Other Occupants Form - a new one on me

[WalkedUp]

I’ve made a few mess ups with my FAC and SGC paperwork etc and my department have always been great with me. If they have anything labelled on my file it will say “Clutz” 🤣

[Patterdale Terrier]

Just done my renewal and there was no 'other occupants form' or similar. I was not asked when interviewed who else resided with me and therefore the said form type is not a national or legal requirement.  My question here would be to establish what details of other occupants were being recorded by the police and for what purpose. It seems to me that if another certificate holder was resident in the house the police may need to establish none authorised access to guns but beyond that I find it difficult to justify the actions.  In addition I am happy to reside in an area where GP details or GP forms are not used with the only reference to a GP being that on the nationally approved application form.  Happy days.

[Westley]

10 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

Well said Scully, next will be they want to see your financial situation and get references from your neighbours, has already been talked about.

Time the process was completely reworked and may be best removed from the police, or at least no longer under the control of the chief constable, May be to under the crime commissioner?

long gone are the days when you brought a sgc from the post office.

God help us if the Crime Commissioner  of Merseyside was to get that power. The 'Mayor' has just binned the shooting show from being held here. Liverpool Council are certainly against ANYONE owning a gun,  for whatever reason or purpose.

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

Can I ask if you have proof of this and if so, where from?

The reason I ask is because if this is true, which I personally doubt, that is more of a concern than any additional forms. And the reason is; that if it’s ‘tittle tattle’ and ‘rumour ‘ as you say, that implies it’s unsubstantiated, possibly made up and wouldn’t hold in a court of law or appeal. But anyone could make up bull about you, including the police, which would affect your suitability to hold a license and more importantly, be a stain against your character. So if the police use lies, slander or whatever to prejudice you without any form of proof, that is a big worry.

no problem mate i only found out after my tickets were pulled turned out they collect all this rubbish hold a monthly meeting and decide on action as i’m not the type to wear it they didn’t bank on me taking it up with the chief constable after I got them back the feo unhappy with egg on his face tried to pull another stunt this one ended in the feo manager receiving a official reprimand and his superior had to invite me in feed me tea and biscuits begging me not to take it further just to show how thick they are just last year the same manage tried to claim my brother did not submit his sgc application so i told the police commissioner if she checks the cctv it will show ME delivery his application by HAND the level of their incompetence is unreal anything but admit the truth lol 

[Fisheruk]

19 hours ago, Scully said:

This is part of the reason we have the problems we do. It is because of attitudes like the above. Where do we draw the line? Serious question; where would you have us draw the line? What would it take for you to say ‘enough is enough’? 
It isn’t us who are being awkward, it is the police.
If they really do have a difficult enough time of it as it is, why do they increasingly seek to make it more difficult for themselves with none legal requirements? 

IMHO the police really are not the problem. I doubt that you would want the responsibility of being an FEO. Having to assess whether someone is fit and proper to have firearms. You make a mistake and someone misuses them and who immediately gets the blame. Yes the police. We have the privilege to hold firearms legally, why not make the job of the FEO as easy as possible. I have experience of two police forces and their FEO’s. Both are excellent and I find it a pleasure to deal with them, I really want to keep it that way.

[rbrowning2]

12 hours ago, Westley said:

God help us if the Crime Commissioner  of Merseyside was to get that power. The 'Mayor' has just binned the shooting show from being held here. Liverpool Council are certainly against ANYONE owning a gun,  for whatever reason or purpose.

My thinking was that we the public get to elect the crime commissioner to the job and hence at least have some say in who gets the job but we have no such say over the chief constable.

we are fighting a losing battle more and more forms if they ever win the argument and get full cost recovery for issuing a certificate we could see a £300 sgc and £500 FAC. Or even more.

 

[Scully]

5 hours ago, Fisheruk said:

IMHO the police really are not the problem. I doubt that you would want the responsibility of being an FEO. Having to assess whether someone is fit and proper to have firearms. You make a mistake and someone misuses them and who immediately gets the blame. Yes the police. We have the privilege to hold firearms legally, why not make the job of the FEO as easy as possible. I have experience of two police forces and their FEO’s. Both are excellent and I find it a pleasure to deal with them, I really want to keep it that way.

