Jump to content

FAO BASC - Medical reports


Recommended Posts

These incidences will never get to court, and here's why. As it stands, some forces are requesting that applicants supply a GP's report at their own cost regardless of whether they think it is necessary or not.

When this happens it plays out in one of several ways: The applicant, knowing they have nothing in their medical history to warrant a report, and having already given consent for their GP to be contacted when signing the application, says 'no, I wont comply', and licensing, having no cause to do otherwise, grant the application. Result...no court case.

Another scenario: The applicant, having stated he had depression 12 years ago, is requested to supply further details by dint of a GP's report. He either refuses, again knowing he has given consent when he signed the application, whereupon the police get the report and pay for it themselves, which is current HO guidance, or the applicant complies, or withdraws the application. In each situation the result is...no court case.

Another scenario: The applicant, like the one in the example I gave, knowing he has medical history of concern, joins BASC (in this example) seeking their advice. He is advised to withdraw his application for now (in this case) but decides to go it alone, andin this case wins, or he withdraws his application. The result is the same...no court case.

The police are well within their rights to contact an applicants GP if they feel the need, but this costs, and regardless of how they feel about civilians having guns, it is this cost which is hurting.

There is nothing to stop them requesting an applicant pays for a GP's report because of that simple fact.....there is nothing to stop them. Personally I think it highlights just how inneffectual our entire shooting organisations are. Very sad, and very disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is one aspect to this issue that we may be overlooking.

 

How many applicants for first time grant of an FAC/SGC or renewals of same are not members of any kind of club or forum or shooting organisation and just get on with what they're asked to do by way of footing the bill for a Doctor's report because they know no different and just comply.

 

Many thousands I suspect and every time they do they are unwittingly strengthening the case being made to transfer the cost from police forces to us!

 

I know for target shooting you will be expected to be a member of a club and therefore he/she should be aware of what is happening but when I carried out a straw poll among members of my gun club recently none of them were aware of what the police were up too. One member had actually coughed up for the cost of a Doctor's report in respect of his renewal and hadn't even questioned or discussed it with other members!

 

 

 

All we can do is spread the word to those fellow shooters who don't know the score, for one reason or another.

Edited by rogcal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary GHE there certainly ARE things that need checking out, and I suspect several people on hereare not aware of exactly what the current guidance says and what the licencing teams are being asked to ensure in terms of consistency on this issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Quote
Put it this way : I'm a BASC member. I don't want my membership money frittered away on speculative cases where the police have actually been reasonable in requesting a medical.

 

 

 

How would BASC's money be frittered away, the new legal expense insurance would pay for it....??...or have I picked that bit up wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BJ, you are correct that BASC members are now covered under our legal expenses policy which came into force on the 1st March.

 

Having said that, there will still be the need in some cases to have the file reviewed by a lawyer to fully ***** the legal position as to whether the case has a good chance of success, this is typically an up front cost paid by BASC, and only recoverable if the case is a runner and is then covered under the BASC policy.

 

Hence, its not viable to run every case past our lawyers, and incur a cost, without checking the full background first.

 

Turning back to the specific point on medical fees, I agree that because the current guidance is silent on who pays some forces seem to have taken this as a blanket policy to get applicants to pay for a medical check, come what may - ie de facto a blanket policy.

 

Now some have said on here its pointless BASC talking the ACPO and the HO or indeed that our efforts are ineffectual... well not the case in fact.

 

Because BASC has maintained dialogue, the head of ACPO has written to all forces telling them that there is NOT a blanket policy in place, and all applicants etc must be assessed and ONLY if there is evidence that a medical issue needs investigating should they ask the applicant to get a medical - yes the applicant pays in this case and that is not an illegal request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/05/2014 at 16:59, David BASC said:

 

Now some have said on here its pointless BASC talking the ACPO and the HO or indeed that our efforts are ineffectual... well not the case in fact.

 

Because BASC has maintained dialogue, the head of ACPO has written to all forces telling them that there is NOT a blanket policy in place, and all applicants etc must be assessed and ONLY if there is evidence that a medical issue needs investigating should they ask the applicant to get a medical - yes the applicant pays in this case and that is not an illegal request.

It's good to hear BASC are still talking, but there never was a 'blanket policy' in place was there? As far as I'm aware not all forces have implemented this requirement.

So what has happened really is that ACPO have advised all forces that something which didn't exist is not in place? Current HO guidance is silent on many things. Perhaps specifics should be on the agenda if this is an example of how 'silence' is interpreted?

