Research and analysis

Research exploring the impact of border checks

Published 13 May 2025

Qualitative research with traders and intermediaries to understand their views on the impact of border checks.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) Research Report 792.

Research conducted by Ipsos between March and May 2024. Prepared by Ipsos (Amanda Stevens, Alice Haywood, Aamina Oughradar) for HMRC.

Disclaimer: The views in this report are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of HMRC.

Glossary

Term	Definition
Border checks	Border checks were defined to participants as all kinds of stops or checks implemented at any stage of a goods journey, including before goods have left original storage locations and after goods reach end destinations, and as goods are either moving in or out of the country.
Border Target Operating Model	The Border Target Operating Model sets out a new approach to security controls (applying to all imports), and sanitary and phytosanitary controls (applying to imports of live animals, animal products, plants, and plants products) at the border. It sets out how controls will be simplified and digitised, and the ambition for the UK’s new Single Trade Window.
Business size	Micro businesses are firms with 1 to 9 employees Small businesses are firms with 10 to 49 employees Medium businesses are firms with 50 to 249 employees Large business are firms with more than 250 employees.
Customs agent or broker	Customs agents and brokers complete declarations on behalf of businesses importing or exporting goods. They help to ensure goods moving to and from the country are accurately declared for customs.
Customs declaration	A mandatory form listing the details of all goods being imported or exported to be submitted to HMRC.
Customs Declaration Service	The Customs Declaration Service is an HMRC system designed to record the movement of goods by land, air and sea. It allows importers, exporters, and freight forwarders to complete customs formalities electronically and automatically checks entry errors.
Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight	Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight was the system previously used by HMRC. This system has now been decommissioned and replaced by the Customs Declaration Service.
Customs intermediary or intermediaries	Someone that a trader or carrier hires to deal with customs on their behalf. Options for intermediaries include freight forwarders, customs agents, brokers, or fast parcel operators. Intermediaries may manage both customs formalities and the physical logistics of moving goods across borders.
Customs requirements	Customs requirements refer to formalities that must be completed in order to move goods. These include import declarations, export declarations and safety and security declarations, amongst others.
Customs software	Customs software are IT systems used to allow traders and intermediaries to access and interact with key customs systems, such as the Customs Declaration Service and the Goods Vehicle Movement Service. This software allows users to efficiently complete and submit declarations to HMRC.
Demurrage	Demurrage is a charge levied on cargo importers and exporters for not returning or retrieving shipping containers within a specified time frame. It can apply to multiple modes of transport, including ocean, rail and road.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for improving and protecting the environment. It aims to grow a green economy and sustain thriving rural communities. It also supports the UK’s world-leading food, farming and fishing industries.
Documentary checks	The examination of any paperwork: customs declarations, commercial invoices, and import or export certificates, amongst others.
EU Exit	EU Exit refers to the withdrawal process of the UK from the EU.
EU countries	The EU countries are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
Export(ing)	Sending goods made in a country for sale or use to another country.
Freight forwarder	Freight forwarders, also known as shipping agents, facilitate the movement of goods between countries and handle all aspects of the movement, including shipping and customs. They cover the movement of goods via all different mediums: road, rail, air, and sea. They help traders move goods directly (where they have their own fleet of vehicles) or indirectly (where they contract haulage operators or shipping lines to move goods).
Goods	Tangible products such as books, clothes, and tools.
Goods Movement Reference	A Goods Movement Reference is a unique identification number which is generated by the Goods Vehicle Movement Service. The Goods Movement Reference links together all the customs declarations for a particular shipment.
Goods Vehicle Movement Service	The Goods Vehicle Movement Service is an IT platform managed by government to facilitate border movements at certain port locations. If a business moves goods through these ports, it must register with the service.
Hauliers	Hauliers deal with the physical transportation of goods by road.
Import(ing)	Bringing goods purchased from sellers in a different country into the UK.
Just-in-Time	A Just-in-Time inventory system is a management strategy where a business receives goods as close as possible to when they are needed.
Physical checks	Checks that require the physical inspection of vehicles or containers to verify the nature, quantity and quality of goods being transported.
Rest of the world	Countries outside of the UK and EU.
‘Roll-on, roll-off’	‘Roll-on, roll-off’ is a method of loading and unloading cargo from a ship without the use of cranes. ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ ships are designed with built-in ramps which allow wheeled cargo to be driven on and off the vessel.
Safety and Security Declarations	A Safety and Security Declaration is a document used by border authorities to assess the potential risk that goods pose to a territory when crossing a border.
The border	Mentions of the ‘border’ throughout the presentation relate to the UK border. Other borders such as EU borders are explicitly identified where relevant.
Trader	Businesses who buy or sell goods or services internationally. This research focussed purely on goods as customs declarations are not required for services.

1. Executive summary

1.1 Research context

The 2025 UK Border Strategy aims to create a world-class border and customs system, emphasising the reduction of border process requirements. At the time the research was commissioned, the burden imposed by necessary checks on goods was not well understood. To develop insight into this, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) commissioned Ipsos to research traders’ and intermediaries’ experiences of border checks.

1.2 Objectives of the research

This research aimed to understand border checks from the perspectives of traders and intermediaries. It has focused on understanding the reasons for border checks, including the types of checks, why they happen and where responsibility for these lies. The project has also explored the overall impacts of border checks on trade, including some of the key pain points that traders and intermediaries face. In addition, this project has sought to explore potential measures to mitigate the impacts of border checks.

1.3 Methodology

A qualitative methodology has been used to explore the experiences and views of traders and intermediaries regarding border checks. This approach was selected to provide detailed insights into the variety and reasons behind these experiences.

Ipsos conducted 35 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 20 traders and 15 intermediaries who had encountered border checks within the past 2 years. Prior to these interviews, a scoping phase involving 5 senior policy and strategic stakeholders from expert sector bodies was undertaken. These preliminary discussions helped refine the research design and key questions. The interviews with traders and intermediaries were conducted between March and May 2024, each lasting between 45 to 60 minutes.

1.4 Key findings

Traders and intermediaries reported that moving goods across the border was generally a smooth process at the time of interviewing due to relatively efficient processing times and improvements to customs systems. Participants found most checks minimally disruptive, with the frequency of checks broadly meeting their expectations, and understood the importance of border checks in maintaining safety and security in the UK border.

Traders and intermediaries stated that the main cause of checks was due to either mistakes in documentation or due to importing goods more susceptible to checks.

Physical and documentary checks that took more than 2 to 4 days were infrequent but most impactful for businesses interviewed. Checks which resolved within 2 to 4 hours were more frequent but were less burdensome and had the least impact. Checks that exceeded the 4-hour timeframe started to incur direct costs, such as transportation rearrangements. As delays continued, both direct and indirect costs, such as storage fees, staff time and reputational risk, also increased.

The most significant business impacts for the sample were financial, including additional staff time for managing check processes, logistical planning, and client communication, as well as costs from rearranged transportation and storage. Businesses operating in less flexible supply chains, particularly with Just-In-Time manufacturing, faced the greatest impacts including contract penalties and high indirect costs.

Traders and intermediaries faced similar overall impacts from border checks. However, traders were more likely to incur direct costs, such as additional transportation fees due to delays, storage charges for held goods and fines for late deliveries. Meanwhile, intermediaries were more affected by impacts on staff time, particularly in managing check processes, adjusting logistics, and reallocating internal resources to handle unexpected border checks.

Traders and intermediaries were highly motivated to comply with regulations and independently sought to improve their processes. They believed that a better understanding of the reasons behind checks could help reduce border checks caused by trader error, and in turn support the streamlining of customs operations at the border and reducing delays.

Prompted mitigation strategies were well-received, with participants particularly valuing enhanced visibility into check progression and more detailed reasons for checks. They expressed strong support for resolving checks as early as possible and sharing supplementary data with HMRC. However, concerns were raised about the practicality and resource demands of implementing these strategies.

2. Research context, objectives and methodology

2.1 Research context

The 2025 UK Border Strategy envisions establishing a world class border and customs regime. A crucial aspect of this strategy is minimising the requirements for border processes. At the time the research was commissioned, the burden imposed by necessary checks on goods was not well understood.

HMRC commissioned Ipsos to conduct research examining traders’ and intermediaries’ experiences of border checks, their views on the impact checks have on their operations, and on possible mitigation strategies. This research will inform future strategies that can reduce the burden of checks on compliant traders and intermediaries while strengthening the evidence base for decisions on future approaches to border checks.

2.2 Objectives of the research

The research aimed to gather rich, qualitative insight into the border industry with a specific focus on the trader and intermediary perspective. More specifically, the research objectives explored the following themes.

Reasons for border checks  

The research explored questions including:

• understanding the types of checks traders and intermediaries experience
• investigating what customers, self-declarant traders, and intermediaries perceive the causes of these checks to be

Burden of checks on trade

The research explored questions relating to the burden of checks on trade including:

• trader and intermediary views on the burdens of border checks, including key pain points
• impacts of checks on businesses varying in size, sector and mode of transport

Measures to reduce burdens and impacts on trade

The research explored questions around mitigating the burden of checks including:

• existing measures employed to mitigate the burden of checks
• measures that could facilitate trade, such as sharing existing commercially available data

2.3 Methodology

A qualitative methodology was used to undertake this research. This methodology was chosen to gather insight and explore the research aims because:

• it presents an opportunity to explore a range of experiences, attitudes, and opinions in detail
• it supports researchers to generate insight into how and why certain experiences occur and the process behind them

Ipsos conducted a total of 35 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with traders and intermediaries who had experienced border checks in the past 2 years. Of the 35 interviews conducted, 20 were with traders and 15 were with intermediaries. The interviews were conducted between 4 March and 10 May 2024 using either Microsoft Teams or telephone, and each lasted 45 to 60 minutes.

