Appeal Against Seizure ... WON!!!!



"Obviate" : to anticipate and prevent (as a situation) or make unnecessary (as an action)

This how the UKBA Skedites think. They believe that by destroying your goods and then paying you out of taxpayers money when they lose is saving the taxpayer money!

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

29 comments:

  1. Firs off, Uber-Congratz on the victory. Some might think it minor and Pyrrhic but when combating the Forces of Darkness a 'win' is a 'win'!

    However you are perhaps being a little unfair on the poor old Skeddies as the cost of storing anything is horrendous and it probably IS cheaper to destroy and replace than store..particularly when they don't have to refund anything like the real value or real cost of the goods.

    That's the kicker, that last sentence, the; 'oh by the way there is no point in going to court to get realistic compensation because we are above the law hah hah hah hah'

    Surely they and their decisions as to the level of recompense DO fall under the remit of some court or the other?

    ReplyDelete
  2. How many people does this happen to who then have no choice but to buy replacement tobacco in the UK, get half the goods for the same cost and give 80% of that cost to HMG in duty and tax?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is blantantly obvious that the automatic destruction of goods and the levels of so called'recompense' are solely a punitive measure inorder to discourage one from being so criminal as daring to purchase goods abroad at a fair price. As Anon 09:01 points out EVEN if one wins the battle, one loses the war.

    What we need is for someone with money like The Smokers Voice...ooops sorry I mean The BAT's Mouthpiece to back a fight through all the courts to get a decision at least from a high court that it DOES have the jury-is-my-dick-son to decide on levels of recompense and that recompense should reflect the actual re-compensating (ie re buying) of the tobacco in question.

    High Courts are well known for deciding that something DOES actually concern them...much to the chagrin of politicians.

    Of course the UKBA would appeal all the way but finally they would have no choice but to offer realistic levels of recompense and as a result seizures would plummet overnight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Poster,etc, (Can we go back to SBC?), is absolutely right about this "punitive measure".

    My claim against Customs, in County Court, to get more than price paid in Spain, continues. (Very, very slowly.)

    I quote...

    "7. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful interference with the Claimants' goods the Claimants have suffered loss and damage.

    PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

    1. The Claimants purchased the goods in Spain for approximately £XXXX. They have been offered total compensation of £XXXX.xx However the Defendant openly publicises their policy of automatic seizure of excise goods from travellers who have had goods previously seized. Therefore, while waiting 4 months for the appeal to be decided the Claimants could not buy replacement cigarettes from Spain to smoke, without a considerable risk of further substantial loss.

    2. The price of the same brand of the goods in the UK was approximately £ZZZZ. Therefore the Claimants have suffered a loss of £ZZZZ"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry SBC but you are wrong. Goods confiscated and subsequently placed on a destruction list are not immediately destroyed. Sked actually said this in his statement of truth to Zaphod. His goods were not destroyed for 5-6 months ... they were stored.

    UKBA have brought in a policy of their own making that says they have destroyed goods when actually they are just on a destruction list. They then waste taxpayers money instead of restoring the actual goods or replacing like for like.

    This policy is to discourage shoppers from purchasing their goods in the EU. However, a shopper armed with an appeal that he's won is in a better position to purchase his goods abroad.

    ln this particular case, the UKBA refuse to answer when exactly the 10kg of tobacco was destroyed (if it actually was) or what "a specific time period" is.

    One does NOT lose the war if one wins the battle. You go on from there ... armed with your winning appeal and win your future battles and war.

    l agree that someone should challenge the compensation procedure that the UKBA operates but dont hold your breath. It's a pity there are not more like Hoverspeed.

    @ Anon ... UKBA refuse to release these records as they do for the number of vehicles seized. Even MP's and Select Commitees are refused this information ... such is the secrecy of this corrupt UKBA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nice to see you back Zaphod ... actually logged in with your avatar! Told you lnternet Explorer was crap! :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Appropriate recompense"??

