Q. HMRC, what happened to all the 5618 vehicles you seized? A. We don't know!


3 October 2011

Our ref 
FoI 2249 -11
Your ref 


Dear Ms Hawkins

Thank you for your e-mail of 7 September asking for the following information.  

Dear HM Revenue and Customs, you state that in the period 2008/9 that you seized 5618
You further state that the sale of seized vehicles for the period 2008/9 totalled

I therefore request under FOI the following. For the period 2008/9 -

How many vehicles were sent to auction (l understand the auction company you use is
Wilsons Auctions)?
How many vehicles were scrapped and to which company(s)?
How many vehicles were restored to their owners?

I am answering under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA).

I can confirm that the company the Department uses is Wilsons Auctions and would advise
you that, following a search of our records, I have established HMRC does not hold the
remainder of the information you requested.

If you are not happy with this reply you may request a review by writing to the HMRC FOI
Team, Room 1C/25, 100 Parliament Street, London SWIA 2BQ or email
[email address] 

You must request a review within 2 months of the date of this letter. It would assist our
review if you set out which aspects of the reply concern you and why you are dissatisfied.

Information is available in large print, audio and Braille formats.
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001

Foi 2249 11 J Hawkins Foi Request

October 2011"



  1. Sent you an email. May have gone into your spam folder. Sue

  2. So someone inside HMRC knows someone inside Wilsons Auctions. Someone inside Wilsons Auctions pays under the table to someone inside HRMC for each vehicle delivered to Wilsons Auctions. Wilsons Auctions does dirty deeds of some sort (underpriced sales to car dealers, crime rings, private individuals employed by HMRC, etc.) and by Wilsons being private, FoIA doesn't apply - and they can get away with the racket scott free. And it goes one for as long as anti-smoking lasts to keep up the smoke-screen, because it's "against smoking" (their excuse for confiscation) - thus a taboo subject to even be asking questions in the first place. Create a witch, steal from the witch, burn the witch and basically it's taboo to ask questions about it - and use a private firm if you want to throw suspicion away from a government from which the original anti-witch propaganda originated - the smoke-screen.

  3. Maybe Justine will now take no for an answer, and stop bothering them with extremely embarrassing questions.

    And maybe... (ed- insert reference to something much more unlikely than flying pigs, please)

  4. This story needs sending to the papers. They might actually run it...'wasteful incompetent government' etc

    Perhaps Pat or Dick could pass it on to their contacts...cos Simon probably won't...cos it's not an issue is it?


"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!