Experiences with submitting substitutions - Split from other thread

garrettod

MOD NOTE

Split off from this thread.

=============================================================================================

Cass wrote: »

...

It's also an idea to put in referees/photo, etc. Even though some details are not needed i've noticed a trend of Supers refusing applications for not having all the details even though they are not required for a sub. However ask yourself which is easier:

1. Fight your point and refuse to give the details and end up waiting.
2. Just give it to them and get the application done.

To be honest Cass,

I would tend to take a different approach and just do exactly what is required.

I reckon providing all of the "additional" information is only encouraging the few Gardai who are not following the rules, to continue to do it their way.

No more than yourself or anyone else here, I'm not looking for unnecessary grief but equally, I don't think any of us are doing ourselves any favours in the long run, by allowing a few individual Gardai possibly rewrite the rules as they feel like it.

Cass

As i said above i done so to avoid dragging out the substitution process. I can stand on my principles all day, but when the person you are arguing with is the one doing your application you've no real stand point.

Also, as i've said above too, i stopped that when they began to take the piss completely. Hence the reason i said the last one i done i stuck to my guns (excuse the pun) and forced the issue. I got my sub in 9 days, but no doubt i'm going to have to do this each time i go for a sub. IOW it creates animosity.

garrettod

Hi,

I fully appreciate the point your making, we just differ in terms of how we would each approach and subsequently handle the situation.

Cass

How so?

garrettod

Cass wrote: »

How so?

In terms of my original comment about only providing the information required, not the additional items such as photos and permissions... looking back at my last post, it wasn't well phrased and is actually misleading in terms of the reference to subsequently handling the situation, sorry.

Cass

I've always just done the basic info for a sub. Then when the new Super arrived the applications started to come back asking for more and more. Eventually i was nearly sending in a full application for only a sub. Then when i'd had enough and stuck to my guns and the law it went back to the way it used to be.

At the start i did not see the point in holding up a sub for the sake of arguing against me providing a photo. As soon as it got "out of hand" i stopped. It did not go overly smoothly. The phone conversation went along the lines of:

Garda: You need photos, referees, etc, etc.
Me: Not for a sub you only need X, Y, Z.
Garda: Well the Super wants it.
Me: That may be, but it's not necessary and on the FCA1 it says it in the sections that it must be completed in all circumstances other than substitution. So from now on i'll be submitting them as i have done so before and only with the information needed. I also expect it to be done within the 14 day time frame and not 13 weeks.
Garda: We have 3 months to process an application.
Me: You do, for a full application, but for a sub it states 14 days. Not working days, but days. So from day 15 onward i'll be ringing to see where my sub is. I'm sure the Super being so fussy about having the "i" dotted and "t" crossed will appreciate sticking to the rules.
Garda: **silence**
Me: Are you still there?
Garda: Right.
Me: So you'll process the application as is?
Garda: Right.
Me: Oh while i'm at it, i have a signed receipt from my FO and it's dated 3 days ago so there is only 11 days remaining. I put a copy of the receipt with the sub. Have you got that?
Garda: Yes.
Me: Grand. If you have any other problems don't hesitate to contact me.


So what would you have done when told the application will not be processed unless this additional item is provided? Would you have stuck to your guns from the off or like me get to a point and realise that it's just going to keep happening and risk the ire of the Garda/Super by pushing for the proper way to be implemented?


I'm not defending my actions, saying what they did is right or that anyone should capitulate. However when it starts off small you think why cause grief for the sake of a picture or 30 seconds of writing. I mean i now get a "tone" everytime i speak to the Garda processing the applications and that is when my calls are actually taken. I never get called back. Meaning any "good will" i have built up is gone. Not essential, but whats that old saying about flies, honey, vinegar, etc.

garrettod

Cass wrote: »

....So what would you have done when told the application will not be processed unless this additional item is provided?

I'd have said that the document states clearly what is required and if they won't follow the stated proceedures, I'll escalate the matter as I feel I'm being discriminated against.

Cass wrote: »

....However when it starts off small you think why cause grief for the sake of a picture or 30 seconds of writing.

