I just checked with the MSA that I had read my 2009 comp licence renewal form correctly. For a non-race Clubman it is 짙23, fair enough. After a heart attack five years ago I am now quite healthy and was discharged by my doctor after a few months. Like many other older triallers, I am prescribed a beta-blocker (a banned substance) for which my doctor is happy to sign the required exemption form so I can continue competetive trialling. Still fair enough, BUT the MSA wants 짙44 just for admin fees for processing the exemption certificate. Apart from sounding exhorbitantly expensive for a simple clerical task it also sounds discriminatory to me.
So people on medication are required to pay more to compete than others? My doctor has established the safety of using prescribed medication in motorsport and signed to say it is safe for me so what does the £44 pay for? Even if the clerical task is overseen by a medically qualified person, how much can reading one exemption form cost the MSA?
I did not ask the nice chap on the MSA telephone to justify the cost, I'm sure the office workers don't set the level of fees.
Yours in a ripped-off state of mind
John
I decided to try to cut down on paperwork and costs for the MSA by renewing my licence on line, as I was urged to by one of the many bits of paper in the mailing. But what did I find? The Motor Sports Association web site is temporarily unavailable whilst we move to our new site.
ReplyDeletePlease refresh your browser and try again soon.
We apologise for any inconvenience caused.
They are clearly not that bothered to reduce costs. They are as bad as/worse than the Government!
Hi Richard - I had a go myself. I did manage to get on the site but it said that on-line renewals couldn't be made until 1st December. - Michael
ReplyDeleteJohn. I totally agree, the fee seems excessive and worse - is a form of discrimination. As the Government has made clear its displeasure over the scale of bank penalty charges (versus the true cost to the bank) why not write to the Chief Exec of the MSA personally and ask him to justify it - as you "intend to contact your MP over what you see as a form of discrimination" ?
ReplyDeleteA further thought John. As you know both the MSC and its 'legal entity' the MSA (as the ASN for Britain) are 100% bound by FIA rules. They are not optional. The very first General Regulation is :- 2.2 That the above powers may be exercised in a fair and equitable manner, ......... Financially penalising you in relation to 'able-bodied' applicants is discriminatory and therefore the MSA is ('arguably' - in legal language) not complying with that very basic FIA rule.
ReplyDeleteThen to make it fair everyone would have the fee increased.
ReplyDeleteGood idea...
Many thanks for your valued opinions, the reason I have
ReplyDeletenot already taken the complaint to the MSA is that I wanted to 'run it by' you
competitors in case there was something that I had overlooked.
Please don't let the fact that I intend to write to the
MSA immediately, stop you from contributing to this discussion. All attempts to
justify the 짙44 admin fee are welcome so that I can either accept or develop
arguments against such reasons if they are put forward in answer to my
complaint.
John
I gotta fund next year's trialling so -
Grandchildren for sale include,
1 x cheerful, healthy 3 yr old male. (Quite
expensive)
4 x assorted, up to 10yrs, mixed sexes. (Reasonable
offers considered).
2 x teenagers. (Free to good home, free delivery on
UK mainland).
yeller dutton
ReplyDeleteare these children house trained and good with pets
i.e. walking/ feeding/ mucking out etc. Or maybe I could part
exchange the 3 year old for some cash and an old nag.
I can vouch for one of them . . .when grand-daddy borrowed the yeller Dutton to do a club wednesday night trial, he said to me when I got there "come and listen, it's knocking a bit .. " I have to admit, the rod poking through the hole in the side of the engine block, did indeed make a "knocking" noise on the edges of the hole and the chassis rail as it clobbered it every revolution . . . So, bear in mind the Ilkley trial is on the sunday, there's not a lot of time to do anything . . . so with car and an ebay spare engine transported to Johns house, I arrive for us to do the swop on the Friday evening . . . where-upon John sends aforementioned grand-child out, claims to have a "business meeting" and only reappeared to reclaim tired, oily and extremely helpful grandkid a hour or two later . . . when it all looked car shaped again . . . with less air-cooling to the crankshaft. ;-) Bri (to add a little footnote to this tale, John only went and ventilated a piston using a two part valve stem and head on the new engine two whole trials later . . . not that he has a thing about cross-flows you understand . . .Grandkid obviously a quick learner - he claimed to have a "business meeting" before anyone else had a chance to . . )
ReplyDeletethis may be a stupid question (and i should know the answer) why do we need msa licences when the mcc and class O competitors dont seem to
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need MSA licences? In principle, and I hope I've got my facts right without delving deep into the Blue Book, because the MSA require them (a) if you are inviting more than six clubs, and/or (b) the event is part of a championship (even if not an MSA Championship) involving more than one club. MCC events are run under a Clubsport permit (up to six invited clubs) and the ACTC events with a Class 0 are generally "dual-permit" - National B for the main events, Clubsport for Class 0. If you look at the Hardy Regs, for example, you'll see that the Class 0 event was restricted to Woolbridge members only. Andrew
ReplyDeleteThe MSA emloy 40 Full Time Staff. They need the money for the bubbly at their Christmas party.
ReplyDeleteVery droll Michael, you'll be running Nationwide's advertising campaign next Getting back to the original issue, British Cycling, the MSA's counterpart in the cycling world are also signed up to Wada. They have the same list of proscribed drugs etc etc. They also have the TUE thingies. The only people who have to fill them in as a matter of course are the top cyclists in the country ie Chris Hoy, Nicole Cook, Bradley Wiggins and the next 60 down the rankings who are regularly and randomly tested in and out of competition. If any other license holder is tested in any level of competition they can apply for a TUE retrospectively within 5 days of the test. I've no doubt people holding BC licences are drug tested far more often than MSA Licence holders for obvious reasons. But here's the best bit. What do BC members pay for a TUE? £44? £20? Nope. Nobody pays anything to BC for the privilege... BTW to save any confusion I'm not the Ian Davis that works for MSA...
