Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET

[lapua338]

Inadequate, inappropriate and disgraceful...

Bluster, bullshit, coercion and improper behaviour with the specific purpose to discourage a lawful activity.

Examples like this cannot be isolated incidents and should be discussed on a wider forum such as this.

The following is what one of our members is having to deal with...

I have spoken with the sergeant who is the licensing manager. It sounds like he is happy to issue you an FAC – but as I thought, will not issue 7 guns straight off. (Good reason has been satisfied and a supporting letter provided by the applicant from the club secretary)

He will however take a variation a few months down the line, if you have bought the guns and can demonstrate your use of these guns in competition or practice, etc.

He said to choose three, otherwise he might chose three for you. (Please direct me to the relevant section in the Act where this is lawful)

Let me know which guns you would prefer. Feel free to take your time, have a discussion at the club with other shooters to see which might be the best options. I am away, and will not be back in the office for about two weeks now anyway.

This particular FEO also stated "My sergeant is strict and does not like putting too many guns on the street." What does that cretinous statement mean? Is he unhinged? The applicant is not living in Dodge City. What is this relationship between a lawful sporting activity and criminal acts with black market and illegal firearms?

Whether the sergeant made these statements or not is irrelevant. Where is their procedural good practice? A clear decision making process must be followed after all the relevant information has been considered. The FEO makes a recommendation and the supervisor/designated officer decides. The decision must be documented and open to potential review.

Clearly this is not the case. Both the FEO and his supervising officer should not be employed by the Met FET. His statements and the alleged statements of his line manager illustrate their unprincipled standards which are contrary to what is expected of so-called professionals.

To maintain club ethos and integrity all full members are required to participate in all club activities. Hence the letter from the club secretary supporting the application. Different firearms are required for different activities. Are the Met FET recommending that club members only participate in half or one third of club activities? These suggestions are preposterous. This is nothing more than interference in the legitimate activities of a HO approved rifle & pistol club which is also a Community Amateur Sports Club.

Furthermore, concerning the FEOs statements suggesting that the applicant "take your time" and "have a discussion at the club with other shooters to see which might be the best options". The applicant made his submission in March 2017 and has been a full member since April 2017. There is nothing to discuss. The application is based upon 8 months of regular attendance participating in all club activities (apart from LBP + LBR because of HO rules) and detailed considered guidance from club officers.

I do not understand why this application, already in abeyance for over 4 months should be delayed further by their inadequacy and an individual's private domestic arrangements. Where's the business continuity? Do the day-to-day operations cease because some functionary is away from the office?

In conclusion the Metropolitan Police FET are not fit for purpose with their ridiculous and unlawful obstruction.

[safetyfirst]

Have you told them all this or are you just telling us? You're quite right and you should make your opinion heard!

[Gazza]

I got this too, nearly to the letter, including the "Im away for 2 weeks as from tomorrow"
Are these people making it up between themselves at the secret meetings? makes you wonder.
Tell the applicant to accept what they say then as soon as he gets his FAC apply for a variation FOR EVERYTHING including S1 shotty and slugs clapclap With an accompanying letter saying this could have been avoided

[Gazza]

West yorks has a disproportionate staff turnover so makes you wonder what goes on behind that PO box number

[lapua338]

Have you told them all this or are you just telling us? You're quite right and you should make your opinion heard!

We're awaiting a response to our last missive.

The individual is collecting a portfolio of evidence before submitting the official complaint.

[lapua338]

Tell the applicant to accept what they say

Unacceptable, hence collecting further evidence of their obstruction.

[Daryll]

I think the "3 guns to start with" is fairly standard practise.. or it is here in Cambs...

Back in the late 80's when i first got my FAC for pistols, I was advised that asking for too many straight off would be frowned upon, so i went with 3 (.22, .38 and 9mm) and that was granted with no problems.

Even early last year when my Son got his FAC, he was advised to ask for 3.

To be honest, I can understand them getting a little twitchy about someone getting 7 in a short space of time.... however, the "guns on the street" comment needs to be challenged

[TattooedGun]

I too had the same with West Mids on my initial application.

I wanted 5 rifles, I think and I was advised to go for 3 for my initial grant.

From their point of view, It's risk management. They need to see you're not a liability before issuing many guns and its mitigating the risk on a first time applicant.

I don't see why you/the person you've posted on behalf of see it as such a big issue, unless you've got mountains of cash buying 7 rifles in 3 months is going to be quite the challenge in the first place, so getting 3 and shooting them in the first 3 months before applying for a variation and proving that you're actually using the rifles by buying ammunition for them and attending the club is not a lot to ask.

Ultimately if your Chief of Police wants to limit you on your first application because in his mind it is in the interests of public safety, then he is entitled to:

Section 27(2) of the 1968 Act gives the chief officer of police powers to attach conditions
to firearm certificates where necessary. In the case of 'R v Wakefield Crown Court ex
parte Oldfield (1978)' the court gave expression to the common law requirement that a
person must exercise individual judgement in all cases. Section 29(1) of the 1968 Act
gives the chief officer power to vary, by a notice in writing, any such condition not
prescribed by the rules made by the Secretary of State. The notice may require the
holder to deliver the certificate to the chief officer within twenty-one days for the purpose
of amending the conditions. The certificate may be revoked if the holder fails to comply
with such a requirement.

This doesn't sound like a written condition on the certificate, but more of a condition of the grant of the certificate, ultimately if you refuse the Chief Of Polices request to lower the number, they could very well refuse your application - not that they'd want to, but you have to ask whats reasonable- sure you can challenge it, or appeal, but whats cheaper, sticking in for a variation, or time and money to go through courts...?

Is 7 firearms on an initial grant reasonable - I don't think I've ever seen someone on an initial grant get more than 4 at my club, everyone talks about how they asked for more and got talked into having a lower amount.

I realise that a certificate lasts 5 years, but I genuinely think having the number lower, until you have proven that you can keep firearms safe and secure, if even for only 3 months before applying for a variation is not unreasonable.

[bnz41]

Essex look at 4 being enough when your just starting out owning firearms.. Been like that for the last 15+years.

+1 to this comment, the "guns on the street" comment needs to be challenged oh yes

[Lever357]

Northumbria Police advised me they only like to see 5 rifles on a new FAC application so I had to delete one. That was only last November. I rang them a few weeks ago and asked about a variation and was quizzed why I hadn't bought two that I was allowed??? I would have thought they would have been happier with people owning less firearms. Just thought it was a strange comment to make.