Before the interviews, a scoping phase was conducted with 5 senior policy and strategic stakeholders drawn from expert sector bodies representing traders and intermediaries. These scoping conversations were used to test and refine the research design, and to help refine key research questions and terminology.

A comprehensive topic guide was developed following the scoping phase, and this was used to guide the interviews. The questions were typically open and allowed participants to talk in detail about their experiences. Interviewers guided and prompted participants where necessary to examine key topic areas.

2.3.1 Spontaneous versus prompted questions

A series of prompts were incorporated into the design of the topic guide questions. Alongside gathering ‘top-of-mind’ views, a series of further probes were used to help elicit deeper insights and to understand traders’ and intermediaries’ perspectives more comprehensively. Incorporating these prompts encouraged participants to think beyond their initial responses and helped them delve into specific areas that may not emerge spontaneously.

2.4 Analysis

Findings from the interviews were collated and analysed to draw out key themes. Following fieldwork, interview findings were filtered and further analysed across relevant subgroups and characteristics. This drew insight into specific trader and intermediary experiences of border checks.

2.5 Sample and recruitment

A sample of 750 traders and 1,600 intermediaries was supplied to Ipsos by HMRC. Recruitment was guided by a tailored screening questionnaire for both groups, and these were used to ascertain eligibility for the research.

Interviews reflected a mix of traders and intermediaries in terms of trading activity and firmographics. All of those interviewed were based in Great Britain. We sampled participants purposively to highlight a range of business circumstances and experiences of border checks. The sub-groups varied in size according to the sampling strategy and availability of participants. While our sample included a mix of business sizes, transportation methods, numbers of declarations, and types of intermediaries, it was predominantly composed of traders from the wholesale, retail, and trade sectors due to difficulties in recruiting traders in different types of sectors. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the findings. A sample breakdown of the traders and intermediaries that took part in the research by their characteristics is outlined in Appendix A.

2.6 Interpretation of qualitative data

When considering these findings, it is important to keep in mind that qualitative research is descriptive, illustrative, and exploratory. It explores the range of experiences and opinions of participants in detail, providing insight into the key factors underlying their views.

This research is based on the findings of interviews with 35 participants, which is a small proportion of the number of those who have experienced border checks. Please treat the findings in this report as indicative and representing the views of those interviewed. This research is not representative of the broader population of traders and intermediaries that have experienced border checks.

Throughout the report, we have included verbatim quotes to illustrate findings. To protect participant anonymity, quotations have been attributed to key business characteristics.

3. Overall understanding and experiences of border checks

3.1 Summary

3.1.1 Key findings

Overall traders and intermediaries reported a positive experience when moving goods across the UK border, attributing this to efficient processing times and customs system improvements.

Traders and intermediaries perceived border checks as a necessary part of moving goods. Their experiences of these checks can be categorised into documentary checks, physical checks at the border and physical checks conducted away from the border.

Participants reported variations in the frequency and resolution times of different border checks. Documentary checks, the most frequent and least disruptive, are often resolved within 2 hours. Physical checks occur less often but take longer to resolve, especially when conducted away from the border, at inland locations, where resolution can range from a few days to a few weeks.

Traders and intermediaries agreed on some causes of avoidable border checks but differ on who is responsible. Traders cited documentation errors, sometimes due to discrepancies between declaration forms and consignment contents, as a primary cause; whereas intermediaries also saw traders’ supplying incorrect information as a cause. There are variations in the communication channels that traders and intermediaries use to receive notifications of border checks. Traders often find out about checks via email or phone, while intermediaries typically use tools like Supply Chain Management Systems or the National Clearance Hub webchat.

Participants noted that improved communication and real-time updates would enhance their ability to plan and execute logistics operations more smoothly.

3.1.2 Overview 

The interviews with traders and intermediaries were used to explore their experiences and understanding of border checks. Participants were asked specifically about their experiences over the last 2 years (2022 to 2024).

Overall, traders and intermediaries shared positive feedback about the ease of moving goods across the UK border and reported experiencing minimal inconvenience when goods passed through the border. This positive sentiment was largely attributed to efficient processing times and a general lack of delays.

Reflecting on the period since January 2021, participants noted some changes in their experiences of moving goods across the UK border. The implementation of new customs procedures and requirements post-EU Exit initially created some confusion and adjustment challenges. However, over time, many traders and intermediaries adapted to the new processes, and the initial disruptions decreased.

“I think when Brexit happened, it was all very volatile and nobody knew what they were doing. I think it’s, sort of, settled down a bit now. We had some parcels being held at customs. It was a bit mayhem really, after Brexit. But recently, it’s been a lot better.” (Trader, small business, more than 100 declarations per year)

Some traders and intermediaries reported that the frequency of border checks had increased since EU Exit. However, they expressed that the current level of checks was at an expected and manageable level. Participants who experienced increased checks generally accepted them as a necessary part of the new regulatory landscape. They recognised the importance of ensuring compliance with EU standards and viewed the additional scrutiny as a reasonable measure to facilitate the proper management of goods entering and exiting the EU. This recognition of compliance with EU standards reflects traders’ efforts to meet these requirements for smooth trade with the EU, not an indication of UK authorities enforcing EU regulations at the border.

3.2 Understanding of border checks

Traders and intermediaries understand that border checks are a necessary part of moving goods in and out of the UK. Traders and intermediaries highlighted that whilst border checks were important and needed, they can impact both the speed and predictability of trading. They seek to minimise the number of avoidable additional checks they face beyond the standard check processes.

Findings from the interviews illustrate that participants’ understanding of these checks can be grouped into 2 broad types: documentary checks and physical checks.

Documentary checks are a common experience for traders. These checks are divided into 2 further sub-categories:

• documentary checks that require further information
• documentary checks with no need for further information

Physical checks at the border form another key category identified by the participants. For those interviewed these checks are more prevalent for goods transported by road, whereas air and sea shipments are less frequently subjected to such inspections. They can also be divided into 2 further sub-categories:

• physical checks at the UK border
• physical checks at an inland location

The different border checks that participants described are illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Types of border checks

Type of check	Sub-category	Description
Documentary checks	Documentary checks with no need for further information	These checks take place at the UK border where necessary documentation is reviewed, but no additional information is requested.
Documentary checks	Documentary checks that require further information	These are checks that usually occur before goods reach the UK border. When this type of check takes place, traders and intermediaries must provide additional documentation to verify shipment details.
Physical checks	Physical checks at the UK border	These checks describe a physical inspection of goods at the UK border.
Physical checks	Physical checks at inland location	This sub-category describes when goods are taken to inland locations for a physical inspection of goods.

3.3 Descriptions of border checks

Traders’ understanding of border checks was limited. It was based on the immediate issues faced rather than on a structured knowledge of the different types of checks and their purposes. Traders generally associate checks with their goods being held at a physical location at the UK border.

Traders, particularly smaller ones lacking dedicated logistics and customs teams, struggled to distinguish between different types of checks at the border. This led to them referring to unexpected checks, especially those involving documentation reviews at the border, interchangeably as ‘random’ or documentation checks.

It is important to clarify that ‘random’ checks, described as such by traders, are simply unanticipated checks. These checks could involve either a physical inspection or a review of documentation. The terminology was influenced by the duration of the check, with quicker checks more likely to be called ‘random’.

The communication methods that were used to notify traders of a border check influenced the way in which they described these checks. For example, traders who received written notifications from HMRC were able to clearly distinguish their experiences as either ‘documentary ‘ or ‘physical’ checks. They mirrored the terms provided in these communications.  In contrast, when traders were notified by telephone, they struggled to describe their experiences beyond issues such as missing or incorrect documentation, or delays caused by checks. Relying on phone communication meant they focussed on these immediate issues and limited their ability to understand broader elements of the border-check process.

In contrast, the language that intermediaries used demonstrated their deeper and more comprehensive understanding of border checks due to their professional capacity. This was evidenced by their use of precise language.

Intermediaries tended not to use the term ‘pre-clearance checks’ and instead they talked about resolving documentation errors earlier or before the border. This illustrates a practical approach and ability to describe border check processes in layman’s terms. Some intermediaries also referenced ‘post-clearance checks’ where they had experience of these.

Medium sized and larger intermediaries also tended to use specific HMRC language such as Route 1 or 2 checks, Route 6 entries, and T1 forms. This language highlighted their understanding of procedural aspects and documentation requirements in border checks.

Intermediaries’ knowledge of and familiarity with border checks meant they were able to understand and describe the regulatory aspects of border checks. They were able to distinguish and describe sanitary and phytosanitary checks and safety and security checks. In comparison, traders were less aware of these. Instead, traders tended to refer to ‘extra checks’, viewing these procedures as an additional layer of scrutiny due to of the nature of the goods being moved, knowledge of check procedures, and awareness of the agencies involved in checks at the UK border.

Both traders and intermediaries referred to the involvement of Border Force and HMRC in checks. Intermediaries tended to use the term ‘customs’. Upon further clarification, it was understood that this referred to the joint role of both agencies in managing the overall border check process. However, many participants were not clear about the split of roles and responsibilities between HMRC and Border Force. Intermediaries’ understanding of the broader regulatory framework acknowledged that HMRC is not responsible for all border checks and made direct references to additional departments and agencies responsible for related checks, such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Forestry Commission.

3.4 Experiences of different border checks

There are notable variations in the frequency at which different border checks occur, and in the resolution times across these different types. These are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Summary of frequency and resolution times across border checks

Type of check	Sub-category	Resolution time
Documentary checks	Documentary checks with no need for further information	These checks take place at the UK border. Traders and intermediaries report that the time frame for resolution is instantly to around 2 hours.
Documentary checks	Documentary checks that require further information	These are checks that usually occur before goods reach the UK border but can also occur at the border. Traders and intermediaries report that the time frame for resolution is 2 to 4 hours. (Up to 4 to 5 days is possible at weekends).
Physical checks	Physical checks at the UK border	These checks take place at the UK border. Traders and intermediaries report that the time frame for resolution can range from 2 to 4 hours up to 1 day.
Physical checks	Physical checks at inland location	These checks can take place either before or after goods reach the border. Traders and intermediaries report that the time frame for resolution can range from 1 to 2 days to 4 to 6 weeks.