ReplyDeleteI've just sent off my money to MSA for my licence renewal. For some reason I have to pay an extra £14 so that I can complete in speed events as well as trials. I cannot see why there should be any extra charge at all, the paperwork is the same, the bit of plastic is the same and the picture is the same and there is no requirement for a medical. Michael's is the only logical explanation.
ReplyDelete£14 extra for a 'dual purpose' Clubmans/Speed licence seems reasonable to me. 짙44 for 'processing a certificate' seems like rip-off territory. ______________________ "Then to make it fair everyone would have the fee increased.
ReplyDeleteGood idea... Mark R-E." Uhhh no. You remove the discriminatory charge.
"Please don't let the fact that I intend to write to the MSA immediately, stop you from contributing to this discussion. All attempts to justify the £44 admin fee are welcome so that I can either accept or develop arguments against such reasons if they are put forward in answer to my complaint. John" Good for you John. If you don't get a straight answer, ask them for the correct proceedure to enable you to take it up with the FIA as regards that 'fair and equitable' rule.
ReplyDeleteOn-line renewals are only available if last year's details
ReplyDeleteare unchanged, a 짙44 exemption certificate must be renewed each year according
to the chap at the MSA, ie the doctor has to sign it each year, so on-line
renewal is not an option.
What does the Doctor write? Something to the effect that,
'John was discharged fit in 2003 and is on a small maintenance dose of
beta-blocker". MSA charges £44 to read that. The following year my Doctor
repeats "John was discharged fit in 2003 and is on a small maintenance
dose of beta-blocker". MSA again charges £44 to read that. Presumably next year
he will write the same and the £44 will have been increased due to spiralling
rip-offs.
I'm saving up for a comp licence, might have to sell
another grandchild.
TTFN
John
Just to bring you up to date with the complaint I
ReplyDeletemade to the MSA regarding fees for processing my medical exemption certificate,
I sent the letter printed below and after waiting fruitlesly for the normal
courtesy of a note to say that the matter is receiving attention, I have heard
nothing. The arrogance of the silence for six full working days is not
surprising to me but I had hoped I was just being cynical.
I feel obliged to bring in my MP as obviously a
letter from a fee paying licence applicant and long-time competitor and trials
organiser is not worth the trouble of an email confirmation from the paid
officials of our governing body.
Thanks to the people who commented on my earlier
letters, they will note that I have used their contributions in my
text.
I wish to register my
complaint at the presence of a fee to administer the processing of a Therapeutic
Use Exemption Form. I ask that it is removed, effective for the 2009
applications.
I consider the fee to be
discriminatory in favour of 'able-bodied' applicants who do not need to provide
such information.
Will you please help me to understand how
such a fee can be legally charged given that both the MSC and its 'legal entity'
the MSA (as the ASN for Britain) are 100% bound by FIA rules.
They are not optional.
The very first General Regulation is :-
2.2 That the above powers may be exercised in
a fair and equitable manner, .........
I would suggest that the MSA is not complying with
that very basic FIA rule.
If a trivial sum must be charged for the extra clerical
work involved in processing an exemption form then as the Government has made
clear its displeasure over the scale of bank penalty charges (versus the true
cost to the bank), I would ask that the fee is commensurate with the work
involved.
<
Good for you John. It may be that the lack of a response is because you have set them a bit of a challenge !
ReplyDeleteFurther food for thought from the (very lengthy !) Discrimination Act 2005. (2) In this section, and sections 21D and 21E, “public authority”— (a) includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature. I reckon this includes the MSA. (1) For the purposes of section 21B(1), a public authority discriminates against a disabled person if— (a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, it treats him less favourably than it treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and (b) it cannot show that the treatment in question is justified under subsection (3), (5) or (7)(c). This looks like a get-out clause ..... (3) Treatment, or a failure to comply with a duty, is justified under this subsection if— (a) in the opinion of the public authority, one or more of the conditions specified in subsection (4) are satisfied; and (b) it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for it to hold that opinion. (4) The conditions are— (a) that the treatment, or non-compliance with the duty, is necessary in order not to endanger the health or safety of any person (which may include that of the disabled person). So the MSA might cite 4(a) ...... BUT (5) Treatment, or a failure to comply with a duty, is justified under this subsection if the acts of the public authority which give rise to the treatment or failure are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The vital words are "proportionate means". Stinging you for 짙44 every year is hardly proportionate.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad your on MY side, Mr Allard V8,
ReplyDeletesir!
To hopefully bring closure to this thread I can report that today I received the following reply, albeit six weeks after my complaint. As I have, in previous years, notified the MSA of my need to take a small amount of beta-blocker and it has been accepted, there is no issue and a TUE is not required. That's good on the one hand, I'll get my application off tomorrow. It leaves a couple of issues outstanding, I was clearly told that I needed to pay the TUE fee every year when I enquired by telephone, a critical mistake by their staff member. Also, the application form is very clear about the need for a TUE and as I read it there is nowhere for me to declare that my existing TUE is unchanged and therefore the money is not payable. Just to be totally perverse, I went to see the doctor in order to get a TUE signed and he explained that my change of medication a year or so ago moved me from a beta blocker to an alpha blocker and they are not banned! There are still issues but I'm not so public spirited that I'll cary the flag any further. Thank you to all respondents, I am grateful for your contributions. John (Oh, I missed reading a line, we should have turned left a half mile back).
ReplyDeleteHi John I know how you feel as i am now in the same situation after having a heart attack in 07 the cost last year including the doctors fee was 짙83 this year i have still not had a thing back and i have spent more. If i were running up hill in compertition i could understand it?
ReplyDelete