Renewed, GP Fee, back door tax?

[westley]

This is wrong. GP's fees are determined by the BMA. They have a band of fees and it is at their discretion how much they charge within the confines of this band. They SHOULD NOT (note, this is not 'MUST NOT) charge for a simple confirmation that the certificate holder does not, in their professional opinion, pose a risk. They are within their rights to charge if more detailed information is required. 

The advice from BASC is not to pay a fee if it is levied. The CPSA, as usual, are saying nothing.

They probably are unaware  !

 

[Dug]

BMA UPDATES GUIDANCE TO GPS TO SUPPORT PROCESSING OF LICENCES



November 22, 2016





On 15th November the British Medical Association (BMA) updated its guidance being provided to GPs. The originally guidance suggested that it would be acceptable for GPs to refuse to process renewals for firearms certificates on the basis it was not part of a GPs statutory obligations.


A SUMMARY OF WHAT'S CHANGED


Following discussions with the Police forces from the UK, the Police have agreed to make small amendments to the paperwork GPs are required to complete and in return the BMA has revised its guidance.

The tone of the guidance has changed and now the BMA is stating that it is within the professional interest of GPs to engage in the process. Those GPs who feel sufficiently strongly about the matter are still able to be conscientious objectors but are now advised by the BMA that it is their obligation to put the person in question in contact with another GP who is prepared to complete the paperwork.

This is a significant and positive step for all those using firearms across the UK. The matter of payment in return for this service is still a matter of contention but now this significant barrier has been overcome, this should make the process simpler for those experiencing difficulties from their GPs.


SUMMARY OF THE UPDATED GUIDANCE


A summary of the BMA guidance, updated on 15th November, can be found below and the full guidance can be downloaded at the bottom:


GPs must engage in the process of firearms licensing when requested to do so. Failure to do so could place them at professional risk. In terms of their contractual obligations, GPs must cooperate with and facilitate statutory functions relating to the process.



The contract also sets out that a reasonable fee may be demanded for the services provided as part of that process. The demand for a reasonable fee may form a condition, which if not fulfilled, means the GP can refuse to engage further in the firearms certification process.



A GP may have a genuine conscientious objection, in which case and subject to GMC guidance they should refer the patient appropriately.



Source: BMA website



READ THE FULL GUIDANCE


The full guidance can be found on the BMA website available at: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/ethics-a-to-z/firearms

 

[Xaphan]

The contract also sets out that a reasonable fee may be demanded for the services provided as part of that process. The demand for a reasonable fee may form a condition, which if not fulfilled, means the GP can refuse to engage further in the firearms certification process.

is it me or is that pretty vague?

"The demand for a reasonable fee may form a condition" 

what condition? and on who's part (i.e. the applicant or the police) does this condition apply?

 

[ips]

it would be very irresponsible for a gp to withold potentially important information regarding suitability to handle a firearm on the basis of not being paid enough to tick a few boxes. Like they don't earn enough as it is.

 

[balltrap]

it would be very irresponsible for a gp to withold potentially important information regarding suitability to handle a firearm on the basis of not being paid enough to tick a few boxes. Like they don't earn enough as it is.




 

So why has your GP not told the firearms department you are of unsound mind :angel:

 

[Lord v]

My GP sent a letter saying he refused to answer on my suitability to hold a firearm as he wasn't a qualified physiatrist under section 12 of the MHA.

He didn't charge me for the privilege though!  

 

[ips]

he shouldn't be practising then if he cant answer a few simple questions from the feo

history of drink or drug abuse

history of depression

etc

it ain't that difficult

 

[Lord v]

That's only one of the questions. there are three: 

1. do you have any concerns that may prevent the issue of a cert. (Or similar)

2. does the individual suffer from or have record of the following: (all the things listed on the form)

3. have you placed a marker on the file? 

Question 1 is the sticking point. by asking about concerns they are asking for medical opinion rather than statement of fact. that opens up a whole liability issue. my Dr's letter says the issue most associated with improper use of a firearm is a personality disorder, which as I have never seen him he can't answer nor is he fully qualified to assess as per the MHA. 

This is the letter. anyway, hasn't held up my application and they haven't charged me for It.  so whatever really... 

 

[Paul120]

That's only one of the questions. there are three: 

1. do you have any concerns that may prevent the issue of a cert. (Or similar)

2. does the individual suffer from or have record of the following: (all the things listed on the form)

3. have you placed a marker on the file? 

Question 1 is the sticking point. by asking about concerns they are asking for medical opinion rather than statement of fact. that opens up a whole liability issue. my Dr's letter says the issue most associated with improper use of a firearm is a personality disorder, which as I have never seen him he can't answer nor is he fully qualified to assess as per the MHA. 

The answer to no1 is:- No. As you have never seen him and your records don't show any  how can they have concerns.

If you had seen him and he was worried by some issue, trait you have or your records showed something then it's yes. 

It's a statement of fact.

He's not being asked to guess that you spend your spare time staring at a wall shouting at it or licking the windows.