Documentary checks with no need for further information were described by traders and intermediaries as the most frequent and least disruptive type of check. These are often resolved instantly up to a maximum of around 2 hours. These checks are generally straightforward, involving the verification of documents.

Documentary checks requiring further information are more common than physical checks and can occur both at and before the border. They involve detailed paperwork reviews such as customs declarations, invoices, and certificates. Traders and intermediaries described these as typically taking 2 to 4 hours to resolve. On weekends, these checks could extend up to 4 to 5 days depending on the complexity and the need to retrieve information from suppliers in different time zones. For example, a check at the UK border on Thursday evening might delay goods until Tuesday if details from a supplier in China are needed.

Physical checks at the UK border involve inspecting consignments to verify declared details. Whilst traders and intermediaries perceived them as being somewhat disruptive, these are infrequent. Their resolution time can range from 2 to 4 hours to up to a day. This variation is due to the time needed to send personnel from the trader or intermediaries’ side to retrieve goods from inland check locations.

Physical checks conducted away from the border are the least common type of check. They involve similar inspections to physical checks at the UK border but are conducted at an inland location. The resolution time for these checks tends to be lengthier depending on their complexity and can range from 1 to 2 days to 4 to 6 weeks. While traders and intermediaries were able to speak about the frequency of checks in general terms, they do not tend to keep detailed records of the checks they go through, especially those in which they are less involved.

3.5 Border check experiences across different goods

Border checks also vary significantly across different types of goods being moved. Traders reported that for some goods categories, such as frozen fish, documentation discrepancies, due to issues such as product classification codes, can lead to delays. Traders also raised some concerns about a misalignment between HMRC and DEFRA declaration forms and the potential risk of delay as a result.

Participants reported that highly regulated and hazardous goods, such as biofuels, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and lithium batteries face stringent and more frequent checks at the border. Traders and intermediaries describe these checks as being slow. Participants felt these checks were slower due to a perception that, for example, UK border and inland staff lacked the most up-to-date information on classification. Traders and intermediaries believed that this in turn lead to delays in processing times.

Participants felt that high-value items, including electronics, manufacturing equipment, high-precision machinery, and luxury goods like fine art, tended to undergo physical checks more frequently at inland locations rather than at the UK border. Participants reported that the processing times for these checks can be lengthy and cause disruptions, since delays can have substantial knock-on effects on the broader supply chain.

Participants reported that goods that are moved in earlier stages of their production process and not in their final form are frequently subject to delays at the border. Questions about the use and form of these goods often lead to additional checks for both imports and exports, increasing the likelihood of delays in delivery, supply chain or production timelines. This is common across sectors like manufacturing, forestry, and retail or wholesale, where the unfinished nature of the goods prompts more rigorous questioning by UK border and inland staff.

Traders and intermediaries perceive geopolitical issues as having a possible influence on the frequency and incidence of border checks. This is particularly felt to be the case for goods imported from regions such as China, Russia, and various African nations. Traders and intermediaries see retail and wholesale goods from these regions as being subject to heightened scrutiny, leading to additional documentary checks. These checks are often related to the origin and value of the goods, which can impact duty payments. Additionally, there is a focus on identifying potential counterfeit items, adding a layer of complexity to the inspection process.

3.6 Experiences of checks at different locations

Several distinctions are highlighted when comparing check experiences at UK border locations and inland check locations. At UK border locations, traders and intermediaries perceived the efficiency of the checks to vary depending on the size and type of the port. Larger ports were reported to have more advanced technology than smaller ports. Smaller ports, while not seen as being as technologically advanced, were perceived to offer a more personalised service, which was appreciated by users.

Participants also reported variations in the speed of checks at UK border locations, depending on the method of transport used to move goods. Air freight was perceived to be the quickest, offering the most efficient experience, whilst ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ was reported to be the slowest. Some intermediaries speculated that ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ checks were slowed due to goods being part of multiple consignments.

Traders and intermediaries reported that checks at inland locations were most frequently undertaken on high-value and regulated goods. Participants observed that these can vary in duration from check to check, which leads to a level of unpredictability that can be challenging for businesses.

Participants felt that Border Force and HMRC staff at both border locations and inland check locations would benefit from additional training. It was felt that staff at both types of locations would benefit from further training on the specifics of new customs procedures introduced post-EU-Exit. At UK Border locations it was felt that staff required more specific training in relation to regulated goods.

Specifically, traders dealing in wood products, such as wood chips for biofuels, voiced concerns about the capabilities of inland check facilities. They perceived these facilities to lack the testing capabilities and staff knowledge to carry out the necessary checks on these imports and called for improved processes.

When importing, some participants observed an increase in both documentary and physical checks at EU borders since the UK left the EU, due to new compliance requirements. Participants who exported noted a heightened focus on verifying proofs of origin and customs declarations for UK goods, resulting in more detailed inspections. This led to longer processing times at the UK border and increased administrative workload for a small proportion of traders and intermediaries.

3.7 Perceived causes and responsibility for border checks

Traders and intermediaries agree on some of the possible causes of border checks, but they differ in their views on who holds the responsibility for these checks occurring.

Traders identified documentation errors as a primary cause of border checks. Often this is related to discrepancies between information on declaration forms and the contents of consignments. Some traders described facing difficulties in correctly classifying products, which also led to mismatches in customs paperwork and prompted checks to verify the information provided. Traders felt that this issue is particularly prevalent with imported goods, where the complexity of international trade regulations can make accurate classification challenging. 

For some traders, inconsistent or unclear processes when dealing with intermediaries further complicate customs procedures. These inconsistencies often required traders to handle varying instructions and requirements, adding complexity to their operations. Some traders also pointed towards a lack of standardisation between different customs processes which meant they had to navigate different rules and guidelines. This variability not only slowed down the process but also increased the chances of non-compliance, necessitating a check at the border.

Traders also attributed the type of goods being moved as a cause for checks. Some categories of goods (such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and high-value electronics) were highlighted as being more frequently subjected to checks, which traders understood as being a result of ensuring compliance with regulatory and safety standards.

Intermediaries point to similar issues with documentation as a frequent cause of checks, particularly inaccuracies in the specific quantity or weight of goods declared by traders. They also face challenges with evolving regulatory requirements.

There were a range of other influencing factors that traders mentioned less frequently but viewed as contributory reasons for a check. Some traders described HMRC customs guidance as being ‘unclear’, which left them uncertain about the exact requirements they needed to meet. This lack of clarity resulted in errors or omissions in documentation, which traders reported may be prompting additional border checks to verify the information.

Perceptions about the responsibility for border checks differed significantly between traders and intermediaries. Traders perceived the responsibility for checks to be shared between their own businesses, intermediaries, and responsible government departments or bodies at the border. They acknowledged the importance of providing accurate and timely information but also highlighted the overall complexity of the system as a contributing factor to checks.

Intermediaries, however, placed the primary responsibility for border checks on traders alongside responsible government agencies at the border. They reported that updates to customs software sometimes caused delays and attributed issues arising from these systems updates to government agencies. Some felt these delays were compounded by what they perceived as a lack of support for resolving process-related issues.

Intermediaries placed the onus on traders to provide correct documentation and meet regulatory requirements while they see their own role as facilitating the process. Issues during checks were attributed to trader errors or non-compliance. Whilst intermediaries acknowledged that they occasionally make errors that can contribute to a check, these were perceived as being rare.

3.8 Communication channels used to notify traders and intermediaries about border checks

The experiences of traders and intermediaries in receiving and managing border check notifications varied significantly. This variation was based on the communication channels they used to keep up to date with notifications about border checks. Intermediaries appeared to have a more positive experience than traders.

Emails from HMRC or intermediaries were a common way for traders to learn about border checks. While the written format made information clear and easy to understand, emails often lacked the detailed information necessary to resolve the checks quickly. This gap in information sometimes led to delays as traders and intermediaries sought additional clarification from HMRC on what is required for a check to progress.

“Sometimes, if there is a problem, HMRC will tell you there is a problem, but will not necessarily tell you what the specific problem is.” (Trader, large business, more than 100 declarations per year)

The interviews highlighted that despite access to communication channels, traders can often feel less informed about the progress of compared to intermediaries. A possible reason for this is that whilst intermediaries act as the declarant and primary point of contact with HMRC or Border Force, traders interviewed typically received information second-hand, which may contribute to a sense of feeling a step removed from the process.

Moreover, intermediaries, who are the first to receive notifications, may filter information and choose not to communicate every detail to traders, particularly when they believe that an issue will be resolved quickly without requiring the trader’s involvement. While this approach aims to manage perceptions and reduce potential disruptions to the trader’s operations, it often leaves traders feeling less informed about the checks and their progression.

Traders reported that phone calls from drivers or haulage partners were the least efficient method for notifying them about border checks. The primary issue with phone calls was the limited understanding of customs procedures by drivers, which often required traders to spend additional time interpreting issues. The verbal nature of phone calls made it difficult to convey detailed and accurate information, leading to misunderstandings and further delays.

Intermediaries generally report more positive communication experiences, primarily due to their use of Supply Chain Management Systems and the National Clearance Hub webchat. These systems provide real-time updates about the initiation and progress of checks, allowing for quicker and more effective management, and enabling intermediaries to respond swiftly to any issues that arise.