Also, unless I've missed something, 'all applicants must be assessed and ONLY if there is evidence that a medical issue needs investigating should they ask the applicant to get a medical' ( I'm assuming you mean a GP's report?) .....means that nothing has changed as that is the current situation as it stands ! I don't know of any forces which request a GP's report as a matter of course, unless you know different. All you've added is.... 'yes the applicant pays in this case and that is not an illegal request'.

So the present situation whereby those who need to give details of a medical history, and pay for it themselves, where previously the cost was met by licensing, still exists. Effective? Well...not the case in fact, it would seem.

So, to sum up, ACPO have stated that they have told all forces that a blanket policy is not in place, but has not told them to desist with this policy, blanket or otherwise, but 'all applicants etc must be assessed'. What does 'assessed' mean?

Apparently there is a difference between unlawful and illegal; so can you explain which part of this issue does the word 'unlawful' relate to on your website?

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are spot on that there was not a blanket policy in place before, but as I said as the new HO guidance is silent on who pays, some forces have in effect implemented a blanket policy, or so early feedback suggests.

 

Yes are also absolutely correct that most authorities are only asking for a medical report from a Doc when it is reasonable to do so

 

Yes for 'medical' read GP report, sorry I should have been more clear earlier.

 

Unfortunately it appears some forces, outside of Durham, do seem to be asking for a GP report as a matter of course

 

Yes in effect the same system exists as before except the applicant pays , as you say if there is just cause so be it, but its blatantly wrong for a force to ask shooter to get a GP report at their cost if there is absolutely no need or reason.

 

The instruction from ACPO to forces is clear, there is no blanket policy and the applicant must be risk assessed and the request for a GP report , if any, must be proportionate

 

Asking for a GP report , and sending additional forms to that effect regardless is thus 'unlawful' as we say on our web site in relation to Durham

 

We will be updating our guidance, to include for other forces that may be implementing this, next week

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/05/2014 at 21:57, David BASC said:

Having tried to answer the question twice, this is third time lucky...

 

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

 

 

David,

If it is of any help, I managed to grasp the situation after the first explanation. Perhaps you should consider pictures !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/05/2014 at 20:08, Westley said:

 

  On 10/05/2014 at 21:57, David BASC said:

Having tried to answer the question twice, this is third time lucky...

 

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

 

 

David,

If it is of any help, I managed to grasp the situation after the first explanation. Perhaps you should consider pictures !!!!

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you've managed to grasp that there is no promise of help from BASC, even when it is their advice that lands a person in trouble? Well done.

 

 

BASC, why won't you answer my question?

 

'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?'

Are the efforts of BASC limited to talks with ACPO and the HO?

Is that it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yes in effect the same system exists as before except the applicant pays"

 

 

I did not want to get involved with this but without a change in legislation I cannot see how this can be forced upon the shooting community.

http://www.nsra.co.uk/index.php/119-frontpage/1421-firearm-certificates-medical-reports

http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/firearms

Currently Northumbria notify my doctor on renewal,I have no problem with this or with any communication between them BUT if I have to pay for this, the money I set aside for BASC subs will instead pay for this.Surely this should have been dealt with at national level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/05/2014 at 20:08, Westley said:

 

 

David,

If it is of any help, I managed to grasp the situation after the first explanation. Perhaps you should consider pictures !!!!

Many thanks for the input Westley; a very helpful contribution. If you think it may help, which 'pictures' did you have in mind?

 

  On 16/05/2014 at 23:15, drut said:

"Yes in effect the same system exists as before except the applicant pays"

 

 

I did not want to get involved with this but without a change in legislation I cannot see how this can be forced upon the shooting community.

http://www.nsra.co.uk/index.php/119-frontpage/1421-firearm-certificates-medical-reports

http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/firearms

Currently Northumbria notify my doctor on renewal,I have no problem with this or with any communication between them BUT if I have to pay for this, the money I set aside for BASC subs will instead pay for this.Surely this should have been dealt with at national level.

Good links there drut. Many thanks.

And many thanks to you also David BASC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry that you have not grasped that BASC are not well on the case this this.

 

Turning to Durham for example, it was BASC that first took them on over this, gave guidance to shooters not to comply with their excessive demands in their pilot, it was BASC that held meeting with senior police officers in Durham, it was BASC that took the lead on meetings with the HO and ACPO over this. And to the very best of our knowledge no member has been refused or revoked by following our guidance.