You’ve got it wrong I’m afraid; I’d be more than happy to be an FEO. It isn’t up to the FEO to decide who gets a ticket or not. He can have an influence but he’s basically a gatherer of information; the burden of responsibility you’re trying to imply just doesn’t exist I’m afraid. 
Many FEO’s are retired coppers; and as mine says, if he didn’t enjoy it he wouldn’t do it; he still has his pension. He enjoys driving around the countryside and talking to likeminded people. 
The police would do better and make it much easier for all concerned if they just stuck with what is required, and stopped trying to add unlawful requirements in the paths of law abiding people. 
If the police want to know who else occupies this address they can consult the electoral register. 
I like my FEO too, but I don’t ring 101 and tell them I’m going shooting, even though he asked me to. None of their business. 
If shooters simply go along and comply with all and every unrequired request the police make, it won’t be long before we’re having to call and ask for permission to shoot and log in and out.
Fit a tracker to my vehicle so you can tell where it is at all times while I’m out shooting? Of course officer. Fit one to myself? No problem officer. 
 

[stuartyboy]

14 hours ago, clangerman said:

no problem mate i only found out after my tickets were pulled turned out they collect all this rubbish hold a monthly meeting and decide on action as i’m not the type to wear it they didn’t bank on me taking it up with the chief constable after I got them back the feo unhappy with egg on his face tried to pull another stunt this one ended in the feo manager receiving a official reprimand and his superior had to invite me in feed me tea and biscuits begging me not to take it further just to show how thick they are just last year the same manage tried to claim my brother did not submit his sgc application so i told the police commissioner if she checks the cctv it will show ME delivery his application by HAND the level of their incompetence is unreal anything but admit the truth lol 

I’m glad you got it sorted.

Its a concern if the police act on unsubstantiated information and use it to prejudice you regarding firearm licensing. It opens it up for anyone to make false accusations out of spite. 

 

[snow white]

Just filling in my shotgun renewal and it is the same form as 5 years ago just asking if been in trouble or medical condition nothing else on it. 

[clangerman]

21 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

I’m glad you got it sorted.

Its a concern if the police act on unsubstantiated information and use it to prejudice you regarding firearm licensing. It opens it up for anyone to make false accusations out of spite. 

 

trust me once it’s written down the police take it as fact once a farmer crossed people with funny hand shakes he was arrested under the mental health act and his fac pulled he was giving clean bill of health by the police doctor no less the feo office then tried to claim he was not detained under mental health so i had him obtain his custody record under reason for arrest surprise surprise listed as mental health i still have the feo letter a blatant and deliberate LIE to avoid being caught out how’s that for dishonest lol 

[CharlieT]

Just a few snippets, which you all may find interesting, from the statutory guidance on firearms licensing to chief officers of police. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818022/Draft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf

2.14 All records found relating to the applicant should be recorded on the case file. This will include instances where the applicant is a victim, witness or associate rather than a suspect. Assessing the relevance and weight of any records found is covered in Chapter Three.

2.16 Home visits should include an interview to discuss any issues relevant to suitability as set out in this guidance, permit the inspection of security arrangements, and allow the firearms enquiry officer to meet any other individuals living at the address. Guidelines on security are set out in the Home Office Security Handbook.

2.43 Chief officers should carry out additional checks if, following the initial enquiries above, they believe them to be necessary to assess suitability accurately.

2.44 These checks may include, but are not limited to:

(i) checks with other agencies, such as health professionals other than the GP, social services, probation services or multi-agency groups;

(ii) checks with other licensing or regulatory bodies or enforcement agencies;

(iii) a drug or alcohol test;

(iv) credit or other financial checks;

(v) information obtained from open source social media;

(vi) interviews with individuals other than the applicant or their referees, for example, neighbours, partners or representatives of shooting clubs attended by the applicant;

(vii) background or medical checks on partners or other individuals living at, or with unsupervised access to, the applicant’s address; and

(viii) checks where there is an indication of domestic violence or abuse, as set out in paragraphs 2.45 – 2.50.