In contrast, findings from the interviews highlight that traders did not appear to use Supply Chain Management Systems as a communication channel. The reason for this may possibly be due to the costs associated with acquiring this software.

Despite using these real-time systems, intermediaries reported they still face challenges in obtaining prompt and accurate information from Border Force and HMRC. Intermediaries noted that information often lacks details on the cause of a check or how to resolve it, leading to delays as they wait for further information to manage the check process. Delays or gaps in information can hinder intermediaries’ ability to manage checks efficiently and provide accurate updates to their customers. This can be particularly problematic when dealing with high-priority or time-sensitive shipments, where any delay can have significant consequences.

3.9 Pain points in the border check process

Whilst traders and intermediaries primarily highlighted communication issues as the key challenge in the border check process, the effects of these challenges extend into broader operational areas. These include disruptions to logistics, difficulties in managing supply chains, and strains on customer relationships, particularly in sectors where precise timing and coordination are critical.

The key pain points that traders and intermediaries described facing during the border check process can be illustrated thematically as:

• clarity and detail of border check notifications
• difficulty in obtaining real-time information
• strains on supply chains and customer relationships
• a labour-intensive process for intermediaries

3.9.1 Clarity and detail of border check notifications

For some traders the initial notifications they receive about border checks are a pain point. Notifications for checks were described as vague, causing confusion among traders about whether issues were due to documentation errors or missing information, and about what needed correction.

As their goods are held at the UK border or moved to inland facilities for further inspection, traders encounter challenges due to the absence of progress updates or estimated timelines for the check. This uncertainty makes it difficult for them to plan and adjust their logistics and can lead to disruptions in their supply chain.

The combined effect of these factors creates a series of issues for traders. The lack of detailed explanations on notifications forces traders to operate reactively, constantly trying to troubleshoot without a clear understanding of the root causes.

Similar to traders, intermediaries begin the border check process with a notification via Supply Chain Management Systems or email. These notifications come from responsible government departments or bodies at the border involved in the check process. Intermediaries reported that these can often lack comprehensive information. This requires intermediaries to coordinate with those involved in the check process, for example Border Force or HMRC, to gather further details about the check and the necessary actions. It often involves repeated communications and follow-ups, which can be time-consuming and challenging.

“The number one pain point is that you cannot get information when there’s an issue”. (Intermediary, micro business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

3.9.2 Difficulty in obtaining real-time information

The communication channels traders more commonly rely on can be slow. The use of email and phone calls can make it difficult to obtain real time updates on the status of a check. Traders find it difficult to obtain clear telephone responses from hauliers, who may themselves not have immediate access to detailed information about checks taking place. In some cases, the difficulty in getting a clear answer from hauliers may stem from challenges in effectively articulating or explaining the issue. This lack of immediate information can complicate planning, such as transport, warehousing, or distribution scheduling.

As traders rely on intermediaries to handle the customs process, intermediaries must bridge any information gaps between traders and agencies at the border. Delays or gaps in communication about checks can complicate this role.

3.9.3 Strains on supply chains and customer relationships

Some traders reported that when delays occur it can be difficult to provide accurate and timely information about border checks to their customers. They report that sometimes leads to frustration and potential damage to professional relationships.

Effective communication channels are also essential for intermediaries. They reported that when they struggle to provide clear updates due to limited customs information, this can lead to customer dissatisfaction and doubts about the intermediary’s reliability. This can impact customer retention and the ability to attract new clients.

3.9.4 A labour-intensive process for intermediaries

Intermediaries’ reputations rely on managing border checks, resolving issues, and providing timely updates; however, this process is labour-intensive. It can require significant effort to gather current information on border checks from various sources which may include a combination of repeat email communication and communications via Supply Chain Management Systems or the National Clearance Hub web chat.

“It takes a painful amount of work to be able to figure out what the problem is, because they won’t speak to us. You’ve got to send them an email, which even finding the email address, I had to get from 3 different people, even then the email goes to Border Force, not the front desk, which is not operated by Border Force”. (Intermediary, micro business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

4. Impacts of border checks

4.1. Summary

4.1.1 Key findings

Traders and intermediaries predominantly viewed border check impacts through a short-term lens where impacts were largely invisible and did not track broader knock-on effects. Real business impact only became clearer when viewed cumulatively across multiple check processes over a longer period time.

Physical checks were most impactful to businesses, specifically physical checks at inland check locations and safety and security checks.

Traders and intermediaries operating in supply chains with lower flexibility and those working directly with other businesses were most impacted. These businesses were least able to absorb delay caused by border checks and faced greatest penalties from customers. Specifically, businesses moving goods as part of Just-In-Time manufacturing sectors faced the most acute impact including daily contract penalties and extensive indirect costs.

The impact of border checks varied by business size, sector, transport mode, and the type of goods moved. Smaller importers and those using ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ or sea freight faced the greatest challenges due to slower processing times and limited capacity to absorb financial and operational disruptions. Traders in the manufacturing sector were more affected by frequent physical checks, especially for high-value or specialised goods.

The most significant business impacts were financial in the form of additional direct costs such as rearrangement of transportation and storage, as well as indirect costs in the form of additional staff time managing check processes and communicating with clients and suppliers. Intermediaries were generally more impacted by impacts to staff time compared to traders who tended to absorb greater direct costs.

Traders and intermediaries also experienced reputational damage linked to customer dissatisfaction, as well as reporting that they felt anxious about expecting or undergoing a check due to delay to the delivery of goods to customers.

4.1.2 Overview

Interviews first explored spontaneous perceptions of impact, beginning by understanding whether participants felt their businesses were impacted by border checks at all in order to explore the research question without bias. Participants were then prompted with stimulus consisting of 6 business areas to explore impact from border checks in a more systematic format.

The business areas discussed with participants in each interview were:

• overall operational efficiency and business strategy
• delivery times and supply chain planning
• direct and indirect costs
• customer base, market share and customer satisfaction
• internal staff satisfaction and retention and internal IT systems and processes
• legal and compliance issues

Not all business areas were perceived to be impacted by border checks. This section of the report sets out where impacts were identified across the 2 audiences of traders and intermediaries.

Traders and intermediaries emphasised how border checks make up one small part of larger complex supply chain processes, specifically the process of moving goods from their original location to their end destination. Traders and intermediaries initially focussed on immediate short-term impacts of border checks, and a more nuanced picture of the impacts faced by businesses was later revealed through in-depth prompted discussion.

Those moving goods via air freight tended to face lower levels of impact, albeit by paying a higher cost.  Intermediaries believed this was likely the case due to shipments being moved individually when travelling via air, versus being consolidated with other shipments when transported via ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ or via ship. Goods in consolidated shipments were more likely to be delayed due to issues caused by other goods in the same shipment. Businesses across the sample generally did not track the financial impact of border checks. Only a small number of intermediaries perceived their financial department to track any direct costs associated with rearranged transportation. This was more common within large freight forwarders in the intermediary sample where financial tracking processes were more thorough.

4.2 Summary of impacts of border checks on traders

Checks that were more disruptive occurred only rarely for most traders. Most commonly these were physical checks or safety and security checks.

Traders transporting more highly regulated goods such as dual-use goods were able to predict a higher likelihood of checks at the border. These traders faced lower levels of impact as they adapted supply chain processes in advance. Traders reported transporting goods earlier to allow for potential delays at the border, particularly during holiday periods or when arrival of goods at a specific time was critical. Traders also spent considerable time communicating with end-customers to ensure they were aware goods may face extra delay from checks to try and manage expectations.

Traders who move goods not likely to be routinely checked and those who had lower supply chain flexibility faced greater levels of impact. This included those working in tight supply chain models who faced some of the most severe business impacts. Typically, traders within manufacturing or retailers selling to wholesale customers were more impacted with direct and indirect financial impacts including contract penalties and additional staff wages, as well as long-term reputational damage. Specifically, traders transporting heavy machinery or equipment for running of factories were more impacted, and those transporting high-value raw materials forming part of construction processes as well as pharmaceutical drugs. Impacts constituted additional direct costs including additional transportation, but most significantly constituted indirect costs such as factories unable to operate or construction processes unable to progress without key pieces of equipment

A small number of traders from the manufacturing sector speculated that the direct and indirect financial impact of physical check processes could be as high as millions of pounds where checks took place at inland locations and were not resolved for several weeks. These traders were typically medium to large businesses who secured contracts with comparably high values.

4.3 Spontaneous impacts of border checks on traders

Traders initially stated border checks had little impact on their business. This perception was consistent across the trader sample, including among traders transporting more frequently checked goods across sectors such as manufacturing.

When traders were asked to expand on this perception, they generally commented that encountering border checks was an inevitable part of trading internationally. Participants reiterated that border checks formed only one small part of a much larger and more complex supply chain where disruptions were frequent, not only as a result of border checks. For these reasons, traders had not previously considered the impact of border checks alone and felt they had little control over whether checks took place.

“I don’t think, in the bigger picture, it [the border check] had any effect at all. The only thing is just the hassle, chasing people up.” (Trader, micro business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

“I wouldn’t say that it’s [the border check] had any kind of negative effect. It might have just slowed things down ever so slightly every now and again.” (Trader, medium business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

Through analysis of interview data, several further contextual factors became apparent as relevant for understanding this initial perception:

• the complexity and volume of tasks involved with the process of transporting goods from beginning to end played a significant role in traders’ ability to distinguish border check impacts from other disruptions

• traders did not track any business impacts from border checks, meaning there was little prior evidence or thinking for traders to draw on during interviews

• traders who experienced more disruptive check processes often reported they felt anxious about undergoing a check, which made it challenging for participants to objectively assess business impact

• some traders in our sample struggled with spontaneous recollection of border check impact, which could have occurred up to 2 years prior, without moderator probing

Traders spontaneously reported impacts which largely focussed on the short-term management of border checks. They  highlighted the impact of delays to the delivery of their goods, which was the most frequently mentioned spontaneous impact among traders. They reported that this caused considerable frustration due to not being able to meet customer delivery deadlines.

