New RFD to RFD rules.

[rbrowning2]

I think some of the issues are to do with the sales of goods laws and our rights as consumers if you pay the final RFD then they are responsible if the gun is found to be not as advertised, out of proof or goes faulty.

What happens if you visit the RFD to collect the gun and have not paid the original seller you then say sorry it's not what I want and walk out of the shop? It's cost you nothing but will have cost both the sender and now the receiving RFD to send it back.

 

Quite a few RFDs are no longer wanting too offer the service buy what they have on the shelf or get you a new one take it or leave it.

[bruno22rf]

Don't see why the RFD would be responsible in any way - your postman is not responsible for stuff you have delivered.

[timps]

Don't see why the RFD would be responsible in any way - your postman is not responsible for stuff you have delivered.

 

Because you don’t buy your parcel from the postman, you don’t directly pay any money to your postman at all so you have no contract with him. Your postman also doesn’t buy what you ordered from whomever in the first place so isn’t stuck with ownership.

 

However, to comply with the law the final RDF in the chain can only hand over the firearm on sight of a previously endorsed certificate by the actual seller.

 

Or take ownership and therefore responsibility as the seller which then allows them to fill in the certificate of the buyer themselves.

If they take responsibility of being the seller, then as an RDF you are responsible for the goods you sold.

 

So in simple terms whoever fills in the buyer’s certificate has actually sold the gun in the eyes of the law and the buck stops with them. If they argue they are not the actual seller, then they are in breach of the firearms act a complete catch 22 situation.

[Scully]

I can't believe some of the comments on here!

For the sake of this scenario we'll call him Bob. Bob has just bought a shotgun on the basis of a photograph off someone whom he's never met and then expects his local RFD ( who is going out of his way to organise the transaction for him ) to be held responsible for the condition of the gun? Really? That makes Bob a ****! Bob should just send it back, simple.

And before everyone starts saying ...'ah, but...' Bob would be not only a **** but downright stupid to pay for a gun he hasn't seen without some sort of guarantee that if the gun isn't as stated then it will be returned. Has Bob paid upfront? Doesn't matter in either case.

Are we basically honest decent folk on here or are we like Bob?

I bought a gun earlier this year from someone on PW on the understanding that if it wasn't right or I wasn't happy, it would be going back. Both parties were perfectly happy with this arrangement and it was agreed that the cost of all this would be met by both of us. It's only fair.

Isn't life complicated enough without making it needlessly difficult for ourselves? Don't be like Bob.

[rbrowning2]

Sadly scully not everybody in life is a gentleman like you.

 

Just read back the many posts on PW and you find those who even begrudge paying the receiving RFD a penny for his time so yes they would just walk and leave the mess for somebody else to pay for, or return when the gun misfires expecting the receiving RFD to repair it for free after all they paid them for the gun.

[Glenlivet]

"Are we basically decent honest folk on here or are we like Bob?".

 

I'm sure we would all like to think we are. However, this is not always a nice, straightforward world, compounded by the 'virtual reality' nature of forums. Look at some of the 'keyboard warrior' type threads we get on here!

 

I personally would NEVER buy a gun unseen, regardless of agreements etc. Easy enough to be stitched up when you have seen the gun and met the vendor, spending hundreds or thousands of hard earned on trust is just not in my nature.

[rbrowning2]

"Are we basically decent honest folk on here or are we like Bob?".

I'm sure we would all like to think we are. However, this is not always a nice, straightforward world, compounded by the 'virtual reality' nature of forums. Look at some of the 'keyboard warrior' type threads we get on here!

I personally would NEVER buy a gun unseen, regardless of agreements etc. Easy enough to be stitched up when you have seen the gun and met the vendor, spending hundreds or thousands of hard earned on trust is just not in my nature.

+1 would you buy a secondhand car sight unseen and then take delivery via a thirty party?

[Breastman]

Who in their right mind would 'sell' a gun without receiving the money for it before sending it!? I just can't see the scenario ever happening where the 'buyer' somehow manages to sweet talk the seller into sending the gun, gratis, then deciding he doesn't like it and lumbering the receiving RFD with it.

 

As for RFD fees, I have no problem paying a pro rata fee for the time/effort it takes to put a gun on their books, but some RFDs are taking the micky with their transfer fees, one near me charges £45?! Needless to say I've never used that one. Respect works both ways.

[timps]

The problem with all this is the paper trail.

 

If Bob pays you the money directly for the gun before you send it, you then issue a receipt of sale and inform the chief officer of police that you have now sold the gun to Bob. Unfortunately, you haven’t entered the details on Bob’s certificate as you don’t have it (we will get to that bit later).

 

You then go to your local RFD (dealer A) seeing as it is a transfer he puts it in the register but doesn’t have to inform the chief officer of police and sends it to (dealer B). Dealer B puts the gun in his register but again as it’s a transfer doesn’t have to inform the chief officer of police.

 

Bob turns up for the gun but Bob isn’t entitled to take permanent possession of the gun because it isn’t on his certificate. Dealer B can then either abide by the law and not hand over the gun or fraudulently put your details on the certificate.

 

With the above if the gun gets lost, stolen in transit or if there is any issues or mistakes at all and someone audits the above transaction people are going to get in trouble and lose their livelihoods. Dealer B can never permanently hand over the gun to Bob as it’s not his to sell and you have to enter the details on Bob’s certificate not anyone else.

