FFS! What Computers and O/S do UKBA use?

High Spec UKBA Computer 2011
UKBA tell me through an FOI that they cannot tell me how many vehicles they seized in the period 2010/11 because they have 120,000 seizure records of excise goods robbed off these 120,000 poor souls and it would take 500hrs @ £25 ph  to go through each one to extrapolate if a vehicle was also seized or not !!!!

The mind boggles!


  1. They don't keep computerised records they have a big vault and a little old granny in a wheelchair squeaking up and down the racks pulling bits of paper out and stuffing them back in the wrong place.
    I wonder if there is anything that could be gleaned using the Data Protection Act?
    If not, maybe I can get a job there as a DBA

  2. Thing that is arising is there seems 2 set of stats ... one HMRC, one UKBA. They are hiding a lot of stats from the public ... and everyone else!

  3. SH, it might be worth FOI'ing them for the EXACT procedures their Officers have to follow when seizing a vehicle AS A RESULT OF AN A-J INTERVIEW ie an 'excise seizure' not criminal.

    Also the EXACT guidance given to Officers in the above AND WHAT DOCUMENTS (ie receipt) etc an Officer has to fill out-for the poor sod who is having his car nicked AND FOR THE UKBA RECORDS themselves. Then you could FOI how many Forms XYZ they have received each year.

    IF you haven't already done so of ocurse...

    Remember 'paper' and 'procedure' is where we will get them.

  4. SBC ... Won't work at moment as their excuse is they are transferring records from HMRC to UKBA. All complete bollox of course.

  5. DVLA?

    Iknow.. I know....

    But the keeper records will have to be ammended surely?

  6. TBH l'm not that bothered as l've spent a lot of time on the 2008/9 stats. With this FOI they've given me extra data for that period and the original figure of 5618 vehicles can now be amended to 7266 vehicles. Whether theres more number of seizures for tobacco or cigarettes we'll have to find out. ln the end we'll have complete stats for one year and then that can be used as a reference point.

    120,000 seizures needs looking into too.

  7. "
    120,000 seizures needs looking into too."

    But its "not an issue"...surely?

  8. I'm astonished they don't know how many vehicles have been seized and the countries of registration.

    Then again, why should I be surprised? When I was young our borders were looked after by Customs (& Excise) who did a reasonable job. When did it all go so wrong?

  9. Export to Excel.



    View Resulting Number.

    Report to FOIA Requestor.


  10. No surprise with UKBA unable to
    keep an hi tech record on seized cars,they cant even keep a check
    on 100s of 000s terrorists,child traffickers,illegal immigrants,murderers,drug barons,
    criminals and the worlds unwanted.
    a total drain on taxpayers money

    Brassed off with Jobworths

  11. SH, in view of all the recent problems over illegal entry do you think that tobacco seizures are being artificially and illegally made in order to show huge numbers of caught smugglers and hence make the service look good to the minister? The border stats they feed back of course may well not distinguish between their illegal seizures of tobacco and seizures of illegal drugs.

  12. Woodsy, l've no doubt this is the case. Already in their stats over half the total cigarettes they say they seized are classed as Overseas Seizures. When pressed they admitted they didn't actually seize these cigarettes but other countries did. They add them because they 'say' they 'could' were bound for UK. They have no jurisdiction outside the UK except for juxtaposed Coquelles (Channel Tunnel).

    Tobacco seizures and drug seizures are in 2 distinct categories. Tobacco is under Civil Law and drugs under Criminal (PACE)so there would be no excuse for doing such a thing .... but could they resist? :)


"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!