This delay of goods led to 3 further categories of impact which were front of mind for traders :

• reallocation of staff resource in order to manage administrative check processes, leading to disruption of short-term planning and removal of resource from other business workstreams

• increased time spent on communications with customers to mitigate against customer dissatisfaction, contract cancellations or penalties (mostly within retail and manufacturing) and longer-term reputational damage

• reallocations of inventory and management of stock levels, including potential adjustment to future inventory allocations and orders

“There was no issue in terms of it getting to us 6 hours later than it might have done. The impact was on me, my day, and the issues with getting it resolved – it was just the time it took. We’re not a big company - if I’m not there, other things in the business get missed - it’s the disruption to a normal working day.” (Trader, small business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

“We do get customer complaints due to delays from border checks, but we get loads of complaints about loads of things.” (Trader, large business, 10 to 30 declarations per year)

4.4 Prompted impacts of border checks on traders

Deeper inquiry probing into specific business areas revealed wider and longer-term business impacts from border checks. This discrepancy between spontaneously identified impacts and those identified through probing represented the low level of attention given to understanding the impact of border checks among traders in the sample.

Impacts applied to traders across the sample to differing degrees. Those who faced primarily documentary checks were generally less impacted due to faster resolution periods. For example, within this sample, this applied most evidently to traders in clothing and textiles where checks focussed more frequently on documentary clarification of supplier information or clarification of goods’ value to confirm duties.

Traders who experienced the greatest impact were those who encountered longer and more frequent checks, particularly when moving regulated goods subject to intensive and complex procedures. These traders faced physical checks or safety and security-related checks more often.

Longer check processes often took several days or in some cases up to several weeks to resolve. This was particularly the case where goods were moved to storage locations away from the border or inland check locations for checks to be carried out. Examples included traders in manufacturing who transported large or high-value goods such as heavy machinery, biofuels, and raw materials, as well as those transporting pharmaceuticals, dual-use or dangerous goods such as batteries.

An exception to this was the small number of traders in this sample from the food and drink sector. Despite most facing additional sanitary and phytosanitary checks, these traders reported largely efficient check processing speeds. Participants reported physical checks on both imports and exports being processed within 4 hours, and on the same day at most. However, it is important to note that interviews were predominantly carried out prior to new border controls introduced on 30 April 2024 which have since required new physical, documentary and identity checks on medium-risk animal products, plants and plant products imported from the EU.

The more in-depth reflections of the impact of border checks are laid out below.

4.4.1 Some traders found lengthier border checks to be stressful

Traders across sectors recalled high stress levels during more impactful check processes such as physical checks or safety and security checks where these exceeded 3 to 4 days. This dominated professional and personal time during check processes. The effects of check processes, regardless of their duration, differed among traders. For instance, some traders experienced high levels of stress from shorter checks, comparable to those caused by longer checks. This was often the case in situations where supply chains, such as those operating in Just-In-Time manufacturing sectors, could not tolerate any delay without serious repercussions. Conversely, traders who had faster check resolutions encountered minimal impact, as they were able to accommodate delays without subsequent issues. Traders strongly attributed their experience to low understanding of the duration of checks, primarily driven by a lack of information within border check processes. Without information about how long check processes might take to resolve, participants described being unable to adapt aspects of supply chain planning and mitigate financial and reputational impact. Traders also attributed their experience to low understanding of the causes of checks. Traders felt there were few effective measures available to help mitigate the professional and personal emotional impact caused by border checks and consequent delays to goods.

“One member of staff has told me he doesn’t want to work in this area as he “can’t stand the stress of it all” - it really gets to staff. I’m lucky to have some other staff working on it who are understanding.” (Trader, large business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

“It’s [impact] not all about the money. To have a delay has an emotional impact. It takes planning, resource, and people with experience [to resolve the check].” (Trader, small business, 10 to 30 declarations per year)

4.4.2  The most impactful border checks led to substantial financial burdens, particularly for manufacturing

Interviews set out to understand as much as possible about any financial impact of border checks. Most traders had very low awareness of the financial impact incurred from border checks and did not track these costs. This understanding was further limited by the low frequency of the most impactful checks, typically physical checks lasting up to several weeks. Some direct costs were easier to recall than others, for example transportation costs which traders managed regularly. However, traders found it more difficult to estimate real indirect costs of border checks. For example, some traders used staff rates to estimate the financial cost of time lost as a result of border checks. However, other indirect costs were more difficult to estimate such as overall losses to revenue, particularly for traders in manufacturing where indirect costs were among some of the highest.

Traders faced a number of direct costs, including:

• additional driver or transportation costs
• storage fees for rental of storage space
• fines or penalties from clients for late deliveries
• maintenance costs while goods awaited checks
• additional stock
• business efficiency

Traders reported that additional driver or transportation costs were most frequent across the sample and were incurred when checks surpassed driving hours or where checks caused delay across multiple days. Traders chose to either pay the same driver extra for the additional hours, commission a new driver or haulage company if this was not possible, or commission an express transport service depending on supply chain flexibility. Costs averaged £200 to £300 per check where sufficient delay was caused.

When considering storage fees for rental of storage space, these were higher for larger goods such as those moved by traders in manufacturing including machinery and raw materials. Costs averaged £200 to £300 and increased as time accrued. Further, fines or penalties from clients for late deliveries were experienced by traders predominantly from retail and manufacturing where contracts stated that delayed goods would incur set fines. While participants did not provide exact costs, fines from manufacturing as part of large commercial projects appeared to be greater than within retail, often charged at a daily rate.

Maintenance costs for effective storage of goods while awaiting checks varied. These costs quickly entered thousands of pounds for pharmaceutical goods where storage products like dry ice were expensive, in addition to staff time required to visit and maintain goods at storage locations. One trader moving fine art also described significant direct costs from maintenance of goods during storage.

While unusual, a minority of small traders within the food and drink and retail sectors described ordering additional stock ahead of busy holiday periods to ensure they could meet customer demand in case original shipments were held for physical checks. This most significantly impacted cashflow in these small businesses who took action to try and avoid losing customers.

While limited for most, traders in manufacturing observed a cumulative effect of border checks lowering business efficiency over time, particularly those transporting large machinery and raw materials who more regularly faced longer physical checks at inland locations. While traders noticed these impacts on their business efficiency, they did not track or hold detailed figures on the specific extent of this impact.

“Staff can only drive for so long, so we might have to pull a driver off [if a check occurs]. Then it’s another £500 for another driver and another vehicle.” (Trader, large business, 10 to 30 declarations per year)

“There tend to be contractual penalties for late delivery, so again, it can cost us in penalties if it gets held up at customs for a long time.” (Trader, medium business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

“Storage is 18p per 100kg per day, so if the shipment is massive and if we’re late because of border checks, it could be a £80, £180, £900 fine dependent on what we’re moving. We absorb that.” (Trader, large business, 10 to 30 declarations per year)

Traders also faced a number of indirect costs including:

• considerable staff time
• loss of business
• wasted or spoiled goods

The quantity of staff time incurred from border check processes was challenging to quantify and varied based on the type of the check. Documentary checks incurred more administrative time and could be managed by lower grade staff in larger organisations where this resource existed. Conversely, traders experiencing inland physical checks sent more senior staff to attend checks who were costed at higher wage rates.

In terms of loss of business, only one clothing retailer reported losing a contract immediately as a result of a border check that led to a delay. Instead, it was more common for traders in retail and manufacturing to speculate they may have lost consequent contracts due to prior delay of delivery and impact to the trader’s reputation. Additionally, one manufacturer believed there may be a longer-term loss of business due to an inability to begin new contracts due to delays caused by border checks over time.

Traders transporting perishable food items and pharmaceutical goods described spoiled goods as a rare occurrence. However, where pharmaceutical goods were spoiled due to delays from border checks, the indirect cost was deemed immeasurable. These goods were one of a kind and represented several years of research and development on medicines which did not yet have a market value.

“The cost of staff time and management time, these are costs that I swallow as a business which eat into my profit margin.” (Trader, micro business, 1 to 9 declarations per year)

“Quite often, when we’re importing stuff, it’s quite key equipment that a project centres around. They completely derail some projects. We don’t have a large volume of projects. We have maybe 3 on the go at once. So impacts to one of those projects is a third of our business, at a time. So, yes, it has a very big impact, and you can see your profit margins disappear quickly.” (Trader, medium business, more than 100 declarations per year)

“With the goods being 3 to 4 days late, we had warehouse staff waiting. The sales team deal with the customer, so it also had an impact on them. They were pressuring me for updates to update the client.” (Trader, small business, more than 100 declarations per year)

“I deal with it personally as it would take too much time to train staff. I am an SME [Small and medium-sized enterprise] so there is no point in training staff, I do it myself so it’s a direct impact to my time. I would use a broker it was a larger consignment.” (Trader, micro business, 1 to 9 declarations per year)

4.4.3 Reputational damage was an indirect cost, which varied by sector and business model

Traders identified reputational damage as a key indirect cost and an important factor in the way that they handle border checks. However, despite the importance of managing reputational damage, had little ability to estimate how much their business had been affected.

Traders within manufacturing and those in retail selling to wholesalers appeared to be most impacted by reputational damage. These traders sold to other businesses who imposed strict consequences such as contract penalties and impacts to supplier ratings following delayed deliveries. While these traders stated it was rare to lose a customer during a border check, they felt unable to determine whether a check experience and delay to goods might have impacted future repurchasing from those same customers, a key aspect of assessing reputational damage.