 

Turning to the wider issues over medical fees, its always been the case that if some medical issue comes to light the police will request a report from the GP, and based on that report the police can refuse to grant / renew, or even revoke. In the past this was always covered by the police from the licence fee as the older HO guidance inferred that this was the case. However as the new guidance is silent on this, and the police are looking to recover more costs the police in some areas have taken this as the green light to pass the costs of a GP report onto the applicant.

 

In the case where there is evidence, based on what the applicant has put on their form, or from speaking to a referee for example that there could be something that needs further investigation, the police can ask for the applicant to see their GP to get a report form them, and the applicant pays.

 

However, it seems some forces are asking all applicants to get a GP report regardless of whether there is any evidence, in other words they are being overtly risck averse. This is wrong as it helps no one at all and was certainly not what the HO guidance says, and that's what we are talking to the HO and ACPO about and hence the lead on firearms at ACPO has written to all senior officers making it clear that medical reports should only be called for if there is good reason to do so, and not as a matter of course.

 

We are also discussing this with ACPO and the HO in the context of HM Treasury policy, this dictates who pays for what, its clear from HO Treasury policy that after application, ie at renewal or any point after grant if the police want a medical report they have to pay.

 

We are also discussing this with the Home Office medical working group with a view to ensuring a national policy of costs.

 

As we have to make a full declaration of who our doctor is, sign that we are happy for the police to contact them, and in effect put a marker on our records that we are the holder of firearms, it seems reasonable that assuming there are no medical concerns that should be enough as the GP can alert the police if our medical situation changes, but as you can see from the BMA link above some doctors may be reticent to do even this due to patient confidentiality.

 

So if a member is unreasonably asked to incur cost for a GP report then yes we will fight their corner, if however they have declared something or other information has come to light that warrants further medical investigation then there is nothing to fight, that's why we have to assess each one on a case by case basis.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I think you just gave the assurance that most reasonable people were seeking.

Circumstances alter cases but with no reasonable basis to add the requirement it will be opposed - fair enough but very well worth confirming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 17/05/2014 at 08:03, David BASC said:

I am sorry that you have not grasped that BASC are not well on the case this this.

 

Turning to Durham for example, it was BASC that first took them on over this, gave guidance to shooters not to comply with their excessive demands in their pilot, it was BASC that held meeting with senior police officers in Durham, it was BASC that took the lead on meetings with the HO and ACPO over this. And to the very best of our knowledge no member has been refused or revoked by following our guidance.

 

Turning to the wider issues over medical fees, its always been the case that if some medical issue comes to light the police will request a report from the GP, and based on that report the police can refuse to grant / renew, or even revoke. In the past this was always covered by the police from the licence fee as the older HO guidance inferred that this was the case. However as the new guidance is silent on this, and the police are looking to recover more costs the police in some areas have taken this as the green light to pass the costs of a GP report onto the applicant.

 

In the case where there is evidence, based on what the applicant has put on their form, or from speaking to a referee for example that there could be something that needs further investigation, the police can ask for the applicant to see their GP to get a report form them, and the applicant pays.

 

However, it seems some forces are asking all applicants to get a GP report regardless of whether there is any evidence, in other words they are being overtly risck averse. This is wrong as it helps no one at all and was certainly not what the HO guidance says, and that's what we are talking to the HO and ACPO about and hence the lead on firearms at ACPO has written to all senior officers making it clear that medical reports should only be called for if there is good reason to do so, and not as a matter of course.

 

We are also discussing this with ACPO and the HO in the context of HM Treasury policy, this dictates who pays for what, its clear from HO Treasury policy that after application, ie at renewal or any point after grant if the police want a medical report they have to pay.

 

We are also discussing this with the Home Office medical working group with a view to ensuring a national policy of costs.

 

As we have to make a full declaration of who our doctor is, sign that we are happy for the police to contact them, and in effect put a marker on our records that we are the holder of firearms, it seems reasonable that assuming there are no medical concerns that should be enough as the GP can alert the police if our medical situation changes, but as you can see from the BMA link above some doctors may be reticent to do even this due to patient confidentiality.

 

So if a member is unreasonably asked to incur cost for a GP report then yes we will fight their corner, if however they have declared something or other information has come to light that warrants further medical investigation then there is nothing to fight, that's why we have to assess each one on a case by case basis.

 

David

Thank you David. In my mind you can't make it anymore clear than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 17/05/2014 at 08:03, David BASC said:

I am sorry that you have not grasped that BASC are not well on the case this this.