2.47 An applicant’s partner or family member is not required to give approval for the issue of the firearms certificate and this should be made clear to them. However, a request from a partner or family member that the applicant should not hold a certificate should be taken into account. The responsibility lies with the police to make the decision based on all the evidence available.

 

[Fisheruk]

2 hours ago, CharlieT said:

Just a few snippets, which you all may find interesting, from the statutory guidance on firearms licensing to chief officers of police. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818022/Draft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf

2.14 All records found relating to the applicant should be recorded on the case file. This will include instances where the applicant is a victim, witness or associate rather than a suspect. Assessing the relevance and weight of any records found is covered in Chapter Three.

2.16 Home visits should include an interview to discuss any issues relevant to suitability as set out in this guidance, permit the inspection of security arrangements, and allow the firearms enquiry officer to meet any other individuals living at the address. Guidelines on security are set out in the Home Office Security Handbook.

2.43 Chief officers should carry out additional checks if, following the initial enquiries above, they believe them to be necessary to assess suitability accurately.

2.44 These checks may include, but are not limited to:

(i) checks with other agencies, such as health professionals other than the GP, social services, probation services or multi-agency groups;

(ii) checks with other licensing or regulatory bodies or enforcement agencies;

(iii) a drug or alcohol test;

(iv) credit or other financial checks;

(v) information obtained from open source social media;

(vi) interviews with individuals other than the applicant or their referees, for example, neighbours, partners or representatives of shooting clubs attended by the applicant;

(vii) background or medical checks on partners or other individuals living at, or with unsupervised access to, the applicant’s address; and

(viii) checks where there is an indication of domestic violence or abuse, as set out in paragraphs 2.45 – 2.50.

2.47 An applicant’s partner or family member is not required to give approval for the issue of the firearms certificate and this should be made clear to them. However, a request from a partner or family member that the applicant should not hold a certificate should be taken into account. The responsibility lies with the police to make the decision based on all the evidence available.

 

Charlie T, thanks for that, seems pretty clear and reasonable.

[Westley]

9 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

My thinking was that we the public get to elect the crime commissioner to the job and hence at least have some say in who gets the job but we have no such say over the chief constable.

we are fighting a losing battle more and more forms if they ever win the argument and get full cost recovery for issuing a certificate we could see a £300 sgc and £500 FAC. Or even more.

 

The Crime Commissioner of Merseyside wants that NOW  !    Remember that there used to be a Police Authority and the the Chairperson of that would have to put any decisions to the remaining members of the Authority before any decisions were made.  Now it is 1 person that makes those decisions, the remainder of their PA friends are merely 'assistants', albeit rather well paid. 

[Yellow Bear]

20 minutes ago, Westley said:

The Crime Commissioner of Merseyside wants that NOW  !    Remember that there used to be a Police Authority and the the Chairperson of that would have to put any decisions to the remaining members of the Authority before any decisions were made.  Now it is 1 person that makes those decisions, the remainder of their PA friends are merely 'assistants', albeit rather well paid. 

Only when the large stadia (sports and entertainment) pay the full cost of policing their  events both inside and outside their venues.

IIRC they currently pay for inside only.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Fisheruk said:

Charlie T, thanks for that, seems pretty clear and reasonable.

Yes, pretty clear. Nothing about filling out a form ( is it a statuary HO form? )  requesting information regarding other occupants.
The information supplied by Charlie T in relation to this thread, relates to a home visit to MEET other occupants, so I’m assuming the FEO will already know who lives there from consultation of the electoral register, of which we ARE compelled to return, as there is a £1000 fine for failing to complete. 
Perhaps this form has been sent due to the lack of a home visit, which doesn’t mean it is a statutory document. It may be, but I don’t know, do you?  

[Fisheruk]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

Yes, pretty clear. Nothing about filling out a form ( is it a statuary HO form? )  requesting information regarding other occupants.
The information supplied by Charlie T in relation to this thread, relates to a home visit to MEET other occupants, so I’m assuming the FEO will already know who lives there from consultation of the electoral register, of which we ARE compelled to return, as there is a £1000 fine for failing to complete. 
Perhaps this form has been sent due to the lack of a home visit, which doesn’t mean it is a statutory document. It may be, but I don’t know, do you?  

