Customs Seizures & Lawyers

I was asked in my e-mails why l hadn't posted about this. To be honest, what with appeals we are handling, issues with UKBA and everyday life l'd completely forgotten about it.

lf you have the misfortune to have your goods seized by UKBA and then put in an Appeal Against Seizure, you may have considered using a lawyer. Firstly you'll have to find one that will actually take your case .... not easy! Then you'll have to find one that actually understands the ramifications of CEMA and Cross-Border Shopping .... even more difficult to find.

Lawyers are not cheap ... average cost 200-250 pound an hour. For that you'd expect someone who actually knows their business but everyone who has contacted me with their tales of woe regarding their seized goods have not been satisfied at all with their experiences of the legal profession.

So, l decided to test some the lawyers out. l joined SWARB (4902 users) and put to them our actual case that we had won in 2007 (without lawyers) to see what sort of reaction and advise l got. The only thing l changed was the date of the case. l put it as though it had just happened and wanted advice on it and how to appeal.

The replies l got were interesting .... to say the least. Then l left it for a while as though my Appeal Against Seizure had gone in and l was waiting for a reply. When l got the 'reply' l then came back with the result.

. Have a look see for yourselves :)


  1. "The replies l got were interesting "

    Interesting is the word I would have used for it. I seriously doubt that any of the posters on that forum are lawyers/solicitors. They seemed to have no actual grasp of the law and precious knowledge of the legislation pertaining to UKBA and seizures etc.

    Most worryingly they seemed to have bought the hogwash that anyone bringing back more than the guidelines is automatically a smuggler and that it was all your own fault-that staying within the guidelines would guarantee non-seizure!

    Bunch of noddys.

  2. All that twaddle about PACE?!

    A real lawyer would surely know that it is -legal anomaly that it is- a civil matter not criminal! Hell we'd all KILL for it to be a criminal matter so we'd get all the protections PACE provides (taped interview, just cause etc etc).

  3. Unfortunately SBC a lot of them are lawyers. Site admin is and l had PM's from others that said they were too. Booboo also but unlike the majority of others was on my side.

    Zaphod has his own view on lawyers but as his lawyer reads this forum and the court proceedings are continuing it would be inapropiate to comment.

  4. Luv the way you tell them the law SH. Don't they do any research before they start babbling?

  5. Thanks for posting that. By the way, the troll says those lawyers were badly done to because you lied to them and so scammed them. :)

  6. Thanks for reminding me x.

    We must be the only site that has a troll that doesn't actually post anything on it! l rarely go on that forum nowadays because it's so busy here plus l'm in contact with the owner on various issues anyway. Saying that, l've nothing to say to the troll anyway until he understands the meaning of 'facts' and words such as 'scam'. l doubt the troll ever will though.

    l'm sure lawyers have no idea about ever not telling the 'truth' :)

  7. "Unfortunately SBC a lot of them are lawyers."

    Then it is strange that they don't seem to know that PACE stands for Policeymen And Criminal Evidence...the clue is in the name ie criminal not civil and policey not UKBA (although UKBA do abide by PACE for criminal investigations...supposedly)

    Now maybe they are all non-criminal lawyers and more used to arguing about torts but i would have thought that any professional would have stopped to think and research before opening his mouth.

    Surely the thought 'oh i wonder if UKBA are bound by PACE in this instant...I'd better drag out my Boys Own Bumper Book Of The Law' must have occurred to one of the whimsical darlings?

  8. ".I'd better drag out my Boys Own Bumper Book Of The Law' must have occurred to one of the whimsical darlings?"

    Wouldn't that take common sense? ...just saying.

  9. £250 hr, £75 a letter, £25 a phonecall is a f'ing scam! your troll is a tosser!

  10. Troll is a goonie. He's been banned off the forum before.

  11. I was charged £165 + vat to be told to drop my appeal and forget it. I went ahead and did it myself and won.
    My advice would be don't use lawyers.

  12. Anon 14.29 Mr and Mrs Foster thought exactly the same. They began with a lawyer who they came to classify as 'very expensive but useless'. They dropped the lawyer and Mr Foster represented himself.

  13. commercial use = smuggling = criminal offence.

    UKBA should use PACE

    I couldn't live myself doing what they do to Joe Public

  14. Agreed Anon 18.03, we could probably archive this site if they used PACE.

  15. The dichotomy of the situation amuses me. We freedom loving, free thinking 'Libertarians' are , in principle by our actions, campaigning for a civil misdemeanour to be made a criminal offence.

    The irony is piquant.

  16. SBC, I think l'll have to find my tinhat with a windmill on top ... you seem to have being reading my mind! :)

  17. SH, The Truth Is Out There... and the Lies are at SW1A 2AA.

  18. Q: Why won't sharks attack lawyers?
    A: Professional courtesy.


"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!