In terms of trying to be cooperative, find the path of least resistance etc. I'd usually tend to agree with you and try to adopt a similar approach to things, but not this. I had no input into designing the application forms but am expected to abide by the documentation 100% (and I do). As such, I expect the Gardai to do the same.

Cass wrote: »

....I mean i now get a "tone" everytime i speak to the Garda processing the applications and that is when my calls are actually taken. I never get called back. Meaning any "good will" i have built up is gone.

Neither appropriate, professional or even nice to have to deal with and reflects badly on the Garda in question. The goodwill is important and I'm not trying to discredit it, although sometimes it's a "bonus" and no more. I'd pop down to the station some day and ask to speak to the Garda in question, see if you can have a chat and get past it (obviously, in a positive manner).

Cass wrote: »

....Not essential, but whats that old saying about flies, honey, vinegar, etc.

Sorry, no idea

Oh, as an aside it's worth saying, I'm very fortunite and have an excellent (albeit very limited) relationship with the Gardai in my local station and the relevant super. Infact, to give credit where it's due, it seems so do others who share our sporting interests in my locality, so perhaps we are just particularly lucky where I live.

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

I'll escalate the matter as I feel I'm being descriminated against.

How would you escalate it? I'm asking for details, facts, actions you'd take, etc.

I got no input into designing the application forms but am expected to abide by the documentation 100%. As such, I expect the Gardai to do the same.

You'll excuse the abruptness of this statement, but wtf?

You have no input so you expect them to do it by the letter? The same goes with car tax, tax returns, census forms, voting, etc, etc, etc. The list is endless. You ave no input into how any government form is dictated but you cannot tell me that they run 100% smoothly or make you jump through circles to get what should be an easy goal.

As said above excuse the abruptness and i don't mean to be rude but that sounds ridiculous.

Neither appropriate, professional or even nice to have to deal with and reflects badly on the Garda in question. The goodwill is important and I'm not trying to discredit it, although sometimes it's a "bonus" and no more. I'd pop down to the station some day and ask to speak to the Garda in question, see if you can have a chat and get past it (obviously, in a positive manner).

Not a chance.

The issue here is the same as it is in every other aspect of dealings with civil/Governement departments. What is written in law/black & white is clear, but it's enacted by people. People can be moody, abrupt, nasty, polite, ignorant, incompetent, etc, etc. IOW there is always a person under the suit or in this case the uniform.

If me willing to bend a little, without being a burden, gets the job done i don't see a problem with it. Obviously it all depends on the situation however a small amount of flexibility will maintain any good working relationship i may have and get me what i want. If standing on my principles drags the matter out longer, and creates animosity and bitterness then i have to weigh up the effectiveness of what i'm doing against the long term damage it can cause.

At the beginning when i was asked for one or two details more i was willing to bend, but by the end it was beyond a joke so i was "forced" into option two.

This, as said above, only relates to the form. In other situations i'd be less willing to absolutely not willing at all to bend. For example i was told before that i couldn't license the same restricted firearm my Father was on so my application was being returned to me. That was a hard one as i had to prove a negative. IOW the law does not mention this as being legal or not (specifically). Another one was i had to apply for a EFP and wait the same 3 months for it as a license.

I'm not arguing with you for the sake of it, and i don't like having to do more than is necessary, but i fail to see how being so staunchly stuck to the rules when it may only be a minor issue is such a problem. Until it gets to the point where they ask for a fully completed FCA1 for a sub, i won't deem some extra info as an issue if it got me the sub quicker or with less grief.

Sorry, no idea

You get more flies with honey than vinegar. Not important in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, as an aside it's worth saying, I'm very fortunite and have an excellent (albeit very limited) relationship with the Gardai in my local station and the relevant super. Infact, to give credit where it's due, it seems so do others who share our sporting interests in my locality, so perhaps we are just particularly lucky where I live.

I had the same up until 3 years ago. Then they all started to retire and the sh*t hit the fan. Had as many Supers/Chief Supers & FOs in the last 3 years as i had in the previous 20 kind of situation.

garrettod

Cass wrote: »

How would you escalate it? I'm asking for details, facts, actions you'd take, etc.

