robbiep Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 If a chief constable in your area decides that in the interest of public safety he/she requires this additional information it seems he/she is perfectly within the law, although it is not a legal requirement, I think that if you challenged your area chief constable you might just find a brick wall and a dogmatic attitude towards you, and dare I say it deliberate delaying of your renewal/grant of certificate or even refusal, now as to whether a court challenge to these additional forms (requirements) would work is another question and something BASC legal department could possibly look at, I think there now needs to be some sort of move by our representatives (legal) that brings ALL police forces into line and not just targeting the FLD in question. That's just it. Your local police force CANNOT 'require' the additional information. They can ask for it, but are not allowed to demand it. As I said on page 1, really, we need a judicial review of what some forces are doing. Only with that will some of them be forced to wind their necks in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted January 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 If members of the forum send me a PM, then this comes up on my work email, which I have access to via my mobile phone Thanks David, my friend emailed you the details earlier this afternoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Yep got the email thank you. We have spoken to the senior officer, all shooters need to do if fill in the correct and current form, not the other 'additional ' forms David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted January 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) 10.28 Section 27 of the 1968 Act sets out the criteria for the grant or renewal of a firearm certificate. This, however, does allow chief officers of police discretion to make further enquiries into applications should they wish to do so. To do this, forces can use their own forms in addition to those which are specified in the legislation. Such forms, though, are non-statutory and there is no obligation for applicants to complete them in addition to those which are legally required. Where non-statutory forms are used for this purpose, they should be clearly marked to indicate their status. Non-statutory forms should be avoided, but if they are required for obtaining further specific information, they should be clearly marked to indicate their status – “whilst it is not a legal requirement to complete this form, completion may expedite the application. Any person making any statement on this form which they know or believe to be untrue commits and offence”. And that's the problem, in Durhams case they are included within Form 201 as pages 7 & 11 with no indication whatsoever to show they are not a part of the official form. Nor is the addendum about it not being a legal requirement to fill them in printed on them. David, Just saw your post after I'd posted the one above Thank you for your help with this (and many other things on here!) Edited January 15, 2016 by phaedra1106 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Under what circumstances can a chief officer of police, or someone acting under the devolved authority of the chief officer of police impose conditions over and above state guidelines on applicants/licence holders?.........because they choose to? Or do they have to demonstrate genuine substantial reasons for doing so? Can they impose these extra requirements on individuals and/or everyone? Do they have to fully explain/justify imposing any such extra requirements? If so how? And to whom? Is such an explanation/justification in writing? subjected to independent review for safeguards, scrutiny and checks? If so by whom?............or is a chief officer of police unaccountable, above any suspicion of partiality and/or corruption and consequently authorised by the state to act as judge, jury and executioner in such circumstances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Quire rarely, there are few circumstances where the Chief officer can impose additional conditions - see HO guidance page 77 for exmaple Only the official forms for application / grant should be used Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Yep got the email thank you. We have spoken to the senior officer, all shooters need to do if fill in the correct and current form, not the other 'additional ' forms David Surely the point is the need to stop them offering extra forms to be completed in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddler Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 ....or with Police Scotland: refusing to adhere to the Guidance notes re. condition wording for multi-shot shotguns (also to be allowed for clay pigeon shooting) .."that's NOT what the law intended" & "that's being changed in the next set of guidance rules, so we're working to the new unpublished changes" "I cannot think any clay ground that lets you use a multi-shor shotgun" P C Steve White, 18 Dec last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 I had a reply back from Mike at BASC today too. BASC have pointed out to Durham that the wording on the additional forms is not legally correct, and they are going to go about correcting it. As David has pointed out, mentioning it on here is one thing. However, how many people (apart from myself) who are BASC members took the time to email BASC about it. If BASC staff come into the office and there are 2 or 3 emails about Durham acting outside the law, then it's relatively small fry. But if they come in and there are dozens, then it's another matter. So go on. I emailed BASC. Who else did, rather than just gripe on a forum ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 I always notify them about anything I think relevant, for example spoke to them this week on the phone, sent a message to David here on a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Come on. Did anyone else actually email BASC or any other organisation to complain about Durham ? Or did people just gripe on here and other forums ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Come