What we do
archived case summaries
We see relatively few complaints about HMRC's law enforcement role concerning the smuggling of illicit material into UK ports and airports.
Given the tendency of those wishing to smuggle illegal material to pose as genuine travellers, it is inevitable that innocent people are sometimes caught up in the operational procedures in place to enforce restrictions. This, in turn, can generate complaints about the attitude of officers.
Law Enforcement case summary
Mr and Mrs I cut short their holiday abroad because Mrs I was taken ill. On arrival back in the UK, Customs and Excise stopped the couple and searched their vehicle. Mr I subsequently complained about the distress caused by the search and claimed that the officers had damaged some of the contents of his vehicle.
Customs and Excise were unable to identify which of their officers, if any, had been involved in the search; nor whether any other agency had carried out the search. On that basis, they rejected the complaint.
We upheld this complaint.
We asked Customs and Excise to investigate matters again. This time, the investigation established both that Customs and Excise had indeed carried out the search and also that they could identify the officers involved. They offered Mr I £250 in recognition of their previous failure to investigate matters properly and the distress that this caused.
They also agreed to pay for repair or replacement of the damaged items, even though they were by no means certain that their officers were responsible for the damage. We considered that, in the circumstances, Customs and Excise's offer was both fair and reasonable.
Mr I felt able to accept Customs and Excise's offer of redress and we were able to settle the complaint by mediation. We were very pleased to note that Customs and Excise used this complaint to review and improve their local procedures.