 

Turning to Durham for example, it was BASC that first took them on over this, gave guidance to shooters not to comply with their excessive demands in their pilot, it was BASC that held meeting with senior police officers in Durham, it was BASC that took the lead on meetings with the HO and ACPO over this. And to the very best of our knowledge no member has been refused or revoked by following our guidance.

 

Turning to the wider issues over medical fees, its always been the case that if some medical issue comes to light the police will request a report from the GP, and based on that report the police can refuse to grant / renew, or even revoke. In the past this was always covered by the police from the licence fee as the older HO guidance inferred that this was the case. However as the new guidance is silent on this, and the police are looking to recover more costs the police in some areas have taken this as the green light to pass the costs of a GP report onto the applicant.

 

In the case where there is evidence, based on what the applicant has put on their form, or from speaking to a referee for example that there could be something that needs further investigation, the police can ask for the applicant to see their GP to get a report form them, and the applicant pays.

 

However, it seems some forces are asking all applicants to get a GP report regardless of whether there is any evidence, in other words they are being overtly risck averse. This is wrong as it helps no one at all and was certainly not what the HO guidance says, and that's what we are talking to the HO and ACPO about and hence the lead on firearms at ACPO has written to all senior officers making it clear that medical reports should only be called for if there is good reason to do so, and not as a matter of course.

 

We are also discussing this with ACPO and the HO in the context of HM Treasury policy, this dictates who pays for what, its clear from HO Treasury policy that after application, ie at renewal or any point after grant if the police want a medical report they have to pay.

 

We are also discussing this with the Home Office medical working group with a view to ensuring a national policy of costs.

 

As we have to make a full declaration of who our doctor is, sign that we are happy for the police to contact them, and in effect put a marker on our records that we are the holder of firearms, it seems reasonable that assuming there are no medical concerns that should be enough as the GP can alert the police if our medical situation changes, but as you can see from the BMA link above some doctors may be reticent to do even this due to patient confidentiality.

 

So if a member is unreasonably asked to incur cost for a GP report then yes we will fight their corner, if however they have declared something or other information has come to light that warrants further medical investigation then there is nothing to fight, that's why we have to assess each one on a case by case basis.

 

Davii

Thanks David, but my ability of being able to grasp exactly to what depth BASC are 'on the case' is better than you believe. It is as I suspected, and similar to how it was explained to me over the phone by a BASC representative, but similar only. The above post 5 pages ago would have gone a long way to avert some criticism, and the proviso with which you've 'bigged up' the efforts of BASC prior to posting what is in essence, yet another obstacle, albeit financial, to negotiate by the applicant, is quite telling.

I can't say I'm entirely happy with the direction in which things are moving ( a certificate holder being 'flagged' as such leaves them at the mercy of a GP's personal inclination towards the public ownership of firearms) as I've also been told that the GP's report (regardless of an applicants medical history) along with the applicant providing the cost is 'coming', and the 10 year ticket life was mooted to soften the blow. So while I thank you for your honesty, I have to consider the situation as it stands in your post above as unresolved, and temporary. Perhaps another 'softener' would be the licensing of the person and not the firearm? Just a thought.

I will be more than happy to be proved wrong. Time will tell.

Once again, my sincere thanks.

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 11/05/2014 at 07:52, David BASC said:

yes we will always do our best to support to a good conclusion.

 

Of course there is a case by case basis, you may not realise that there are at least three pilots going on around the country ,so depending on which constabulary the member is from will mean there may be a different approach needed

 

 

A case by case basis seems an appropriate response. Say one case per force, or cases of same in a majority of the 43 police forces. At that point it becomes clear that a judicial review would be in order in order that one legal case can decide for the whole country. BASC can then seek the judicial review citing all the individual cases and individual police forces in "alleged" breach of the law by seeking to impose costs on the applicant over and above the statutory charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 17/05/2014 at 08:03, David BASC said:

So if a member is unreasonably asked to incur cost for a GP report then yes we will fight their corner, if however they have declared something or other information has come to light that warrants further medical investigation then there is nothing to fight, that's why we have to assess each one on a case by case basis.

 

So are you now saying that you will fight for an applicant, all the way to the conclusion of a Court case, if you consider that the police were unreasonable to make the demand?

 

However, if you think the police might not have been completely unreasonable you aren't interested? Need I point out that the police cannot make a demand for an applicant to supply and pay for a medical report regardless of whether it is necessary. Even if somebody declares something or if the police are suspicious for some other reason that still does not permit them to make these demands. Whether that is a good system or not is not the point, they still cannot lawfully demand it, so why won't BASC support a member in that situation?

