Home of N2D.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



04-5-2013 11:33 am  #1


Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

Although the person bringing in a large amount of cigarettes (200+ cartons) from outside of the EU holds their hand up to knowing it was wrong, it seems that there is a defence against HMRC duty fines. An unlawful seizure whilst not effecting the seizure itself (Condemnation Proceedings) does seem to effect HMRC fines.

http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/     Contact - Peter Hastings

re an e-mail we received

They did not inform me of the reasons or seizure at the time or give me an option to pay the duty..........and because the smart arse prick was being such a c*** to me  - they forgot to note it on the SIN (?) form and therefore the  solicitor informs me the seizure was unlawful and so it seems this is correct as the 12k excise amount and the 4k ine on top has been scrapped - peter hastings cost me £265 and basically told me what he thought from the beginning - i saw some stories in the forum where someone was asked to pay £800 beore the solicitor would look at the case!!! I can highly recommend Peter, not just because he won the day but as I say he did not take a penny before he saw everything relating to the case and decided if he could help me

Last edited by Smoking Hot (04-5-2013 11:36 am)


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
 

04-5-2013 11:47 am  #2


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

£265???

jesus I better ring up http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/shout.png


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 
 

04-5-2013 3:32 pm  #3


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

Anymore on this SH?? Because when I emailed they wanted more than 265 quid.

i could do with a solicitor in my corner when I go to court in July.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 
 

05-5-2013 9:16 am  #4


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

mrc wrote:

Anymore on this SH?? Because when I emailed they wanted more than 265 quid.

i could do with a solicitor in my corner when I go to court in July.

l suggest you ring them and speak to this Peter.
 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
     Thread Starter
 

10-5-2013 1:50 pm  #5


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

rang peter, and i'm sending the paperwork off http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/happy.png


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 
 

29-6-2014 8:43 am  #6


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

Where is he based at I cannot remember been offered the opportunity to pay the duty.

 

15-9-2014 8:07 am  #7


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

Has anyone used this firm lately and had a "result" ? Also is it automatic that if after a court case (if you lose) that a duty demand will be issued, and if so is there a timescale they have to work to ?
Cheers in advance.

 

15-9-2014 7:05 pm  #8


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

PP wrote:

Has anyone used this firm lately and had a "result" ? Also is it automatic that if after a court case (if you lose) that a duty demand will be issued, and if so is there a timescale they have to work to ?
Cheers in advance.

Duty penalties-I've asked the question umpteen times and not yet got a reply. The only info I have had back from members is that whilst there is a set of calcs for working out a maximum penalty possible, most who have given up have not been hit with the max amount. there does not appear to be any consistency.
 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

16-9-2014 10:39 am  #9


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

eezyrider wrote:

PP wrote:

Has anyone used this firm lately and had a "result" ? Also is it automatic that if after a court case (if you lose) that a duty demand will be issued, and if so is there a timescale they have to work to ?
Cheers in advance.

Duty penalties-I've asked the question umpteen times and not yet got a reply. The only info I have had back from members is that whilst there is a set of calcs for working out a maximum penalty possible, most who have given up have not been hit with the max amount. there does not appear to be any consistency.
 

Are you aware of anyone being offered "a deal", ie: "if you give up now we wont claim duty" ?

Last edited by PP (16-9-2014 10:40 am)

 

16-9-2014 5:47 pm  #10


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

Be aware, if you lose in condemns the legal position is that SOME (though not necessarily ALL) of the goods were held for a commercial purpose.

My own hunch is that if you have not yet had a duty demand, you will not get one if you lose in condemns. However this opinion is PURE SPECULATION and may be completely wrong.

 

16-9-2014 6:08 pm  #11


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

PP wrote:

eezyrider wrote:

PP wrote:

Has anyone used this firm lately and had a "result" ? Also is it automatic that if after a court case (if you lose) that a duty demand will be issued, and if so is there a timescale they have to work to ?
Cheers in advance.

Duty penalties-I've asked the question umpteen times and not yet got a reply. The only info I have had back from members is that whilst there is a set of calcs for working out a maximum penalty possible, most who have given up have not been hit with the max amount. there does not appear to be any consistency.
 

Are you aware of anyone being offered "a deal", ie: "if you give up now we wont claim duty" ?

