application within the statutory renewal period, prior to the expiry of my firearm certificate. I was subsequently granted an 8-week extension by the Constabulary. Despite full compliance on my part, my renewal has not been determined due solely to licensing backlog and administrative delay. I have now been informed that a Section 7 authority will not be issued for this reason and that I must lodge my firearms with a third party.

At no point has any issue been raised regarding my suitability, security arrangements, or public safety.

Legal and procedural position

The position communicated to me is not supported by law or guidance.

A Section 7 authority exists specifically to prevent lawful certificate holders from being unfairly prejudiced where continued possession becomes unlawful through no fault of their own, including where delay is attributable to the police.

Backlog or resourcing issues do not amount to a lawful basis to refuse consideration of a Section 7 authority. To do so constitutes:

Unlawful fettering of discretion Procedural unfairness Irrational decision-making A failure to have proper regard to Home Office Firearms Guidance

Further, a public authority must not benefit from its own delay. Refusing a Section 7 authority on the basis of police backlog, while simultaneously relying on that backlog as the cause of the problem, is internally inconsistent and legally vulnerable.

Disproportionality of forced lodging

Requiring me to lodge my firearms elsewhere is:

Disproportionate where secure storage already exists An unnecessary interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions Potentially costly and prejudicial Entirely avoidable through the lawful use of Section 7 authority

This approach appears driven by administrative convenience rather than lawful necessity.

What I am requesting

I formally request that firearms licensing:

Reconsider my application for a Section 7 authority on its individual merits, without reliance on backlog as a reason for refusal

 

[Greenmist]

So why would the cc dedicate resources from these to prop up fld.

1. Because we're paying for the service
2. Allegedly its essential for public safety so should be prioritsed
3. To my knowledge not a single CC has suggested making the system more efficient

 

[Jeff8861]

1. Because we're paying for the service
2. Allegedly its essential for public safety so should be prioritsed
3. To my knowledge not a single CC has suggested making the system more efficient

I agree to an extent. However playing devil's advocate. The cc is up in front of the policing board and he is asking for more funds. He wants an extra 2 million why is thst cc we have a backlog in our fld. Board you have failed to meet our neighbourhood targets our safeguarding targets burglary is up theft is up. So youre 2 million for fld yes but use it on the priorities.
1. Yes you are paying for it so you expect a level of service. As with other buisness you can call on acts legislation to seek to resolve issues you cant with the police. However as with buisness leaving poor feedback or negative google review can sometimes work. Do this with the police.
2. Public safety is a smoke screen, it only comes up when there firearm offences resulting in fatalties. During covid checks and inspections were removed or delayed. Some forces carried out safety inspections however again the home changed the goal posts. Damming coroners verdict after Plymouth and only too rite. A poor decision made by an feo and flm and folk are murdered. All responsible cert holders will be negativity effected by this.
3.Felwg debated removal of moderators
years ago and more recently. Variations and one for one were also discussed. Feo training to be increased and standardrised. All with the view of making fld more efficient. Unfortunately we have seen none of this. What we have seen is a massive increase in the cost of grants renewals rfd etc. It's looking like section 2 is going to be overhauled. So you are right there is no desire from cc to improve fld. More like the opposite, raise the cost add extra scrutiny add more delays add more beaucuracy. All with the view of hacking people off hoping they just had in the certificate. Fld are a burden and a hassle to the police service and an easy target for cuts.

 

[carlhanson69]

I remember in 1985 a variation with the police was within a week!

 

[Klenchblaize]

"The amount of errors by cert holders whilst submitting their grants renewals is a problem ...."

I'd be interested to know what these "errors" look like but suggest they most likely arise from certain sections of the on-line form that do not allow for Applicants to easily expand upon what they are asking for.

Upon my last renewal I distinctly recall being most surprised there was no defined section requesting landowner permission details or allied facility to upload in-date PDF letter/s of authority to shoot etc. If memory serves me correctly it was only when reaching the point of payment that an opportunity arose to attach supporting documentation to an email, that may or may not have found its way to the person dealing with the renewal!

Then there is the issue of those performing back of office duties such as pulling together the final wording of a Certificate but oft' with little real understanding of what they are looking at. I know this to be the case as my last FEO's parting words were "do not hesitate to return the Certificate if the wording is not as we agreed". It wasn't, just as he had predicted!

K