Over the years I had several different FEOs for home visits. They all follow a very similar pattern of questions and you know what they are asking for, as set out in the guidance extracts above. With this lockdown and to minimise home visits if giving  them the answers they want avoids the necessity of an actual visit and allows the license to be renewed without delay I’d be happy to fill in the form. Now if you had a convicted armed robber living in the house you may be hesitant in putting that down on the form 😳 

[rbrowning2]

13 hours ago, Westley said:

The Crime Commissioner of Merseyside wants that NOW  !    Remember that there used to be a Police Authority and the the Chairperson of that would have to put any decisions to the remaining members of the Authority before any decisions were made.  Now it is 1 person that makes those decisions, the remainder of their PA friends are merely 'assistants', albeit rather well paid. 

The shooting organisations could take much more interest in the election of crime commissioners, publishing details about each candidate, anti shooting or pro shooting, or even asking for members of the organisations to consider standing as candidates.
After all their are considerable few crime commissioners then MPs so much harder to ever win over enough MPs to pro shooting hence so far the political MP approach has failed to achieve very much of benefit to shooters. If the political path was working the medical mess should have been sorted by now.

 

 

[Scully]

11 hours ago, Fisheruk said:

Over the years I had several different FEOs for home visits. They all follow a very similar pattern of questions and you know what they are asking for, as set out in the guidance extracts above. With this lockdown and to minimise home visits if giving  them the answers they want avoids the necessity of an actual visit and allows the license to be renewed without delay I’d be happy to fill in the form. Now if you had a convicted armed robber living in the house you may be hesitant in putting that down on the form 😳 

It’s entirely up to you which forms you fill in, but if the form is non statutory then I wouldn’t do it, ( and I’ll bet your shooting orgs would advise against the completion of non statutory forms also ) its a slippery slope in my opinion. 
Like I said, I would hesitate to fill out any non statutory form, but seriously doubt anyone living with an armed robber would be completing a firearms application form.
All the relevant info’ is readily available to the police via the electoral register. 

[enfieldspares]

Quote

We have the privilege to hold firearms legally.

No we don't we have a right. Which is why the wording is SHALL grant unless. Not MAY grant. 

[mossy835]

in the states they have a right to have them, we dont

[rbrowning2]

36 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

No we don't we have a right. Which is why the wording is SHALL grant unless. Not MAY grant. 

We have the right to own shotguns section 2 firearms without justification, unless you are prohibited in some way like a criminal record but for section 1 firearms, rifles, you need to justify good reason to own one.

[Fisheruk]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

No we don't we have a right. Which is why the wording is SHALL grant unless. Not MAY grant. 

When we are granted an FAC or SGC we have the privilege to hold guns legally, it is not a privilege until it is granted.

1 hour ago, Scully said:

It’s entirely up to you which forms you fill in, but if the form is non statutory then I wouldn’t do it, ( and I’ll bet your shooting orgs would advise against the completion of non statutory forms also ) its a slippery slope in my opinion. 
Like I said, I would hesitate to fill out any non statutory form, but seriously doubt anyone living with an armed robber would be completing a firearms application form.
All the relevant info’ is readily available to the police via the electoral register. 

That is simply incorrect. There is no legal requirement for a lodger to be on the electoral roll at your property.

Sculls, we will just have to agree to differ. I’m happy to fill the form , you are not. So be it.

[Scully]

32 minutes ago, Fisheruk said:

When we are granted an FAC or SGC we have the privilege to hold guns legally, it is not a privilege until it is granted.

That is simply incorrect. There is no legal requirement for a lodger to be on the electoral roll at your property.

Sculls, we will just have to agree to differ. I’m happy to fill the form , you are not. So be it.

I’ve never mentioned lodgers. Why on earth would someone with a convicted armed robber as a lodger, be applying for a ticket? And secondly, why wouldn’t the rozzers be aware of it? 
If you are asked to register on the electoral role and don’t, you are liable to a fine. 
You keep on filling out those non statutory forms, see where it leads, others will keep fighting unnecessary bureaucracy the only way we can.
 

[snow white]

Well I have just this minute filled my shotgun renewal in and no where does it ask about anybody living with me only asked if married that’s all.

[B725]

I've done mine online today and no mention at all about anyone else.