FAO BASC - Medical reports

[bedwards1966]

He has not said whether BASC will fully support a member through the entire appeals process - i.e to the conclusion of a Court case. He appears to have done everything to avoid answering that particular question.

 

But if you're happy with his promise to deal with the problem that you will have in the future on a case by case basis, then I'm happy for you.

Do you know how much it would cost if you end having to fund it yourself?

[grrclark]

At the end of his last message he clearly says that BASC have the opportunity and resources to take matters to court, should they not be resolved by other means.

[bedwards1966]

With the membership fees generated by around 135 000 members there is no question that they have the resources, so why will they not say that they will do it if they need to rather than they can do it if they want to?

[drut]

He has not said whether BASC will fully support a member through the entire appeals process - i.e to the conclusion of a Court case. He appears to have done everything to avoid answering that particular question.

 

But if you're happy with his promise to deal with the problem that you will have in the future on a case by case basis, then I'm happy for you.

Do you know how much it would cost if you end having to fund it yourself?

Yes & Yes

1 : I do not expect full support without full facts:i.e. "case by case"

2 Yes I do realise I would be investing many thousands in a crown court appeal.

[grrclark]

I don't think they can make a blanket promise, some cases would not be worth taking to court as it is a hopeless cause, that is why the case by case basis.

 

They owe all their members a duty of care, if they made a promise that every refusal would be pursued through the courts it would be irresponsible.

 

How many would be on here whinging that BASC are squandering their membership by pursuing obvious lost cause court cases.

 

I think David has been as clear as anyone can be on a generalised topic, they do have resources to go to court if necessary, however that decision would be considered based on it's individual merits.

[drut]

"I think David has been as clear as anyone can be on a generalised topic, they do have resources to go to court if necessary, however that decision would be considered based on it's individual merits."

 

That has put my take of facts exactly into words!

[bedwards1966]

 

Yes & Yes

1 : I do not expect full support without full facts:i.e. "case by case"

2 Yes I do realise I would be investing many thousands in a crown court appeal.

 

 

No, you would not be investing many thousands. You would be spending many thousands as you cannot get your costs back without proving the police actions to be malicious, which is close to impossible.

 

I don't think they can make a blanket promise, some cases would not be worth taking to court as it is a hopeless cause, that is why the case by case basis.

 

They owe all their members a duty of care, if they made a promise that every refusal would be pursued through the courts it would be irresponsible.

 

How many would be on here whinging that BASC are squandering their membership by pursuing obvious lost cause court cases.

 

I think David has been as clear as anyone can be on a generalised topic, they do have resources to go to court if necessary, however that decision would be considered based on it's individual merits.

 

How can they not make a blanket promise when they give a blanket piece of advice? This question is not about fully supporting any refusal or revocation, but about a refusal that results from following their advice.

[drut]

"No, you would not be investing many thousands. You would be spending many thousands as you cannot get your costs back without proving the police actions to be malicious, which is close to impossible."

 

Investments show a return i.e.continued shooting,costs are a different matter! If you wish to be pedantic!

 

 

"How can they not make a blanket promise when they give a blanket piece of advice? This question is not about fully supporting any refusal or revocation, but about a refusal that results from following their advice."

 

"A member contacts us

We ask what the problem is and give the advice as what to do next, if its something they can do

Seccondy - assuming no progress had been made and the licencing team are still being awkward we either

Call them and try to sort it out or

Send in the local Regional officer with the member to try and sort it out face to face

Thirdly, if the police refuse to grant or renew we have the option to take them to court"

 

Did not see the blanket promise in that! I read it that "we have the option to take them to court" IF they have a GOOD CASE but maybe I am seeing things too simply.

[grrclark]

 

 

How can they not make a blanket promise when they give a blanket piece of advice? This question is not about fully supporting any refusal or revocation, but about a refusal that results from following their advice.

As yet there has been nobody refused either the grant or renewal of a certificate based on following the BASC advice not to comply with Durham's request. At least nobody so far that has been made known to this thread.

 

What is there to say the hypothetical refusal is based solely on that?

 

There may be other genuine reasons for the refusal, so a promise from BASC to fully support would be disingenuous as on further inspection they may deem it be a hopeless case.

 

David has said numerous times if there is a refusal to grant or renew then BASC would consider that on a case by case basis, that is all they can say.

