UKBA Appeals Officer Ian Sked

Read this carefully and you'll see that this supposed experienced officer put a shoppers goods on the destruction list on April 5th 2005 AFTER the shopper won the appeal where she was offered compensation instead of giving her goods back. Compensation is only the value of the goods where they were bought from (Spain) and does not include travel costs or any other expenses. Her partner had been told previously that his goods had been placed on the destruction list on the 8th Dec 2004 (2 days AFTER Ian Sked received his appeal).

Both shoppers were offered 'compensation' because Ian Sked said their goods had been destroyed. The truth was that the goods were NOT destroyed till 27th May 2005 ... months after both shoppers had won their appeals. Not only did lan Sked rob these shoppers by offering them 'compensation' but the money he intended to pay them with is from the government's purse ... your taxes!

You'll also note that he says the UKBA/HMRC computer only logs when they were put on a destruction list ... not when they were 'destroyed' (yeah right)

Think l'm being too harsh? ... read on and see what the courts said about him another case

  1. Mr Sked's letter served to dishearten the F's  and to discourage them from proceeding with the extant appeal against seizure. For what it may be worth we find the reasoning process in this letter to be wholly unreasonable, indeed perverse. 
  2. The reasons offered by Mr Sked may be summarised as follows:-
  3. i. The quantity
    ii. The F's did not state the exact quantities during interview; this was because the Goods were not for their own use.
    iii. Even if Mr F intended to give up smoking, it is not credible that he would not have imported a minimal quantity of his preferred brand.
    iv. There were inconsistencies in the F's statements of their smoking habits.
    v. Mr F ought to have known exactly how long his supply of cigarettes would last. His statement that if he gave up, the supply would last until April 2008 but if he did not the supply would last until September/October 2008.
    vi. Likewise Mrs F ought to have known exactly how long her supply would last. She said a year but Mr Sked's calculations put the date at September 2008.
    vii. Mr Sked calculates that on the basis of past purchases and consumption rates the F's ought to have had approximately 7900 cigarettes immediately prior to the F's January 2007 trip to Spain.
    viii. Mr F did not know the cost of cigarettes in the UK.
    ix. The F's financial circumstances were such that they could not finance the trip without being financially compensated.
    x. The F's  were not open and honest at all times during the interviews.
  4. Towards the end of his letter Mr Sked states:-
  5. The goods were therefore correctly seized under section 139(1) of CEMA and I uphold the seizure accordingly.
    (The Judge went on to address Ian Sked's 'logic and reasoning') my edit 
  1. As for Mr Sked's reasons in his letter dated 15/2/07 we have, insofar as his letter may be relevant to the decision we have to make, the following comments:- 
i. Given the Fs' smoking habits, the quantity is not surprising;
ii. The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it;
iii. B&H were his preferred brand. It is nowhere stated at interview that he would not smoke Silk Cut. It is understandable that not having his preferred brand at his home and readily accessible would encourage Mr F to refrain from smoking or at least cut down. No adverse inference can reasonably be drawn from this evidence;
iv. What the notebook records is not 10-20, but 10, 20 or more. Mr Sked has misinterpreted the information provided to Customs by the F's;
v. It is absurd to suggest that Mr F should have known exactly how long his cigarettes would last;
vi. We do not consider that the information given was ever intended to be mathematically precise. Rather, the estimate was given under pressure in the heat of the moment;
vii. As previously indicated Mr Sked is giving these estimates a mathematical precision and accuracy which are not justified;
viii. This is hardly surprising as most if not all of his purchases were made abroad. If he were proposing to sell the cigarettes at profit the one piece of essential information would be the UK price otherwise how would he know that third party purchasers would be interested in buying. No adverse inference can reasonably be drawn;
ix. No basis is given for this speculative statement;
x. This is a general comment which we do not consider can be reasonably supported on the information available to Mr Sked.

My Note:- Ian Sked is still applying his 'trade' as an Appeals Officer. Both the cases above were from seizures at Glasgow Airport ... as was this one here.

Are you impressed at our Ian Sked?


  1. l hope someone tells the devious little twat he's on here.

  2. ii. The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it;


  3. "ii. The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it; "

    For those among us not proficient in 'Legalz' allow me to 'translate': "Mr Sked you are a fucking retard and are talking shit".