Simply go up the reporting lines, everyone has a boss.

Ideally, I'd try and speak with the person's superior face to face because it offers an opportunity to keep things less formal and gives potential for people to "bend" a little, then if that failed or wasn't an option, put the matter in writting. Assuming no satisfaction, escalate and repeat....

Having not had a specific problem with the Gardai, I don't know the specific proceedures so sorry can't give you the detail you are looking for here, but if I had a problem and felt I was not being treated correctly, I'd find out how to deal with it and follow the appropriate course of action.

Cass wrote: »

You'll excuse the abruptness of this statement, but wtf?

You have no input so you expect them to do it by the letter? The same goes with car tax, tax returns, census forms, voting, etc, etc, etc. The list is endless. You ave no input into how any government form is dictated but you cannot tell me that they run 100% smoothly or make you jump through circles to get what should be an easy goal.

As said above excuse the abruptness and i don't mean to be rude but that sounds ridiculous.

No problem with the abruptness, neither of us are falling out here

Yes - I do expect everyone to follow the legislation, or "rules" set out on documents issued by Government agencies or departments.

Yes - I am telling you that my experiences with firearms licences, passports, driving licences, car tax renewals, revenue or social welfare forms, grants etc (sorry can't think of many more right now) have all run smoothly without me being made "jump through circles to get what should be an easy goal".

As a matter of principal, I would not be prepared to jump through circles, to get what I would consider an "easy goal" and strongly believe no one else should either. Infact, I'd also say that I believe people (well intended as they might be), who do "jump through circles" unnecessarily when asked to do so, are only inflaming the problem for others who come along after them... because whoever is trying to call the shots knows they have gotten away with doing what they want on previous occassions, so keep trying to do the same again.

Cass wrote: »

...The issue here is the same as it is in every other aspect of dealings with civil/Governement departments. What is written in law/black & white is clear, but it's enacted by people. People can be moody, abrupt, nasty, polite, ignorant, incompetent, etc, etc. IOW there is always a person under the suit or in this case the uniform.

Sure, I know what your saying but I find most people are good, willing to follow the law (or "rules" if you like) and when I do what I'm supposed to do, treat the other person with respect, courtesy and professionalism, I expect and thankfully almost always get the same. In instances where I do not (I've had private sector experiences rather than public sector), I deal with it and get what I want, if its an "easy goal".

Obviously, if it's not an "easy goal" then thats a different story and you take the approach you think appropriate to try and get what you want, but you know that before you begin....

Cass wrote: »

...If me willing to bend a little, without being a burden, gets the job done i don't see a problem with it. Obviously it all depends on the situation however a small amount of flexibility will maintain any good working relationship i may have and get me what i want. If standing on my principles drags the matter out longer, and creates animosity and bitterness then i have to weigh up the effectiveness of what i'm doing against the long term damage it can cause.

At the beginning when i was asked for one or two details more i was willing to bend, but by the end it was beyond a joke so i was "forced" into option two.

As mentioned earlier, I do try to take the same approach as you describe in most walks of life and do genuinely value goodwill... but equally, I feel that when the rules are in black and white, then everyone has to stick to them, end of story. If people don't like the rules, they seek to have them changed through the proper proceedure, but don't go rewritting them to suit themselves....

Not wanting to point the finger here, but in your example because you (and perhaps many people before you) agreed to give additional documentation, it created a situation where the next person to apply will most likely be forced into the same situation, despite the fact that this was not what was required per the documented rules. Each time the other party gets what they want, they become more of the belief that they are right, when actually they are not. Sadly, this is most likely what put you in the situation you described, in the first place.

Why have rules, or laws, if not everyone has to abide by them ?

Cass wrote: »

...This, as said above, only relates to the form. In other situations i'd be less willing to absolutely not willing at all to bend.

For example i was told before that i couldn't license the same restricted firearm my Father was on so my application was being returned to me. That was a hard one as i had to prove a negative. IOW the law does not mention this as being legal or not (specifically). Another one was i had to apply for a EFP and wait the same 3 months for it as a license.