 

Nobody in their right mind would issue a promise without knowing the full facts specific to the individual, that would be nuts.

 

I would imagine BASC would love a cast iron refusal based entirely on not complying with Durham's additional request as this would give them a brilliant reason to create a legal precedent in fighting and winning in court, however I suspect the Police lawyers would advocate a climb down to precisely avoid that.

[Kes]

The process by which the public is protected by an individual exercising his right to own and use a shotgun is the Chief Constables Interpretation of HO Guidance, he has the discretion to add hoops, as long as no-one objects. Most shooting people dont want to antagonise their FEO's/Chief Con so individually we can do little.

 

It cannot be denied however that recently there is a marked change to a 'common interpretation' of HO guidance by police forces and a reduction in the regional variations in what may or may not be granted particularly for Section1 Firearms.

I believe BASC played an important role in that, possibly pushing at a door which was opening. The medical forms issue is also potentially related to Certificate fees and BASC will (or should) be arguing for a status quo on disclosure and payment. This will come out in the wash, of that I have no doubt but can anyone seriously see BASC not supporting a member on the straightforward single issue of being FORCED to provide a separate medical statement at their personal cost?

Membership would plummet if the person concerned made the details of any such lack of support known on public fora and I, for one, would contribute to his defence my subsequent years BASC membership fee.

[rogcal]

I had it made quite clear to me during a recent telephone conversation with a member of the G4S staff working in the Lincolnshire Firearms Department that they would continue to request applicants provide medical references from their GP at their cost if one was required.

 

I asked why the deviation from Home Office guidelines and was told "they were taking the lead from other forces that are already doing it and they (Lincs Police) would continue to do so until it is tested in a court of law".

 

With many tens of thousands of shooters being represented by several shooting organisations in England, surely it makes sense for those organisations to jointly fund the expense of taking a test case to court and by doing so send a message out to those police forces who seem intent in ignoring HO "rules".

Edited May 12, 2014 by rogcal

[bedwards1966]

You would think so. Or rather, instead of a joint agreement I'd have thought they'd all be desperate to do it all themselves and make a big show of being the ones to be supporting shooting.

 

BASC have not said that they will take a case to Court if a certificate is refused because an applicant does not supply a medical report. I'm not asking about 'complicating or aggravating factors', I'm asking what support will be provided to members who follow their advice and end up faced with either never having a certificate or fighting in Court without help.

 

It might not have happened yet but there is a strong chance that it will happen if somebody says no, but how many will be prepared to stand their ground without knowing that BASC are stood there ready to help? It's hard to think that BASC are actually prepared to do anything when they won't say that they will, and how many can have several thousand pounds at stake with nothing but a faint hope that BASC will actually do something?

[drut]

As an aside according to varying press reports between 33% & 50% of Durham force's trial "extra requests"were not complied with.Personally I have not heard of anybody suffering any consequences for refusing but do we have anyone on the forum with any direct knowledge?

[derfley]

With many tens of thousands of shooters being represented by several shooting organisations in England, surely it makes sense for those organisations to jointly fund the expense of taking a test case to court and by doing so send a message out to those police forces who seem intent in ignoring HO "rules".

 

Now I thought this is what the "new" legal expenses cover that BASC members get would be used for?

 

To quote the BASC website;

 

Legal expenses insurance

Arranged by Aim Risk Services

£100,000 of cover for:

Refusal to grant or renew a shotgun or firearm certificate Revocation or refusal to vary a firearms certificate

Partial revocation of a firearms certificate

Revocation of a shotgun certificate

Conditions imposed on a firearm or shotgun certificate

 

Now I'm sure that any legal case that get passed to the insurers would not be zero cost for BASC, but I would guess it would be significantly less than bearing the full costs of the case.

 

A quick question for David, and I know you cannot go into specifics about this but, has anyone made use of this new insurance yet, and are they qualifying criteria that the underwriters set based on likelihood of success?

[Kes]

I would suggest, like other policies, there is a case assessment if its not judged to be more than 50/50 winnable, it wont be funded. My own household legal cover has the same caveat and they set their threshold for taking up a case as in excess of 75% of winning !

[derfley]

I would suggest, like other policies, there is a case assessment if its not judged to be more than 50/50 winnable, it wont be funded. My own household legal cover has the same caveat and they set their threshold for taking up a case as in excess of 75% of winning !

