Hull Border Force and UKBA Data Protection Unit take the Pi## !

One of our 'clients' paid £10 for a Subject Access Request (SAR) to get copies of the officers notebook who seized their goods. THIS IS WHAT THEY GOT BACK!

Note that the word 'COPY' is clear!

We are told that the original notebook stays at the port/airport where the officer works. So Hull Border Force did a 'photocopy' and sent it to the UKBA Data Protection Unit (DPU) who then send a copy to people requesting an SAR

Both Hull Border Force and the DPU think this copy of the notebook is acceptable ... otherwise why would they send it? lt's a bloody disgrace and they are taking the pi## ! Perhaps there is something in the notebook that they don't want anyone to see???

DPU have now received a strongly worded letter demanding a full explanation of their actions AND to send an actual acceptable copy of said notebook forthwith.

THIS is an example of what should have been sent -

Amazingly, you can actually read this officer's handwriting. You won't believe the number of times it's written in 'doctor's scrawl' that is unreadable ... even by the officer that wrote it! (we had this in court once. lol)


  1. It's obvious that the dog ate his notebook.

    Gonna be tricky using this as evidence in Court, to support a seizure!

  2. Of course these bastards send this because they know it's illegible and can't be read. Just what they think you are supposed to do with it in this condition would be worth hearing from the arse that produced it.

    They themselves wouldn't want to receive crap like this from you...but don't mind sending it to someone else.

  3. I have to agree with JJ. When one considers how many hands that 'copy' would have to have passed through, how many 'eyes', before it was sent out then there is really only one explanation. Any halfway competent clerical worker or Customs officer would have picked up on it.

    It was quite clearly done on purpose, there can be no excuse.

  4. l agree that this was deliberate but whatever possessed them to do something so utterly stupid?


"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!