When Border Force Run Out of Time.

What does this mean? Well, when you have your goods seized and you put in an Appeal Against Seizure (Notice of Claim), Border Force have just 6 months to instigate Condemnation Proceedings in Magistrates Court. The clock starts running as soon as Border Force NPSU receive your claim. We advise that you send your claim recorded delivery as this is proof they received it.

The 6 months are calculated thus - lf they receive your claim say on the 1st May 2013, then the 6 months will  expire on 1st Nov 2013 or if received on 15th Jan 2013 the 6 months will expire on 15th July 2013 and so forth.
Note ... we recommend strongly that you add a week or so to the expiry date before you act. This prevents any possibility of any ... shall we say 'skullduggery'. We've learnt through experience not to trust Border Force, whatever dept it is.

There's also this nice prog you can use to calculate the expiry date. Just put in the date Border Force NPSU received your appeal and then put in the total 26 weeks to add. Works very well,

What happens when the 6 months has expired? Well, in simple terms .... You've Won!

We are finding that Border Force NPSU are getting themselves into this position more and more. They must be inundated with appeals because they've suspended their e-mail address and l'm told their fax number is little better. Add to that staff cuts and staff being on sick then we can see why they run out of time.

So, keep an eye on the expiry date ... not only does it mean that you've won but it opens up other possibilities. We'll cover those at a later date.


  1. Does the Border Force send you confirmation of that Notice of Claim by return post and the date of receipt is when the six months start?

    My thinking is they can prevaricate for some time before they acknowledge receipt of your request. In which case they gain time.

    1. The confirmation comes from your recorded delivery receipt. They will send a confirmation but as long as you have sent your appeal recorded delivery it doesn't really matter what they do. The clock is running as soon as they receive it ... period!


"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!