All traders took steps to try and manage customer satisfaction when facing delays caused by border checks. This included extensive customer communications, management of complaints in the form of offering future discounts, and less frequently repurchasing goods at their own expense to meet customer demand.

Traders working with other businesses relied more heavily on information that explained the cause of the delay. While understanding of border checks among their customers was comparably higher, their impacts were also greater. This meant that understanding the cause of the check and being able to mitigate against impacts on their own was more important for their customers.

Traders working directly with consumers also relied on being able to relay information about the cause of delays to goods. However, the impact for these customers of delayed goods was comparably low. This meant even where this information was not available, these traders faced lower reputational damage overall where customer satisfaction declined.

“It’s not in my nature to let customers down, and I seem to do that an awful lot with this [border checks].” (Trader, large business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

“It [border checks] has reputational risk. My client wasn’t too happy, they were chasing me and it affected the business relationship, plus my time to be available to have those conversations.” (Trader, micro business, 1 to 9 declarations per year)

“For one of our big customers, we cannot deliver more than 3 days late. So although we did go outside of that 3 days [due to a border check], we were not marked as breach of contract – it was a mark against us but not a breach as such.” (Trader, small business, more than 100 declarations per year)

4.4.4 Staff time was dedicated to managing border check processes and wider consequences

Traders reported that diverting staff time and resources to manage border checks could result in disruption to wider business operations. Examples included reallocating staff resource to manage internal processes necessary for progression of border checks, rearranging and planning new logistical processes and extensive communication with clients. These impacts on staff time can be grouped under 3 thematic headings:

• internal management and allocation of staff resources
• staffing challenges across company sizes and roles
• hiring additional personnel

In terms of internal management and allocation of staff resources, traders consistently reported that managing border checks consumed significant staff time and impacted business operations. This included overseeing internal processes necessary for the progression of border checks, rearranging and planning new logistical processes, and maintaining extensive communication with clients. These tasks diverted staff from other workstreams and added to operational costs.

While traders were aware that border checks took up a significant amount of time, they found it difficult to estimate the exact time spent on a single check, especially when extensive documentation and liaising with third parties were required. Traders reported that uncertainty about the time required for each check made it difficult for businesses to allocate staff efficiently, as they often had to assign resources without a clear sense of how long the process would take.

In terms of staffing challenges, in larger organisations, administrative tasks could be managed by junior team members. Conversely, managers in smaller businesses often took responsibility for these tasks. Within physical check processes at inland check locations, traders often also sent more senior team members to ensure successful progression of checks and release of goods so as to prevent further accumulation of costs should checks be failed. This can present a greater challenge than diverting junior staff because senior personnel are often involved in decision-making and strategic roles, meaning their absence can have a deeper impact on overall operations.

Some traders responded to these challenges by hiring additional personnel who helped to manage the wider administrative burden of increased paperwork and logistical complications following EU Exit. This represented an increased cost to traders as they had to allocate budget for additional staff.

4.5 Variation in impacts across traders by business size, sector and transport mode

The impacts of checks on traders appears to vary according to business size, sector, transport mode and according to the type of goods being moved. Analysis across the sample revealed that smaller importers, those transporting goods via ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ and sea freight, and traders in manufacturing were most impacted.

Traders transporting goods via ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ and sea freight appeared to face greater impact   from border checks due to slower processing of goods. This was particularly the case for containerised and consolidated shipments. Those moving goods via air freight reported quicker processing times in comparison.

Smaller businesses struggled more than larger businesses to absorb financial impacts of border checks and impacts on staff time. These businesses had lower resource to adapt to disruption caused by border checks.

Imported goods experienced greater impact from checks compared to exported goods. Imported goods appeared to be subject to a greater quantity of documentary and physical checks, and check processes took longer on average to resolve.

Traders in manufacturing faced higher impact from border checks compared to traders in other sectors. Goods including large or high-value items such as machinery, raw materials and biofuels were subjected to physical checks on a more frequent basis, frequently at inland check locations. Check processes were often more complex with some requiring expertise to carry out. Traders who often worked in tight supply chains with low flexibility, had a higher business impact from delays.

4.6 Summary of impacts of border checks on intermediaries

Intermediaries dealt with border checks more frequently compared to traders due to serving high numbers of traders. Checks included a higher frequency of both more disruptive border checks such as physical checks, safety and security checks and sanitary or phytosanitary checks and. less disruptive ones such as documentary checks. More disruptive checks were defined in terms of length of time by both intermediaries and traders. Border checks exceeding 3 to 4 days triggered more significant impacts compared to those below this timeframe.

Despite this, intermediaries perceived the frequency of checks to be reasonable and initially stated that the overall business impact from border check processes was minimal. Intermediaries had a better understanding of border check processes and reported to be more equipped to process checks in an efficient manner. However, as with traders, prompted discussion revealed a wider and more significant business impact to those spontaneously identified. Impacts for intermediaries focussed more on administrative burden and significant time put towards mitigation of reputational damage.

Businesses within the intermediary population also faced different impacts dependent on the services they provided. Freight forwarders and customs agents faced a greater impact on staff time as a result of border checks. Even prior to goods reaching the border, freight forwarders and customs agents spent significant time communicating with clients to eliminate errors in trader customs documentation and reduce the risk of border checks. On the other hand, hauliers were more directly impacted by increased financial costs in the form of extended vehicle rent (where vehicles were not directly owned), additional driver wages, and extra fuel costs.

4.7 Spontaneous impacts of border checks on intermediaries

Intermediaries found it challenging to assess the overall business impact of border checks. Initial responses varied with some intermediaries stating they were not impacted at all and others stating they faced some or significant impact.

“It doesn’t have a massive impact. The time spent on documentary checks is next to none. It’s all par for the course, it’s not much disruption.” (Intermediary, small business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

“The impact of the checks is a big knock-on effect, where goods either arrive late and cause chaos in a chain of movement of goods, or to keep on track we have to source additional replacement trailers. It’s logistical headache. Too much of my time is spent sorting out these problems.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

“It’s [border checks] not something that is really impactful for us. We give the drivers the documents to pre-empt checks and advise customers of delays, but there are no other longer term impacts.” (Intermediary, large business, high volume of declarations (more than 50,000 per year))

The analysis identified several contextual factors which became relevant for understanding intermediaries’ experiences. Intermediaries     “instinctively put their customers first” and prioritised the impacts of border checks on them, over the impacts of border checks on themselves. It was a big cognitive shift for intermediaries to reflect on their own businesses, meaning initial perceptions of impact were somewhat muddled.

Intermediaries also had a more direct focus on logistics and supply chain and described facing a variety of issues which disrupted logistical planning. This made it more challenging for intermediaries to disentangle impacts caused by border checks from impacts caused by other supply chain disruptions. They also experienced a greater period of change to adapt to larger volumes of declarations post-EU Exit. This transition made it challenging to isolate the impact of border checks from the impacts caused by increased overall workload.

Intermediaries also had 2 relevant contextual factors which were the same as traders and which played a role in initial assessments of business impact from border checks.

First, most intermediaries did not track any impacts from border checks and felt it was part of their service provision to manage the consequences of border checks. There was therefore little to no prior thinking or data for intermediaries to draw on spontaneously during interviews.

Second, intermediaries also reported feeling rather anxious about more disruptive border checks. Intermediaries spontaneously reported impacts which largely focussed on the short-term business reaction to border checks. Of these increased client communication was the most front-of-mind impact for intermediaries who relied on providing a high-quality service to maintain their clientele. Impacts on staff time were also front-of-mind for intermediaries. Specifically, staff time dealing with progression of check processes and rearrangement of logistical planning, both of which were seen as time consuming. Tied to this, reallocation of internal resource was raised due to the need to manage unplanned border checks around other workstreams. Finally, contractual penalties were mentioned spontaneously as a financial impact, as well as the occasional cost of additional wages required to be paid to additional staff needed in larger intermediary organisations.  

“Our business has gone up by 30% since Brexit, so it has had a very big effect on our business generally as the number of checks that are required for EU have increased. We have employed a lot more staff, do a lot more declarations than before and we charge a lot more money as a result of those increases – it’s expensive for people.” (Intermediary, small business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

“If you have issues then usually there’s a financial penalty at the end. If the situation doesn’t get sorted, you lose money on the job, as fees like storage at [a terminal or port] go way up over a certain time limit - if it’s a £600 fine, it can be all your profit gone just on that.” (Intermediary, micro business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

4.8 Prompted impacts of border checks on intermediaries

Prompted discussions with intermediaries portrayed a deeper picture of the impacts experienced from border checks. These impacts related to wider organisational impact over a longer period versus shorter-term business reactivity as identified spontaneously. The discrepancy between spontaneous and prompted impacts was consistent across the intermediary sample, highlighting low levels of organisational understanding about how border checks impact intermediaries’ businesses. Intermediaries also reported that impacts from border checks were deemed to be standard aspects of delivering an intermediary service.

The most significant prompted impact for intermediaries was the impact on staff time. Direct costs also impacted intermediaries, however whether these costs were absorbed or passed onto end customers depended on the cause of the check and the relative importance of the customer.

4.8.1 Impacts to staff time were most significant due to administrative burden caused by checks

For most intermediaries, including freight forwarders, customs agents and express operators, the impact on staff time was the key consequence faced as a result of border check processes. A core responsibility reported by intermediaries was to ensure goods moved seamlessly from their start to their end destination. Therefore, where disruptions occurred including in the form of border checks, intermediaries reported reacting quickly to try and minimise delay and impact. These reactions involved time-consuming processes primarily aimed at moving goods to their end destinations with as little delay as possible.

Intermediaries typically addressed the management of the check process first. This involved staff liaising with HMRC to gather more information about check requirements where this was unfamiliar or unclear. This also involved staff liaising with hauliers at the border where relevant to understand requirements from Border Force and liaising with clients to obtain new or corrected information.