    Unfortunately plain speaking is rare in the legal system.

  4. 26 years experience as a Customs Officer. 16 of those years as an Appeals and Review Officer.

    How many people has he robbed in those years, telling successful appellants that their goods have been "immediately destroyed", and giving inadequate compensation at the taxpayers expense?

    Mr Sked has now "been informed" that immediate destruction takes several months.

    He doesn't even sound embarrassed.

    Has anyone else out there been robbed by this expert?

  5. But surely, you wonder that if this pillock has got this kind of track record of small minded vindictiveness against decent and honourable people, then his superiors should have red flagged his competency and adjusted his career prospects accordingly.

    In other words - sack the nasty little fuck-stick!

  6. JJ ... More like he carried out his superiors policies and achieved their set targets on appeals and therefore was promoted.

    Truth, Justice and lntegrity in the UKBA? Sadly lacking in my experience ... and others.

  7. There are other cases where our Mr Sked has come to grief before judges. Unlike Magistrates Courts all these cases are in a database that is accessable by all. The British and Irish Legal Information Institute.

  8. Sked is the type Customs want and get. Any normal fair person just couldn't do what he does. Targets are all Customs are interested in and they couldnt care less how they get them.

  9. "ii. The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it; "

    I want this ^^^ on a t-shirt when I next pass Customs! Its set to become a meme.

    Robbing innocent shoppers?One of life's little pleasures.
    Giving false evidence to a court? Just part of the job.

    Being told by His Lordship that you are a fucking retard? Priceless! For everything else there's SH.

  10. @SBC

    "The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it."

    I know, it's a real gem, innit? I intend to use that remark regularly in arguments. :-)

  11. Zaphod/SH, thanks for bringing the F case to my attention. It was a fascinating read and looks like it might be very very useful in any future appeal.

    I particularly liked the bit about compensating to UK Supermarket prices although I doubt that will ever happen.

  12. SBC ... I'm afraid that it didn't happen. They got the Euro price they paid for them and some expences for mail, letters etc. Sadly David F has very recently passed away but l have talked to his wife Margaret. A true lady, although her words to describe Mr Sked and un-named UKBA officers involved are certainly not ladylike. David came back with his shield ... not on it!

    l truly regret not having spoken to him and congratulated him. He never gave up and wrote approx 140 letters and then represented himself in court ... and won!

    David deserves recognition for his victory.

    Kudos David ... R.I.P.

    1. Me and my wife were pulled at glasgow airport coming back from majorca and had 100 carton of lambert confiscated we appealed lost there appeal and took mr sked to court it took two years to actually get him (them) into court but we did win and they had to pay us the uk prices at that time it worked out at just under £5000 the fags had cost us £2000 proper result, apart from the really good bit was when he actually lost the plot in court and started hurling abuse at me and the wife and the judge threatened to jail him one of the most enjoyable days of my life. You remember me ian. I bet you do.

    2. Would love to hear the full story Anon 12.05


  13. Oh SBC, l agree with Zaphod. We cannot and should not judge Julie on her time when she represented UKBA/HMRC. She would have been instructed, policies in place, ... targets? etc etc. One envisages her now using this knowledge to her clients advantage.

  14. I was neither judging nor condemning.

    As the Good Book says:"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

    (which part of "I'm a religious Nut Job" ,did you not understand? :P)

    and i hope very much she is now using her wealth of experience to help those (ie community shoppers) she once wronged.

  15. I always thought that Biblical policy on sinners was a bit unfair on the just persons, personally.

    But lets not go there.

    SBC, have you taken your dried frog pills today? There seems to be steam escaping from your ears. Down, boy! :-)

  16. David deserves recognition for his victory.

    Hear! hear! SH.

  17. Little wonder peeps lose their appeals with tossers like this.

  18. Mr Sked, The same GOON that told me, As a pensioner I should not be in a position to afford to smoke. Maybe I should not be in a position to afford to eat or have a beer with my old soldier friends in the United Services Club.
    I call Mr Sked the "RUBBER" stamp man.
    He is of the opinion that if someone talks very slow then a deaf person would no longer be deaf and would be able to hear. A bit like turning a light on so a blind person could see.
    Is Mr Sked an IDIOT, You judge.