Absolutely respect that. Its clear you've had more difficult experiences to deal with regarding licences, than I have.

Cass wrote: »

...I'm not arguing with you for the sake of it, and i don't like having to do more than is necessary, but i fail to see how being so staunchly stuck to the rules when it may only be a minor issue is such a problem. Until it gets to the point where they ask for a fully completed FCA1 for a sub, i won't deem some extra info as an issue if it got me the sub quicker or with less grief.

As mentioned earlier, I think every time someone agrees to stuff like this, it's making it harder for the next person (in this case, the applicant seeking the substitution). This time it's a photo and an up to date permission letter, in time this becomes "the norm" but one day, the decision maker in question decides (s)he'd also like to introduce a requirement for more personal references or something else... where does it end ? Do we get the same flexibilty, if one of us goes into the station and says "hi, I want my sub. approved overnight because I want to go collect my new firearm tomorrow, I've taken the day off and want to spend it shooting my new gun" or, "eh I didn't feel like filling out all of the relevant information on the form because I wasn't in the mood" for example ? Sure, I'm being extreme here but I'm sure you take my point. Hence, I say we all stick to the rules, end of story.

Cass wrote: »

...You get more flies with honey than vinegar....

We learn something new every day

Cass wrote: »

... I had the same up until 3 years ago. Then they all started to retire and the sh*t hit the fan. Had as many Supers/Chief Supers & FOs in the last 3 years as i had in the previous 20 kind of situation.

Sorry to hear that, but firstly begs the question whats ultimtely wrong that there are so many changes in such a short space of time and secondly gives hope that you'll be rid of the person you don't get on with soon enough.

I know this could go on and on, but doubt either of us wants this so maybe we might agree to disagree on this one ?

(if you don't mind, I'm going to drop you a quick PM on something you mentioned to do with one of your other experiences btw - you've reminded me of something I want to check out for myself).

Cass

The problem i, and others in my station, would have had is the person at the top (the Super) was doing this. Not the Garda processing them, not the FO, etc. So going up the "chain of command" would lead to the person that caused this.

You made a point about asking for more references. That is somewhat different that asking for the two on the form. If i provided the two and they asked for more i'd draw a line at that.

As for me and others providing more info and creating this problem well i'd disagree that we created it, but agree that we enabled the Super to continue to demand more even when it was not necessary.

All i can say is this and again i'm not intending to be nasty. You've lead a charmed life in not just firearms but all things. Up until 3 years ago i was the same in terms of firearms. In everything i've done relating to Government or "form filling" i've never had a straight forward and by the book experience. Having to complete forms, re-apply, send in the same forms because the first were "lost". I even had a woman tell me when i questioned her on why i get refused first time, every time and get it without a hitch the second time. Her answer was refusing everyone first time eliminates most of those that are not genuine as they cannot be arsed to follow it up. This was not a firearm issue, but i was stunned. The rules and law says i qualified, and i filled in all the necessary forms, yet they had their own policy. I even went through the trouble, once, of complaining and was told in no uncertain terms "There is no issue to be resolved".

I hate to keep repeating myself and i agree that we could go back and forth for days on this, but i believe that at appropriate times bending to match the will of the person in charge works better than going against them.

Deaf git

Here is another old saying, 'A fish stinks from the head'.
Any crap I ever had with licences only ever occurred when the Super was either anti gun or, licensing had been given to the 'numpty' in the local station because the Super didn't rate it as important. The numpty is the thick, lazy one sent to try the patience of all and sundry.
The additional info tactic on a sub is a delaying tactic to avoid making a decision.
Intentionally losing paperwork is a cardinal sin in the public service, having said that I'm aware of two state agencies where lost paperwork is commonplace.

garrettod

Deaf git wrote: »

Here is another old saying, 'A fish stinks from the head'. ...

You know, if there's much more of these old sayings popping up, Cass is going to have to split this thread aswell

Coincidently, I've never heard that one either btw.