Managing border check processes was not perceived by intermediaries as part of usual operations and reported that it can place a strain on staff time. Managing checks can mean that staff are diverted from their core responsibilities to address urgent check-related issues with HMRC, Border Force, hauliers, and clients, taking on tasks that are outside their normal scope of work. Intermediaries then carried out necessary logistical adjustments. The need for this depended on whether the check process had impacted the ability of the original driver to complete the journey. For intermediaries moving goods as part of tight supply chains, they described staff arranging express operators at higher cost to ensure goods arrived as soon as possible.

Finally, intermediaries updated clients where necessary. Where checks had not caused significant delay to the movement of goods, intermediaries often chose to withhold occurrence of the check from the client to protect their reputation. Some described taking any actions they could to ensure their client was not aware a check had taken place, particularly where checks occurred due to an intermediary error. However, where checks surpassed 3 to 4 days or occurred within tighter supply chains, intermediaries informed clients of the check and consequent delay to their goods.

Both large and small intermediaries described keeping the management of these administrative processes with the same employee. This was to ensure knowledge was held in the right places so that check processes could progress as quickly as possible. However, larger intermediaries described their ability to share this workload across team members where they needed to minimise impact. On the other hand, smaller intermediaries who did not have this option faced greater knock-on effects across their business as impacts to staff time were less easy to absorb.

Physical checks at inland locations were most burdensome on staff time, and intermediaries generally sent their own staff to check locations to ensure processes concluded efficiently. This often meant losing at least one middle to senior member of staff for a full day to attend the inland check site. Physical checks which occurred at the border required immediate attention, often diverting intermediaries away from other tasks for several hours at a time until goods were released. However, documentary checks were less impactful since intermediaries could progress check processes in between other tasks.

Intermediaries described spending significant time throughout the entire booking process with traders to reduce the risk of border checks, primarily to avoid reputational damage. The booking process refers to the intermediaries’ procedures for scheduling and arranging the transportation of consigned goods for traders. This constituted further impact of border checks on staff time regardless of whether checks occurred.

Freight forwarders and customs agents in particular described correcting high volumes of errors within trader documentation as part of efforts to resolve issues ahead of the border where business impacts were lower. Some freight forwarders and customs agents described a sense that time spent on administration related to border checks was increasing as part of the overall increase in customs documentation post-EU Exit. However, as with all impacts on staff time, this was broadly unmonitored at the organisational level.

“Costs are unrecoverable costs, especially if nothing is found as a result of the check. The time it takes us to do the job, what used to be a 9 to 5 job is now a 24-hour job. There are impacts on overtime, and the need for more staff so that the CDS [Customs Declaration Service] system can be monitored.” (Intermediary, medium business, high volume of declarations (more than 50,000 per year))

“We don’t mind submitting additional information, but it is the time that it takes to get that information reviewed that causes us huge delays and brings up additional cost to maintain the temperature and to ensure that shipment is stored correctly at the airline”. (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

4.8.2 Financial impacts for intermediaries were shared between themselves and customers

Intermediaries reported various financial impacts as a result of border checks and described decision-making criteria for whether direct costs were passed onto customers.

The most common direct costs were similar to those experienced by traders. These included:

• storage and demurrage fees
• additional transportation costs
• business efficiency

Storage and demurrage fees most commonly incurred for physical checks taking place either at border locations or inland locations and were reported by intermediaries to average £200 to £300 for checks typically lasting between one to 4 weeks.

“For sea freight, you usually get quay rent and demurrage. So, they run concurrently. Normally, stuff gets about 5 to 7 days free from when the boat arrives. After that, it’s a daily tariff. It’s usually got about 3 tiers, and by the third tier you can be paying over £100 a day while the container’s waiting for a simple check. And there’s nothing anybody can do about it.” (Intermediary, small business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

Additional transportation costs varied to a greater extent depending on the customer’s supply chain flexibility. Where checks caused delays that did not exceed driver’s hours, intermediaries arranged for the same driver to continue the journey at a cost represented by the number of hours of delay caused by the check.

Checks which exceeded driver’s hours often required intermediaries to arrange replacement drivers or accept an overnight stay. Drivers were estimated to cost on average £200 per hour. Where time allowed, the same driver would continue the journey after resting. Where checks required overnight stays, costs increased exponentially.

Where delays caused by checks led to disproportionate impacts for customers in terms of costs and wider impacts, customs agents and freight forwarders stated paying between £300 to £400 for express haulage services. This ensured goods arrived at their end destination as soon as possible, and was more likely where customers were deemed important.

Business efficiency was negatively impacted due to the amount of staff time spent managing border check processes. However, intermediaries found it difficult to disentangle the impact on business efficiency of border checks from the impact of other post-EU Exit customs formalities and processes. This meant it was difficult to state how much business efficiency had been affected.

“We sometimes have to send another driver to pick up the truck as the driver has run out of hours. That driver that we send was supposed to be doing another job, so now we have a job we cannot do. At that point, we are incurring costs and losing money. If I switch a driver, it would be charged as 8 hours at £150 per hour, so £1200.” (Intermediary, small business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

“The impact has been more so over the past 3 years since Brexit. Every week there will be a shipment that is delayed because they have to check more files.” (Intermediary, small business, high volume of declarations (more than 50,000 per year))

Additionally, intermediaries who specialised in the movement of regulated goods tended to face greater direct costs by accommodating unique handling processes. For example, an intermediary who managed the movement of pharmaceutical goods paid for an additional role of night-time coordinator to ensure border check processes moved along as rapidly as possible. This included managing appropriate replenishment of dry ice for goods (paid for by the customer as per the intermediary’s contract with the client), passing on information obtained during the night from across global markets to HMRC, and making logistical arrangements where checks resolved outside of core work hours.

The cause of the check and importance of the customer were key determinants for whether costs were absorbed by the intermediary or passed onto customers. Overall, intermediaries were unable to estimate the frequency with which costs were absorbed or the value of these costs overall. This was predominantly due to lack of internal tracking of this data.

Intermediaries described how customers that were important to them were typically those who were long-term customers or who held larger than average accounts with their business. In these cases, intermediaries were more likely to absorb additional direct costs to minimise disruption to customer relationships and protect their own reputation. This was the case even where a check was caused by a trader error.

Outside of customers deemed to be of high strategic importance, costs were passed on where they were caused by business errors or non-compliance with check processes. Across the intermediary sample, hauliers felt the impact of additional direct costs to a greater extent due to directly owning or hiring out haulage vehicles and paying driver wages.

As with traders, intermediaries also faced indirect costs. Whilst intermediaries reported they did not track specific costs, their delivery model relies heavily on staff time, making them highly sensitive to disruptions. Intermediaries reported that border check delays can strain their resources and workloads whilst also affecting their clients’ supply chains and overall satisfaction. However, since most intermediaries did not track the impact of border checks on staff time, they had limited awareness of indirect costs such as staff overtime or wages.

“It is difficult because I don’t have access to the figures exactly of how much we spent to hire another person or how our other departments are affected by all these additional checks that we have.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

4.8.3 Reputational damage was higher for intermediaries due to the nature of their service provision

Reputational damage was raised by around half of the intermediaries in the sample across both small and large intermediaries. This was defined as the value of lost custom caused by reputational damage from border checks. In the context of increased customs documentation post-EU Exit and consequent increasing border checks, these intermediaries shared concern about the long-term impact of managing check processes and reputational damage.

“Some of our clients will complain and we have to make a financial gesture to appease them - some will stop using us and that is lost business. We cannot pass that cost on as we provide an estimate and they know how much they are being charged and won’t accept extra costs.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

“There might also be financial repercussions that we’re looking to recoup. It all depends on the specific situation, our profit margin, and the shipper. If it’s a regular customer, you’d have to do something for them. For example, my customer that had that delay [due to a border check] on goods for Spain, I just honoured their quote and sucked up the rest. It’s just based on the relationship, how much business they give you, was it their documentation that was wrong eg  their commercial invoice.” (Intermediary, small business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

The protection of intermediaries’ reputations was a key driver behind their efforts to prevent and resolve border checks. Intermediaries confirmed that border checks had impacted customer relationships in the past, and that their successful management of goods’ movements and check processes heavily influenced customer satisfaction. Managing customer satisfaction and consequent reputational damage was reported by intermediaries as particularly problematic during more disruptive checks such as physical checks and safety and security checks which often took longer to resolve.

Intermediaries relied on a range of tools to manage customer relationships during checks. However, providing updates was the core requirement from customers who used this information to update their own customers. A key determinant of this was intermediaries’ ability to communicate what had caused the check. Where check notifications did not include information about why the check was taking place, intermediaries reported higher levels of customer dissatisfaction and greater reputational damage.

Intermediaries specifically reported lower tolerance of border checks and higher reputational damage from trader customers. Intermediaries perceived most traders to have a higher expectation of intermediaries to provide a seamless service without delay due to the service fees they were paying. The exception was sole traders and micro businesses who intermediaries felt had greater understanding and tolerance for border checks and delays, and where wider impact was typically lower.

“When we turn around and say to the client the truck is stuck in customs and that is why we are late, the client doesn’t see it that way. They just see we are late. They have told us everything we need in advance and yet we are late. For us, the impact to our business is that the service levels to our clients are affected, and our reputation is affected too.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

“It comes down mainly to how you communicate with customers. So, in our case, we make sure that we keep our customer updated. What that means is that we will reach out to HMRC via email or web chat or phone, to get an update, to check if they are reviewing the paperwork, if they received the documents, if they need anything else from us. So, that means we continue to chase them for updates, so we can update our customer.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

4.8.4 Intermediaries occasionally found highly disruptive border checks to be stressful

Intermediaries reported dealing with significantly higher volumes of border checks than traders. For the majority of the reported checks, intermediaries managed and resolved processes without much impact. For example, it was rare that documentary checks caused significant disruption for intermediaries. This was because intermediaries were familiar with most check requirements and knew how to obtain information where this was needed.