on. Did anyone else actually email BASC or any other organisation to complain about Durham ? Or did people just gripe on here and other forums ? It's the licence holders/applicants affected who live within Durhams police area that have first hand experience of what Durham firearm licensing Department (FLD) are imposing, so it is they who should advise their representative organisation.......anyone living out with Durham would only be responding to heresay/rumour! Far too many people in our society react/respond with a knee jerk reaction to things that may not be factually correct and/or they know nothing about.......that is not useful! I have had several issues with my FLD over the years and have usually sorted it direct with them, on the one occasion I couldn't BASC did! I did not contact BASC but commented on this issue on this forum as it has a direct link (David) to BASC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted January 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Come on. Did anyone else actually email BASC or any other organisation to complain about Durham ? Or did people just gripe on here and other forums ? Yes, as David mentioned above my friend sent him a copy of the email he received from Durham. What worries me is that Durham have said they will be "correcting it", which to me means they will just add the extra info that it's not mandatory to complete the extra pages and not remove them. But (as they did with the medical request page), they will still add that if you don't it "may" result in the application/renewal not being processed as fast as it would be if you did. They are very careful not to say it will slow it down. This is their actual wording "PLEASE NOTE every effort is made to ensure each application is processed with the upmost efficiency and the provision of this information will speed up the process." Edited January 17, 2016 by phaedra1106 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 The information on additional none statutory documents regarding how none compliance will affect an application is all rather vague really, and I can't believe it isn't deliberate. There is no set time allotted to the turn over of an application and if an applicant decides not to comply, who can say that none compliance was responsible for the delay in its process? Can anyone categorically state that their application was processed faster by compliance than it would have been if they hadn't complied? No, they can't, so in my opinion none compliance is the route to follow, lest none statutory documents become the norm an din time become statutory. The NGO will follow up complaints to licensing departments regarding licensing authorities which insist an applicant fills out none statutory documents, but they can do little if an applicant either complies or doesn't tell them in the first place. But there are NO shooting organisations which can, or indeed seem willing to do anything about the length of time it takes to process any application, and some organisations even recommend compliance as it's an easy option for them. So all in all we may as well simply not comply. Shoddy service has been ongoing for many years now, so it would seem there is little point in complaining to your shooting organisation. The one thing applicants can and should be doing, is complaining on a regular basis about the **** service we are lumbered with, and I don't mean on here, but to your licensing authorities, police commissioners, and all other relevant bodies. I know it can be daunting for first time applicants when faced with authorities 'trying it on', but in all truth what can those authorities do? They can't decide to refuse to grant simply because you wont roll over and play ball. I have seen the day when my mate had a stand up argument with the head of licensing ; she was so incensed she came down from her office to personally give him a broadside and was sent away with a flea in her ear. They are there to provide a service, nothing more. We don't accept shoddy service off any other body, but gladly doff our caps to licensing authorities while bending over to be shafted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luckyshot Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 These forms are no different to the medical forms they handed out (not mandatory) my renewal was due when the medical forms were first introduced and I didn't fill them in, yes there were a few choice words back and forth with Durham but my renewal still came through ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 These forms are no different to the medical forms they handed out (not mandatory) my renewal was due when the medical forms were first introduced and I didn't fill them in, yes there were a few choice words back and forth with Durham but my renewal still came through ok. Good for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Double post! Edited January 17, 2016 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 It's the licence holders/applicants affected who live within Durhams police area that have first hand experience of what Durham firearm licensing Department (FLD) are imposing, so it is they who should advise their representative organisation.......anyone living out with Durham would only be responding to heresay/rumour! Far too many people in our society react/respond with a knee jerk reaction to things that may not be factually correct and/or they know nothing about.......that is not useful! I have had several issues with my FLD over the years and have usually sorted it direct with them, on the one occasion I couldn't BASC did! I did not contact BASC but commented on this issue on this forum as it has a direct link (David) to BASC! No. My point is that, once it is brought to the attention of the shooting community as a whole, we then bring it to the attention of BASC et al. Lots of us do so, which means that BASC are then contacting the police force concerned and saying 'we've had X hundred complaints about this', rather than them getting one or two complaints. Secondly, it wasn't hearsay. Any of us could download Durham's new form from their website (link on