Home of N2D.

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

13-2-2013 11:23 am  #1

Court costs £2719.50

Date 13 February 2013 
Ref 25843 
Dear Steve President, 
Thank you for your email dated 11/01/13. Your request has been handled as a request for 
information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have listed your request for 
How many times has UKBA Legal Dept applied for costs totaling £2719-50 re: 
Condemnation Proceedings in Magistrates Courts for the period 2012 to 2013? 
I confirm that we hold the information which was requested but we have estimated that the 
cost of meeting the request would exceed the cost limit of £600 specified in the Freedom of 
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.  We are 
therefore unable to comply with it. The cost would be exceeded due to the amount of time it 
would take to identify and gather the information in scope. This would require the manual 
retrieving and checking of 145 individual files with an estimate of about 2 hours work required 
on each file. 
However, I am able to disclose that in the period 2012 - 2013, UKBA Legal Department was 
awarded costs totaling £2719.50 re: Condemnation Proceedings in the Magistrates Courts 
on twelve cases

Mmmmm, seems they've been applying for this cost in most cases but it's been contested in court by the look of things. Seems strange that we have 3 of the 12 ... Louise, Tony and Bobi http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/grin.png

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.

13-2-2013 12:27 pm  #2

Re: Court costs £2719.50

Now the questions are, how many condemnation procedings were there during this period? What was the maximum costs and the minimum costs for all condemnation procedings during this period and excluding the 12 cases you identified what was the average costs requested? By simple maths you could take out the maximum and minimum (in case they are extreme examples) and you get the mean of all the rest.


23-12-2013 1:43 pm  #3

Re: Court costs £2719.50

I would like to know how did they justify court costs of 4272.50 in Magistrates court few years ago


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.

24-12-2013 11:17 am  #4

Re: Court costs £2719.50

"This would require the manual retrieving and checking of 145 individual files with an estimate of about 2 hours work required on each file."

2 hours to check the 'bottom line' (verdict) of each case? An half competent filing clerk would take that long to find all the files and another 2 to check the costs awarded. Add a further 2 hours to put the files back again and it's a total time of 6 hours!

The only way forward as I see it is to make a separate FOIR for the costs awarded during each quarter of the year and, if necessary, each month. Similarly for the number of seizures for the whole of the UK or even on a port/airport basis. Employing the members of the board these requests could cover several years before 2011 when the 'performance' pay raises were introduced. I'll bet good money that the number of seizures - especially of vehicles - was considerably higher in the tax years 2011/12 and 2012/13. It would be very useful to know what the target figures have been set at for the last 10-12 years and especially during the period from 2008 to 2012 when UKBA was the catchall cover for HMRC, UKBF, UKIS, etc, etc.

They lie on recordings; they lie on oath; their shysters lie on their behalf. Don't believe a word coming from the mouths (2 per person) of any UKBA officer.

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.