    It is not the price paid. It is the price paid plus the lost bank interest, which would have accumalated in the time between siezure and recieving payment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Sorry SBC but you are wrong. Goods confiscated and subsequently placed on a destruction list are not immediately destroyed. Sked actually said this in his statement of truth to Zaphod. His goods were not destroyed for 5-6 months ... they were stored."

    I am indeed often wrong but No I was indeed aware of the fact that goods on the Destruction List aren't immediately destroyed, that's why I said 'automatic' because ,as you know better than me, the UKBA ALWAYS say the goods have been destroyed in the meantime whether or not they really have.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As the purpose of your journey was solely to avoid paying the ridiculous UK tax on Tobacco products then surely the cost of your journey should also be included in any UKBA settlement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Anon 13:58 that's almost what one of the Tribunals decided....although SH informs us it still didn't happen in the end :(

    "iv. Should the review conclude that compensation should be paid, any compensation awarded should reflect the current average UK price at which the Goods might be sold at leading supermarkets at the date which is as close to the date of any payment of compensation as is reasonably practicable. (This would fully compensate but not over-compensate the Appellant as he would be able to go into the market and replace the Goods wrongfully seized and destroyed; he would be restored to the position he would have been in had the Goods not been wrongfully seized and destroyed)."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Interestingly, in the Hoverspeed v HMRC Appeal, HMRC (now UKBA) were happy to accept full compensation and didn't ask for otherwise!!!

    The Appeal judges took it upon themselves to introduce it ... and on very dubious grounds may l add. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Can i take it that the appeal was against a seizure that 10kg hrt sent through the postal system?
    Didnt think you could?

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Dirtyrider

    I assumed 'post seizure' meant 'after seizure' not post as in Postal? And as far as I know you can have tobacco sent to you but you are liable for duty. The 'EU Shopping' Freedom requires you to transport the goods yourself....a point SH covers in his Statement Of Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Dirty ... SBC is correct. lt was at East Midlands Airport.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You are allowed to post tobacco and cigs, but ONLY as a gift. I often posted birthday presents while abroad, and won appeals following seizures. Usually 2000 cigs, but we won one appeal against seizure of 8000, (400 packs, 40 sleeves) which I posted to my girlfriend for her birthday.

    But it got to the point where they were seizing every parcel. The appeal has to come from the recipient, and it wasn't really worth the hassle of coaching someone if it went to court. So now I just carry them home myself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Zaphod, seriously? Is it legal (and what bit of law) to post 'gifts'? I've posted stuff as presents for the kids from Germany before and it hasn't been seized but I always assumed that that was because it was sent from Germany which doesn't trigger the UKBA's 'alarm' the same way as a parcel from Madrid or Ostend.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, SBC, seriously. This isn't just theory. I've actually won appeals on it. It must be a gift, "of an occasional nature, e.g. birthdays" and no recompense received. The usual caveats. I always included a birthday card, and a letter to Mr Customs.

    But when they started going for "condemnation proceedings" instead of giving them back, I stopped bothering. The recipient has to attend court at least twice, in a location of Customs' choosing, and speak for themselves.

    I've only attended one "condemnation proceedings" event, and it was a stitch-up. The Clerk of the Court later confided that that Magistrate had never found against Customs.

    That event radicalised me more than any other experience, and I've been getting more vicious ever since. Before that, I believed that Courts were kinda fair. :-)

    One day I'll be in a Condemnation case myself, no doubt, rather than as a "Mckenzie Friend", and then I'll make the buggers suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Any idea as to an 'MIL', ie what is the maximum considered a gift?

    ReplyDelete
  19. SBC ... I give my daughter 10 cartons of 200 cigarettes for her birthday and at Xmas 20 cartons of 200 plus other gifts.

    l dont trust the post at all so also bring them in myself. Last time was New Years Eve and l was stopped at Luton returning from Bulgaria. l had my own cigarettes and hers and those were wrapped in Xmas paper.l had other tobacco products also as Xmas presents for other family members but only small amounts as stocking fillers. Altogether l think l had 5 different brands. l took no prisoners and went through very quickly as they even refrained from giving me the A-J's.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I give my daughter 10 cartons of 200 cigarettes for her birthday and at Xmas 20 cartons of 200 plus other gifts. "

    I'm still available for adoption. Just wanted to put that out there....