Just what they have seen.  

 

[ips]

exactly right paul,

anyway what's he sending a letter to you for, its the feo he should be dealing with. Tell your feo that your gp is an arse

 

[Lord v]

I can't remember the exact wording but I have seen it on another website. it was worded oddly that does seem to require a medical opinion on suitability.

The letter was sent to the feo, I was just sent a copy as well. 

 

[ips]

very strange.

 

[Lord v]

No argument there! 

 

[Xaphan]

I can kind of see where the doctor is coming from..... 

If the police are to take an opinion from a GP as part of the process for deciding suitability and something were to happen with regards to the applicant getting a firearms grant and then killing someone, it kind of makes the GP liable just as much as the police for giving a grant to someone who is not suitable.

at the end of the day the police should not be asking for opinions at all as we all know they are subjective. 

only documented medical records should be used as a base for their decision on a persons suitability which is what we agree to allow the police access to when we apply for a firearms/shotgun grant we don't agree to a subjective opinion from someone who doesn't know you on a personal level.

 

[ips]

I don't believe its as simple as that. Someone can be quite sane one day and for various reasons not the day after. All the gp has to do is tell the feo what the medical records indicate on the day and in the event of an "incident" no one will hold the gp responsible if things alter the day after he is merely confirming what the "current" medical records would indicate.

 

[Xaphan]

I don't believe its as simple as that. Someone can be quite sane one day and for various reasons not the day after. All the gp has to do is tell the feo what the medical records indicate on the day and in the event of an "incident" no one will hold the gp responsible if things alter the day after he is merely confirming what the "current" medical records would indicate.

I completely agree someone can be sane one day and not the next,

but it does seem in this instance that the police have asked for a professional opinion rather than a medical history for them (the police) to make their minds up from, at least that seems to be how the doctor has seen it.

there is a massive difference between medical opinion and medical fact.

and the police should not be asking GP's for opinions

 

[Richard59]

All, thank you very much for taking the time to reply and or contribute to the thread, lots of very helpful pointers,  I've communicated with both the GP practice and the FO, the former elusive the latter very very helpful, all, in my instance has been resolved, most importantly the FO was very well informed as to what I needed or not needed to part with and I've been assured my renewal will be completed well before current one expires. Again many thanks to you all. 

 

[Richard59]

Well it's been some time, this pm had a visit from Glos FO, quite a pleasant visit, my dog didn't bark at him which was a good start, we had a decent chat, he was very knowledgeable and most importantly very interesting in a FO / Certificate holder background way, I'm all ok which was not unexpected I hasten to add, hopefully all renewals are incident free. The one thing I would share is that renewals are taking a tad longer than usual

 

[jwpzx9r]

My licence to shoot clay targets in France has to be renewed annually and this means I have to have my doctor verify that I am able and of fit mind to do so. It casts me €25 each time so that is much more expensive than you are paying. Also my licence costs €59 per annum so again it is more expensive than a SGC grant in the UK ... am I complaining ... no... did I complain about the cost of the grant of a SGC when I lived I the UK... no. Why is it that there is so much whining about the cost of a grant of a SGC in the UK when in fact it is actually cheap when the cost is for 5 years of shooting. I did not get it when I lived in the UK and I don't get it now a SGC is not a heavy cost burden on a shooter in the UK stop moaning about it!

he shouldn't be practising then if he cant answer a few simple questions from the feo

history of drink or drug abuse

history of depression

etc

it ain't that difficult

That is a funny one Ian. I will be shooting in a comp up at Yhcoux next weekend . I can tell you there will be several bottles of wine on the table along with snacks per shoot in the morning.. naturally there will be some wine with the lunch time menu... I hasten to add I do not take wine when shooting or after as I have to drive. The depression bit... if you have seen my scores :lol:

 

[Richard59]

My licence to shoot clay targets in France has to be renewed annually and this means I have to have my doctor verify that I am able and of fit mind to do so. It casts me €25 each time so that is much more expensive than you are paying. Also my licence costs €59 per annum so again it is more expensive than a SGC grant in the UK ... am I complaining ... no... did I complain about the cost of the grant of a SGC when I lived I the UK... no. Why is it that there is so much whining about the cost of a grant of a SGC in the UK when in fact it is actually cheap when the cost is for 5 years of shooting. I did not get it when I lived in the UK and I don't get it now a SGC is not a heavy cost burden on a shooter in the UK stop moaning about it!

Moan? Like many I have no issue with the fee for renewal it's the GP fee "cost" that prompted my op, as I understand it when the present legislation was in draft  the stakeholders including the BMA agreed all initial replies to Police enquiries where to be cost free, if and it's a big if the Police required any additional information from ones GP the Police would bear the cost. However the GPs rejected original proposal, the GMA cannot enforce the original draft so we now have GPs or more likely the practice management asking for fees which I again understand have ranged from £40 to £140.

One pays what one is asked in the country in which one lives, costs of x y and x can be compared favourably / unfavourably until the cows come home can they not?