 

Yup, just had a read of the policy document on the BASC site the exemptions are actually very sensible on the most part, it falls under the General exclusions but it not specified as a percentage;

 

 

• * Any claims where you do not have reasonable prospects of success in your legal case.

• * Any costs incurred before we have consented to those costs being incurred

• * Defence of civil legal proceedings arising from injury, loss/destruction of property, breach of professional duty or

  tortious liability

• * ownership or possession of Prohibited

  Weapons

 

 

 

Linky

 

<edited to add link to policy>

Edited May 12, 2014 by derfley

[GHE]

I seem to be in a small minority here, perhaps that's because

1. Other people have no actual experience of the level of 'support' actually provided by BASC

2. Other people have no actual experience of the devious, lying ways of SOME police licensing departments

3. Other people are easily deceived by weasel words.

 

Or, maybe, I'm just plain wrong.

 

One thing's for sure. I personally will never look to BASC for help again, because I am no longer a member. They've had a lot of money from me over the years, but I've now left them, for reasons that it would probably be best not to talk about on this forum.

[welsh1]

 

One thing's for sure. I personally will never look to BASC for help again, because I am no longer a member. They've had a lot of money from me over the years, but I've now left them, for reasons that it would probably be best not to talk about on this forum.

Now your just teasing,go on tell us all about it

[GHE]

Now your just teasing,go on tell us all about it

Sorry, it wouldn't be right for me to do that.

[welsh1]

Sorry, it wouldn't be right for me to do that.

[grrclark]

Of course it would be right for you to do that.

 

You have thrown rocks at BASC on an open forum, which suggests that you want to make public that you really don't like them very much because of some previous experience, but wont tell us why, instead just teasing us with the hint of some nefarious action on their part.

 

It really does need a bit more background, saying they're rubbish because I said so doesn't really cut the mustard. 'fess up!

[GHE]

Of course it would be right for you to do that.

 

You have thrown rocks at BASC on an open forum, which suggests that you want to make public that you really don't like them very much because of some previous experience, but wont tell us why, instead just teasing us with the hint of some nefarious action on their part.

 

It really does need a bit more background, saying they're rubbish because I said so doesn't really cut the mustard. 'fess up!

There is an ongoing case, and going into details whilst the case is still ongoing would be wrong. It might also be seen by the wrong people, so it isn't going to happen.

All that I can say at this stage is that another member (my son) asked them for help and was promised help, but they did absolutely nothing. This happened repeatedly. The only explanation (no apology) was that they were very busy with other matters.

 

FWIW, the help that they promised consisted of a phone call to a Firearms Licensing Manager, personally I doubt whether it would have achieved anything at all, but that isn't the point.

[mossy835]

so are we paying money for nothing.

[David BASC]

No you are not paying for nothing, look at all the other work we do and the hundreds of thousands of pounds in insurance claims we pay, look at all the shooting opportunities we secure, look at all the political and media work we deliver on, look at the literally hundreds of satisfied members our firearms team help each month.

 

Yes from time to time, and very rarely we do not deliver the level of customer care we could or should have done, but we are always looking to improve and we are improving.

 

So as I think I have said before, very sorry GHE we let you down, it was not deliberate and it is far from usual, and it was very regrettable indeed.

 

As for firstly contacting the police, that's not uncommon to get as much info and background on the case from their point of view too.

 

David

[bedwards1966]

Insurance claims are rather difficult to wriggle out of. It's a contract - a person purchases insurance and the insurance must pay up, provided the terms and conditions are all met.

 

Assurances that BASC will offer help are another thing though. You can make forum posts saying that you'll try to help, that you can fund an appeal to the Court, that you'll look at everything on a case by case basis and so on - but at the end of the day you aren't making any promises to your members and should the time come when a person runs into a problem after following your advice they have no reason to believe that BASC won't just squirm out of it.

If BASC was genuinely prepared to actually stand by its members and fully support them there would be no hesitation in promising full support to any member who needs help after following BASC advice.

 

 

As it appears that there is no promise of any real support from BASC for members who are faced with this issue I'll return to my original question on the issue of the demands made by the police: 'What are you doing about this?'

 

From your responses so far I do not get the impression that BASC is doing a great deal to stop the police from demanding these medical reports. Apart from attending meetings with the HO (who, as has already been pointed out, do not make the law) what are BASC doing to stop these unnecessary, unreasonable and unlawful demands?