    ReplyDelete
  21. [Slightly off topic] SH/ZAphod, I was reading through some of the old stuff on DT and came across this quote in a letter "However, if you wish to write to Customs at the port prior to your journey, this would show that you are not trying to smuggle the tobacco through. You should send your correspondence to: Anti-Smuggling Tourist District, No. 1 Control Building, Eastern Docks, Dover. Kent. CT16 1HZ."

    What do you think of advising shoppers to send a copy of their FULL Statement Of Truth with approx amounts and documentary evidence IN ADVANCE to the UKBA? I'm guessing that any government body has to ACKNOWLEDGE a letter received if only with a one liner 'compliment' slip. Surely such 'proof' would be a 'knock out' punch in the A-J ring?

    This would also have the advantage of giving the UKBA drones even more paperwork to do...and you know they do love it so. If one were to also send a copy of the SOT to one's MP that would perhaps slowly waken the awareness of those of our Lords & Masters that aren't corrupt.

    It's probably a stupid suggestion but I'm in the middle of planning my next baccy run and am pondering the new MIL's.

    ReplyDelete
  22. PS I know we've spoken about 'pre-informing' them before and that it isn't foolproof as it remains the decision of the officer on duty. I also remember someone here saying they had written to their MP prior to departure.

    What I'm suggesting is combining all these previous methods in a new improved PRE-TRIP SOT. AS the SOT seems to be perhaps one of our more potent weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  23. SBC ... our experiences have shown that the UKBA rarely acknowledge anything. lndeed we sent a letter to UKBA recorded delivery and ... and NOTHING!

    I also sent a letter to Doncaster UKBA and South Yorks Police Superintendent pre-informing them of my intentions of going to Gdansk and purchasing cigarettes. This was after the farce of being illegally detained by Doncaster UKBA.

    The Superintendent replied immediately and the UKBA ... NOTHING!

    They have become a secret 'police' force that refuse any sort of transparency. They hide behind the UKBA Complaints Team and a supposed UKBA Enquiries Line ... both put out pure gobbleygook.

    We are offline again! Bloody BT! I keep nicking next doors connection when l can but it's poor and intermittent so expect reduced service from us till BT sort it out :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Incidentally both myself and Zaphod have never changed our purchasing amounts regardless of the MIL's. This was even when they were 800 cigarettes and 1kg tobacco. We won't change when they go back to these MIL's either.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You oculd try using 'BT Fon' or 'Openzone' , if you scan 'available wireless networks'. They are a pain to connect to but do give reasonable speeds and as a BT customer you are normally entitled to use them (depending on what package you are overcharged for a month).

    Failing that a 3G dongle for whatever network offers 3G in your area is a great back up. We even have 3G now in North Norfolk... embarrassingly it is noticeably faster than BT Broadband at least for me.

    Not trying to teach granny to suck Fox's Glacier Mints (Dear Lord, remember them?) nor nothing...

    ReplyDelete
  26. They admitted they were wrong so must surely also pay for the cost of the trip.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "They admitted they were wrong so must surely also pay for the cost of the trip."-Anon 18:08

    Awww Bless, someone who still believes that our Public Servants are honest, decent people :P

    NO WHERE do they admit 'guilt' or that they were in the wrong. They just say that they don't wish to continue with condemnation proceedings. That's why they talk of 'recompense' and 'exgratia' payments not compensation (ie payment for a wrong).

    I think SH and Zaphod have managed to get an apology out of them...sort of...once...through gritted teeth...in a moment of weakness...hungover from the xmas party...

    ReplyDelete
  28. boarder agency workers are in place to steal our purchases bought in good faith and with honest hard earned money I hope to see a public outcry and get them to do the job of protecting us but maybe there is no money in that egh

    ReplyDelete

"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!