  19. George, he's either that or an evil, petty, vindictive bastard. My vote goes to the latter.

  20. Thank you SH but look at this: It takes a LIAR to call others LIARS:
    A GRANDAD branded a tobacco smuggler claimed he needed his mammoth haul because he smokes 130 cigarettes a DAY.

    Arthur Docherty, 70, was stopped with 2000 cigarettes and 140 packets of rolling tobacco on a return flight from Benidorm.

    Customs officials believe he was part of a gang selling thousands of pounds worth of cheap fags on the black market in Scotland.

    But retired lorry driver Arthur insists it was all for his personal use.

    He was held for more than two hours at Edinburgh Airport as he explained how he smoked 100 roll-ups and 30 ordinary cigarettes per day - which works out at one every eight minutes.

    Last week, Customs and Excise threw out his appeal against the seizure of the tobacco.

    They claimed he had gone on a similar trip to Bruges six weeks earlier to buy cheap cigarettes and tobacco to sell on at a huge profit. Arthur, of Dalkeith, Midlothian, spent £700 on his Benidorm haul - saving him £1140 on UK prices.

    He says he is the victim of a vendetta by Customs against ordinary pensioners who are heavy smokers and go abroad to stock up with cheap fags.

    He admits spending £120 a week on cigarettes - about half his £12,000-a-year state pension.

    He said: "I was the only one stopped by Customs at the airport even though it was a packed flight. They treated me as if I was a murder suspect.

    "I told them the cigarettes were for my own personal use and it clearly states in the guidelines laid down by Customs that you can bring back as much tobacco as you wish so long as it is for personal use.

    "It was only the second time in my life I have been abroad.

    "I was in Bruges a few weeks earlier but could not find any cheap cigs, so came back empty-handed." In their written judgment on his appeal, Customs accused Arthur of lying to them about how many cigarettes he had on him when he was stopped at the airport.

    They said he told them he only had 200 when in fact he had 2000 in his suitcase.

    A letter from appeals officer Ian Sked said: "You were deliberately attempting to deceive the officers regarding the quantity of goods you had and I believe you would only act in this manner if you were involved in importing goods for a commercial purpose.

    "If returning from a legitimate trip abroad, I would expect any traveller stopped by Customs to be open and honest at all times. In this case, you were clearly not being so."

    Arthur has now been told by Customs that his entire holiday haul will be destroyed.

    More than 10billion cigarettes are smuggled into Britain every year - with a billion ending up in Scotland.

    Customs chiefs say we now have the biggest black market for illegal tobacco in Europe and it costs the Treasury billions every year in lost duty.

    Stephen McLean, 45, of Blantyre, Lanarkshire, who brought 2.5million cigarettes into Scotland - dodging nearly £500,000 in tax - was jailed for four years earlier this year.


    GONE IN FOUR MINUTES...sealing, lighting and smoking a roll-up cigarette is a process perfected by practice. In the early stages it can take anything up to five minutes. But the job can be refined to a matter of seconds - with some smokers able to roll with one hand. From pulling a pouch of tobacco from your pocket, to rolling and smoking your ciggie takes about four minutes. No problem for an expert like Arthur.


    Seems Mr Sked is calling all Scotland LIARS except his pals.

  21. UKBA are pretty upset with me naming and shaming Mr Sked, they seem to think there's a whistleblower among their ranks. Nice to know l'm causing them consternation. Do l have a whistleblower? maybe ... maybe not. :)

    So all you UKBA drones that are reading this ... "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" eh? heh heh.

  22. Corrupt Vermin like Ian Sked should be force fed rat poison , and pissed on as they lie dieing in the gutter , screaming in agony .

  23. Sked and his HMRC chums are bits of poison .
    They should all have been strangled at birth , and their parents forcibly neutered .


"In the eyes of the Tribunal the review letter contained several preconceptions, prejudgments and non-sequiturs"

"the absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it"

"We therefore find that Mr Sked misdirected himself as to the Policy in carrying out the review and his decision is therefore one that no reasonable review officer could have arrived at."

... commonly known here at N2D as 'Skeds' ... that is to say these are Judges comments regarding UKBA Review Officer Ian Sked's reasons for rejecting peoples appeals against seizures.

Comments are now moderated to keep out spam and those with malicious intent. The author of this blog is not liable for the content of any comments ... period!