 

Scenario B

 

Bob pretends to buy from dealer B but pays you directly.

 

You technically sell the gun to dealer A you inform the chief officer of police that you have sold the gun to dealer A. Dealer A puts it in the register and because it is a sale he also now has to inform the chief officer of police of the sale.

 

He then sells the gun to dealer B and informs the chief officer of police about the transaction and dealer B does like wise.

Bob then buys the gun off dealer B who then can enter his details on Bob’s certificate and then inform the Chief Of police that he has sold the gun to Bob.

 

Now Bob notices a nice big crack in the stock that was not as advertised and Bob made the point of asking, you say it wasn’t there when you gave it to dealer A. Dealer A, B and the courier deny all knowledge of the crack.

 

Bob wants his money back as it isn’t as described.

 

Here goes the problem, if he paid you directly you’re in trouble as you sold his gun that he paid for to dealer A and that’s fraud in the eyes of the law as you are selling the gun twice. But then Bob, Dealer A and Dealer B are also in trouble for not following the firearms act.

 

If this scenario is being done by the book paperwork wise and he hasn’t bought it yet he can walk away, Dealer B is stuck with the gun and a load more paperwork and Dealer B owns your gun and you have no money for it or any contract with dealer B as you sold the gun to dealer A.

 

Simple fact are you as an RFD going to be liable for a transaction you have no part of, you have no idea how it was described or sold, any subsequent problems and someone looks at the paperwork your livelihood is gone. If you and Bob lock horns legally the RFD will get dragged into this.

 

Don’t be like Bob do it properly, you sign the certificate the RFD is only there for the transfer, terms of the sale are not their concern.

Edited October 7, 2016 by timps

[Scully]

Ah well. Tell you what lads, if it's so much of a problem then simply don't do it! Sorted. Or you do it your way and I'll do it mine. It's never been a problem for me. I agree a price with seller, send money, he sends gun via his RFD when cheque clears, my RFD receives it and gives me a call; I go and collect gun and bung RFD ( which he refused last time incidentally, so I bought a slab of cartridges off him ) a few quid, and go home and have a play. Happy bunny.....well I am, but not usually the actual bunny.

Why people insist on creating problems where none exists is beyond me, but each to their own.

[timps]

It’s not creating a problem where one doesn’t exist, the law and the guidance on it is quite clear, if you wish to ignore it then that’s your call, others may not want to risk it.

 

If you bought the gun off a private seller, then he/she has to fill in your certificate and post it back to you, if you buy it off the dealer then he/she fills it in at the handover, it’s as simple as that if you want to stay within the firearms act.

[Scully]

There would appear to be an awful lot of folk operating outside the firearms act, including shooters, RFDs, FEO's and licensing departments. What should we do?

[timps]

I am not going to do anything about it personally.

Speeding is against the law as well and I am not going to do anything about that either, but I am not going to suggest people won’t get done because countless other people speed and get away with it every day.

 

BASC have a leaflet that sums it up, https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/REMOTE-FIREARMS-TRANSACTIONS2.pdf if you or others disagree with that legal stance then fair enough, but I and a fair few police forces and people in the legal profession agree with it.

 

If you live in an area that is clamping down on it you could be in for a big surprise, if not then who knows, as always it’s your call, but I feel being aware of the actual facts is always the best way to avoid a nasty surprise.

[Scully]

It isn't being unaware of the actual facts which is the reason I've done it that way. I'm fully aware of the facts.

Each to their own.

[timps]

Well if you're happy to carry out transactions in breach of the conditions on your certificate and the firearms act then fair enough.

 

But you have got to see that others might want to keep within the law as written, however stupid it might seem and not risk their certificate so therefore disagree with you.

[Scully]

Fair enough. I have no objection to anyone carrying out transactions in any way they can, and have never said I have, yet am coming under criticism for carrying out the same transaction many times over many years, with the full knowledge of various RFD's, some of whom I've paid for the service.

There are shooters out there in breach of the conditions of their certificates by holding firearms they have no certificate for, with the full knowledge of their FEOs and licensing authority; some of whom are telling them it's ok!! There are who knows how many holding expanding ammo without due authority, again with the full knowledge of their FEO / licensing authority, and I will shortly be amongst them, plus I am also in possession of both valid certificates and two valid S7's, which by all accounts aren't supposed to be issued until valid certificates expire!

I'm also aware two wrongs don't make a right, but if anyone is clamping down I think it'll be some time before they get round to me. I won't be losing much sleep over this I'm afraid.

[eddoakley]

Interesting that this is still being debated/argued.

 

I, as an RFD used to do things the simple way. If someone bought a gun from elsewhere and I was asked to do the transaction I would receive the gun from the sending RFD and enter it into my register, then book it back out to the buyer and inform my licensing department.

If I sold a gun from my register I would record it as being transfered to the RFD at the other end, regardless of who had actually paid for it.

I had been led to believe that this was the right way to do things, it certainly seems the sensible way.

However at my last RFD renewal I was told that I was incorrect and that if I carried out any more transactions this way then my RFD Certificate would be revoked.

 

As I said in an earlier post I have lost a few sales recently as people are not willing to post their cert.

I queried things with BASC who confirmed the way it should be done.

 

I will not do any transfers the way I used to and advise everyone to do things the right way. I would like to see anyone lose their cert!

 

 

Edd