I know of one member who was told a few months ago that no penalty would be due ''because the goods were seized''. They gave up their appeal at a very early stage and also lost their car.
 

Last edited by eezyrider (16-9-2014 6:09 pm)


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

18-9-2014 10:27 am  #12


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

eezyrider wrote:

PP wrote:

eezyrider wrote:

Duty penalties-I've asked the question umpteen times and not yet got a reply. The only info I have had back from members is that whilst there is a set of calcs for working out a maximum penalty possible, most who have given up have not been hit with the max amount. there does not appear to be any consistency.
 

Are you aware of anyone being offered "a deal", ie: "if you give up now we wont claim duty" ?

I know of one member who was told a few months ago that no penalty would be due ''because the goods were seized''. They gave up their appeal at a very early stage and also lost their car.
 

 
For some strange reason I am confident I will get something out of my trial. But part of me thinks if I was offered a "call it off and there will be no further action" I would take it to save the hastle.

Last edited by PP (18-9-2014 10:28 am)

 

18-9-2014 11:48 am  #13


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

I think the problem is that condems are on behalf of the Director of Border Revenue ie BF, whereas the duty penalties are the responsibility of HMRC. At least that's how I see it.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

18-9-2014 4:32 pm  #14


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

eezyrider wrote:

I think the problem is that condems are on behalf of the Director of Border Revenue ie BF, whereas the duty penalties are the responsibility of HMRC. At least that's how I see it.

As far as I`m concerned they on behalf of Home Office, at least mine was listed Home Office v my name, it does`t go as far as HMRC to you loose it or give up, at least it should`t go that far, we know about cases that it did as duty deemands were issued.
 


Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.
 

20-9-2014 8:49 am  #15


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

piotrek wrote:

eezyrider wrote:

I think the problem is that condems are on behalf of the Director of Border Revenue ie BF, whereas the duty penalties are the responsibility of HMRC. At least that's how I see it.

As far as I`m concerned they on behalf of Home Office, at least mine was listed Home Office v my name, it does`t go as far as HMRC to you loose it or give up, at least it should`t go that far, we know about cases that it did as duty deemands were issued.
 

Mine was Home office v ..............  Hopefully if I don't win that will be that.

 

20-9-2014 10:55 am  #16


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

eezyrider wrote:

I think the problem is that condems are on behalf of the Director of Border Revenue ie BF, whereas the duty penalties are the responsibility of HMRC. At least that's how I see it.

To clarify my point see this thread-

http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=618
 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

20-9-2014 11:06 am  #17


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

PP avoid this company at all costs I tried them out after seeing this thread and let's just say I had hundreds of nearly £1000 taken from me for one measly letter, and then they had the cheek to ask for more, did nothing but take money from me.

If I was you I would not instruct any solicitor unless your prepared to lose around £3-4K

Fight it yourself all the way to crown if you want the best chance mate


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 
 

16-6-2015 2:14 pm  #18


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A GOOD SOLICITOR IN THE LEEDS AREA

 

16-6-2015 4:09 pm  #19


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

I'll assume that there has been a detention of goods at the least. Could you elaborate?

 

17-6-2015 4:55 pm  #20


Re: Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines)

dobo wrote:

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A GOOD SOLICITOR IN THE LEEDS AREA

You will find it difficult to get a recommendation here as most people who use the forum don't use solicitors.

I would suggest though that if you do go that route, it may be worth considering a direct access barrister. Most solicitors will usually instruct a barrister anyway in these cases and you could save a shedload of money.
 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Disclaimer:- This forum is an open forum, and anyone can post their thoughts here (within reason). Therefore the views expressed here are those of individuals and not necessarily those of Nothing 2 Declare. We try to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, including views that some may find objectionable. This includes the views of UKBA, Border Force, HMRC, legitimate cross-border shoppers, non-legitimate importers, general public and anyone else that wishes to post.
Regarding ourselves, we categorically do not condone smuggling and neither do we condone the current tactics used against legitimate cross-border shoppers by UKBA/Border Force and HMRC. The current tactics benefit both Customs and smugglers alike.
Although some people use real names, there is no guarantee that they are who they say they are; it is impossible for us to verify identities of all members.