the original post) and see quite clearly that Durham were overstepping their legally allowed alterations to the form, and failing to put on the additional pages the REQUIRED notice to applicant that the additional pages were not legally enforceable. As I have said previously, the more of us that complain to BASC et al, the stronger BASC's voice is. Enough of us get on their back, we may be able to force a judicial review on the actions of a police force when said force oversteps the mark. Maybe BASC have a 'softly-softly' approach, and Durham will change their form, only to 'try it on' again in a year or two. Maybe that approach isn't really enough, and they need to go hardball with a police force at some point. But the only way they will ever do that is if their members complain, en masse, when a police force does overstep the mark, and when their members DEMAND firm action is taken against 'repeat offenders' like Durham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 They are there to provide a service, nothing more. They haven't got to that page yet Scully. My renewal a few months ago went as smooth as a babys ****, the only one that has in all the years I've had certs...40yr +. The FEO was spot on (Durham), he commented that recently a few had left the FLO after the Atherton afair, went to different jobs, same money, without the pressure. New license staff that needed to be trained up, adding to the backlog. The FLO staff before that were always a problem, made it up as they went along, they had the same attitude as the FEO before the Atherton case, where he thought what he said goes. Had many a conflict on the phone at renewals with them, stating what's quoted above, & always ended up talking to the FLO manager to get a sensible outcome. As for BASC, they have known for quite a while about Durhams attitude, nothing has changed, Durham will just carry on as usual, the medical forms for one, told at renewal (because I didn't fill mine in) that my next renewal they would be mandatory, we'll wait & see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted January 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Although some staff have changed the FLM is still the same, she was singled out by the IPCC report into the Atherton/Horden shootings for some pretty damning criticism. Following the enquiry a supervisor was appointed (who was not particularly helpful to put it nicely) and he has now also been replaced. For anyone outside the area (and even in it) the IPCC report is certainly worth a read and will give some insight into the way the department was and to some extent still is being run. https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Michael_Atherton_report.PDF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 18, 2016 Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 Durham do seem to be in the habit of adding extra forms, but as we and indeed others have been saying all along, you only need opt fill in the official forms. As some on here have pointed out, not filling in the unofficial forms should not stop the application / renewal process, but if you do have issues then please let us know ,but so not be afraid to write or email back to the FLD pointing out that only official forms have to be completed, and there is nothing in the HO guidance or anywhere else that suggests not filling in non official forms will delay the process Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 18, 2016 Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 Durham do seem to be in the habit of adding extra forms, but as we and indeed others have been saying all along, you only need opt fill in the official forms. As some on here have pointed out, not filling in the unofficial forms should not stop the application / renewal process, but if you do have issues then please let us know ,but do not be afraid to write or email back to the FLD pointing out that only official forms have to be completed, and there is nothing in the HO guidance or anywhere else that suggests not filling in non official forms will delay the process This point is well worth repeating, particularly for those who are new to shooting and are reluctant to rock the boat. Your application is not in jeopardy simply because you refuse to fill in none statutory forms, regardless of what licensing or your FEO tells you. Any applicant could always start their reply to queries as to why they have failed to comply, with something like 'on the advice of my shooting organisation I have been informed I should not fill in any none statutory forms.....' and further queries could be answered with the last sentence highlighted in bold above. The above still applies even if you're not a member of any shooting organisation. They are lying to you, so repay the gesture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted January 18, 2016 Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 Although some staff have changed the FLM is still the same, she was singled out by the IPCC report into the Atherton/Horden shootings for some pretty damning criticism. Following the enquiry a supervisor was appointed (who was not particularly helpful to put it nicely) and he has now also been replaced. For anyone outside the area (and even in it) the IPCC report is certainly worth a read and will give some insight into the way the department was and to some extent still is being run. https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Michael_Atherton_report.PDF Wow that's quite a read isn't it! Can't believe someone who has four domestic violence/drunk incidents on file is issued a ticket? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyo Posted January 18, 2016 Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 She's the one that refered to me in front of her staff as "old man" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 18, 2016 Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 Wow that's quite a read isn't it! Can't believe someone who has four domestic violence/drunk incidents on file is issued a ticket? Incredible isn't it! I couldn't believe it when I first read it some time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.