 

And is it fair to conclude that BASC are not doing anything other than having talks with the HO and the police?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a member has done nothing wrong, there is no evidence of intemperate habits or other risk, and the police have acted wrongly or unreasonably then there is a case to fight

 

If there is something in the members medical history that's declared or uncovered, or if other risks or intemperate habits come to light and the police act reasonably there in no case to fight.

 

What part of that don't you understand?

 

If you honestly know of a better way to resolve this on a national level than trying to get this sorted out with the Home Office, HM Treasury, the HO medical working group, and the firearms lead at ACPO please let us all know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 17/05/2014 at 17:12, David BASC said:

If a member has done nothing wrong, there is no evidence of intemperate habits or other risk, and the police have acted wrongly or unreasonably then there is a case to fight

 

If there is something in the members medical history that's declared or uncovered, or if other risks or intemperate habits come to light and the police act reasonably there in no case to fight.

 

What part of that don't you understand?

 

If you honestly know of a better way to resolve this on a national level than trying to get this sorted out with the Home Office, HM Treasury, the HO medical working group, and the firearms lead at ACPO please let us all know.

 

You can fight the demands the police make for the applicant to supply a medical report regardless of whether there is anything in that persons history. They police cannot demand an applicant supplies a report, end of. It matters not whether there is anything in a persons history that makes the police want it or not, demanding it is still unlawful.

 

 

'If a member has done nothing wrong, there is no evidence of intemperate habits or other risk, and the police have acted wrongly or unreasonably then there is a case to fight'

Hmm, will you actually fight or not? There is still a difference between having a case and actually fighting.

 

 

'If you honestly know of a better way to resolve this on a national level than trying to get this sorted out with the Home Office, HM Treasury, the HO medical working group, and the firearms lead at ACPO please let us all know.'

 

A legal challenge. It's very simple, you challenge this policy by way of a Judicial review. As the police are not lawful to make these demands, it will be a forgone conclusion, so putting a hand in your pocket would end this very quickly.

The other way which is probably too late now would be for BASC to be seen to be stood behind every member faced with a problem regarding these demands, which would tell the police that they're up against a large organisation that will fight, rather than the appearance BASC currently gives where it is known that they could fight, if they came out and could be bothered.

Believing they won't be opposed is the entire reason the police are able to continue with these demands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 18/05/2014 at 11:25, bedwards1966 said:

 

...

The other way which is probably too late now would be for BASC to be seen to be stood behind every member faced with a problem regarding these demands, which would tell the police that they're up against a large organisation that will fight, rather than the appearance BASC currently gives where it is known that they could fight, if they came out and could be bothered.

Believing they won't be opposed is the entire reason the police are able to continue with these demands.

 

I really don't like to degenerate to mudslinging, but I thought I'd seen some dumb posts in the past. Foxes and airguns, for example.

 

But this wins, outright. Congratulations.

 

What if a member of BASC has known medical / mental health issues, but refuses to comply with a medical request. Are you REALLY, seriously suggesting that BASC should support them in this ?

 

Talk about handing the antis a real gift. Your suggestion is exactly that.

 

I'm so impressed. Congratulations. Yes, I know I said that a few lines ago, but it needs saying twice. At least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of the issue is this. IF, after some investigation by BASC the applicant has done nothing wrong/hidden nothing, BASC will fight their case. If, there are areas of concern/non-disclosure, then BASC may not fight the case. Quite right too. IF people have lied/failed to disclose matter to the police then (as a BSC member) I do not want them spending my subscription fighting the person's case.

 

Bedwards 1966, I am unsure what you want from BASC, or what you think David didn't answer. Your attitude appears to be one of technical inconsolability - why should they defend someone who has failed to disclose etc. Yes, the actual request to ask for the shooter to pay for a report may be unlawful, but the bottom line for me is that you are splitting hairs. Don't pay for the report - BASC would support the member, but if you have hidden stuff, expect to be unsupported - and quite right too.

Edited by Beretta06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you both misunderstand.

I'm not suggesting BASC should support somebody who has failed to declare something or is hiding anything, I am saying that they should fight an unlawful demand from the police.

An applicant must make the declarations on their application, but just because a person has something to declare does not mean the police are suddenly permitted to force that person to pay for a medical report. If you applied for a certificate and declared that you had a medical condition from 30 years ago, do you really think that BASC should then refuse to help if you ask for help because the police unlawfully demanded you supplied a medical report?

Edited by bedwards1966
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...