However, intermediaries described more disruptive check processes as occasionally stressful. These related to some physical checks, especially those taking place at inland check locations, as well as safety and security checks. Intermediaries referenced goods such as dual-use or hazardous goods, chemicals, industrial supplies, raw materials and machinery as more often subject to these types of longer check processes, sitting within tight supply chains with less room for delay. Intermediaries who had faced these situations described immediate and long-term professional and personal effects of these check processes, with some references to retirement to avoid stress. Intermediaries’ felt that their dedication to providing a good service and the potential for reputational damage were the main roots of this concern. Intermediaries described liaising with personal contacts at HMRC or Border Force where these existed and calling in favours from hauliers or transportation companies to provide support.

“Thankfully most of our clients are understanding that we aren’t responsible for border checks, but if they are new to it, they will scream and shout at us.” (Intermediary, micro business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

“Some drivers have childcare arrangements and that [border checks] can interfere. I have had to write a letter to advise that this person was held up on a job and that’s why they didn’t see their child. There are social impacts as well.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

4.9 Variation of impacts between different types of intermediaries

Some notable differences were observed across intermediary interviews regarding border check experiences, which are set out below.

Freight forwarders and customs agents faced increased staff time due to managing outsourced transportation services, which resulted in direct costs from both staff time and outsourcing to hauliers. In contrast, hauliers incurred direct costs primarily related to their drivers, such as increased wages from longer shifts and higher fuel costs, as they were responsible for physically transporting the goods.

Intermediaries who specialised in movement of highly regulated goods such as hazardous materials, pharmaceuticals, and dual-use goods reported facing higher impact from border checks. This was due to increased scrutiny and compliance requirements, capabilities of expert staff at physical check locations, and complex safety and security procedures resulting in longer physical check processes and consequences of delay.

As reported by traders, intermediaries also noted greater efficiency of border check processes when moving goods by air freight. Intermediaries speculated this was likely due to goods being moved individually, and not being consolidated together as was more often the case on shipping and ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ transportation methods. Intermediaries felt ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ and sea freight border check processes were less efficient, and noted the size of the port and whether goods were containerised or consolidated or both appeared to slow down processing times leading to longer delays.

5. Mitigation strategies for managing border check impacts

5.1 Key findings

Traders and intermediaries are not only motivated to comply with existing regulations but are also keen to take steps to improve their processes. They believe that by understanding the specific factors that trigger checks, they can refine their customs procedures, supporting the streamlining of customs operations at the border and reducing delays.

Traders and intermediaries already employ a range of strategies to help mitigate the impacts of border checks. These are driven by an overarching aim to minimise delays and complications.

Traders are primarily interested in strategies that enhance operational efficiency, ensure customer satisfaction, and manage costs. These include communication with customers about potential delays and building extra time into delivery schedules. For traders that made their own declaration without the support of an intermediary, this sometimes included hiring additional staff.

Like traders, intermediaries prioritise improving communication with their customers. In addition to this, they also focus on resource management, which can include hiring additional staff or spending extra time on booking and goods movement processes. They also occasionally leverage professional connections.

Traders and intermediaries spontaneously suggested several strategies to mitigate the impact of border checks. Key ideas included enhancing communication and providing real-time updates, resolving checks earlier in the supply chain. Despite the potential of these strategies, they also noted practical challenges, such as data management issues, in their implementation.

In response to prompted suggestions for strategies that could help mitigate the impact of border checks, participants expressed strong support for resolving checks earlier in the supply chain. However, participants often struggled to identify specific changes that would enable this, feeling that practical implementation might require significant adjustments to existing systems.

There was also broad support for sharing non-sensitive commercial or product data with HMRC to expedite customs clearance and reduce delays from insufficient documentation. However, participants raised concerns about the practicality of implementing such strategies and whether there would actually be resource to process more data.

5.2 Levels of interest in mitigation strategies

Both traders and intermediaries displayed a high level of interest in strategies to mitigate the impacts of border checks. This interest was driven by a common aim to minimise potential delays and complications that may arise as a result of checks at the border. Traders and intermediaries are not only motivated to comply with existing regulations but are also keen to take proactive steps to improve their processes. By gaining a better understanding of the specific factors that trigger checks, businesses can make informed adjustments to their customs procedures, thereby supporting responsible government departments or bodies at the border in streamlining operations and reducing delays. Traders have identified 4 primary reasons for their interest in strategies to mitigate the impact of border checks.

Operational efficiency   

This is a key priority for traders as delays as a result of border checks can disrupt supply chains, causing missed deadlines and extra costs. Traders believe that streamlined border processes can enhance operations, lessen supply chain disruptions, and help prevent missed deadlines and extra costs.

Customer satisfaction

Delays and poor communication during border checks can harm business relationships. Timely deliveries and comprehensive information are essential to maintain and enhance these relationships.

Regulatory compliance and accurate documentation

Traders felt that understanding causes of checks offers a chance to improve documentation and better adhere to regulations. Taking this proactive approach can potentially reduce future checks and associated delays.

Cost management

Border delays often result in additional costs such as storage fees and late delivery penalties. Traders seek strategies to reduce the frequency and length of checks.

Intermediaries’ interest in adopting mitigation strategies for border checks is driven by 3 main factors: better communication, efficient resource management and maintaining their reputation and customer base. In terms of better communication, intermediaries value timely and clear communication of border checks from government departments or bodies involved in checks. This helps them manage border checks efficiently, keep customers informed, and quickly resolve issues.

In terms of efficient resource management, this allows intermediaries to quickly adjust staffing and resources in response to delays or inspections, support long-term planning, and anticipate potential issues, ensuring smoother operations despite unexpected challenges. Finally, in terms of maintaining their reputation and customer base, intermediaries are aware of the importance of their reputation and customer retention. Effective border check management and clear communication enhance their image as reliable and professional service providers. By implementing strategies that reduce the impact of border checks, they can retain existing customers and attract new ones.

5.3 1. Mitigation strategies currently taken by traders

Feedback from traders illustrates that they are currently implementing a range of strategies to mitigate the impacts of border checks. These actions range in the frequency with which they are adopted. The mitigation strategies that traders use can be grouped thematically by type:

• preventative measures
• communication strategies with customers
• documentation and process improvements
• resource allocation
• financial and strategic adjustments

Preventative measures  

Where the cause of delays is apparent, traders try to take action to prevent this from reoccurring.  Analysing patterns and identifying common issues allows traders to implement improvements to their processes reducing the likelihood of future delays. With a clear understanding of the causes of checks, traders can implement necessary changes, prevent errors and delays, and ensure smoother operations.

Many traders also build extra time into their delivery schedules by ordering goods earlier. This buffer time helps accommodate any unexpected delays at the border, ensuring that delivery commitments are met even when issues arise during customs clearance.

“As a company we are trying to place our orders 2 to 3 weeks in advance with suppliers that we know might need this extra time”. (Trader, small business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

Communication strategies with customers

One of the most commonly adopted strategies by traders is proactively informing customers about potential delays. By keeping customers informed, traders can manage expectations and maintain trust. This transparency helps build long-term relationships and reduces the impact of any unforeseen delays.

“If we did see a pattern of more checks or longer times to release goods we would adjust the timing back up again to allow for those and be communicated to our clients. We’d rather quote them too long than not enough”. (Trader, small business, more than 100 declarations per year)

Documentation and process improvements

Another frequently adopted strategy is providing more detailed information in customs documents, with some also sending supplementary information such as commercial invoices in advance. Some traders recognise that ensuring that all relevant details about the goods are included and precisely documented will help customs officials process shipments more efficiently. This reduces the potential for checks related to discrepancies in documentation.

“We get third party certification, make sure everything’ in place, roll with the process. We set our stall out early, keep the same process”. (Trader, medium business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

Resource allocation

Some traders have hired additional staff to help them manage their workload, ensuring that all necessary documentation is prepared accurately and on time, reducing the risk of possible delays at the border. This measure is more common among traders dealing with high volumes of cross-border trade.

Less commonly, traders who typically handle their own declarations use intermediaries to support with handling complex or high-importance shipments. By leveraging the expertise of intermediaries, traders can navigate the complexities of customs processes more efficiently, ensuring that important shipments face fewer delays and complications.

Financial and strategic adjustments

Negotiating with clients to avoid late fees was another less common strategy adopted by some traders working directly with other businesses. By discussing potential delays upfront and setting realistic delivery expectations, traders can mitigate financial penalties associated with delays.

Some traders have also adjusted their business strategies to focus more on domestic markets. This has reduced their focus and reliance on cross-border trade therefore reducing the extent to which they encounter impacts related to border checks. This strategy was less commonly adopted, typically used by a small number of businesses that have identified viable, alternative domestic market opportunities.

5.4 Mitigation strategies currently taken by intermediaries

Like traders, intermediaries also implement various measures to mitigate the impacts of border checks. Their efforts are diverse and strategically targeted to address the specific challenges posed to the movement of their customers’ goods by these checks. The mitigation strategies that intermediaries use can be grouped thematically by type:

• communication with customers
• resourcing and staff training
• optimising processes
• leveraging professional connections
• contingency planning

One of the most commonly adopted strategies by intermediaries is maintaining clear and timely communication with their customers about potential checks and delays.  This approach helps to manage expectations and reduce the impact of delays on their clients’ operations. It is especially relevant for highly regulated, hazardous, or time-sensitive goods, as well as for traders working directly with other businesses. This ensures that clients are prepared for any potential disruptions, maintaining smooth and reliable supply chains.

In terms of resourcing and staff training, in response to increased demand, intermediaries reported having augmented their resources by hiring more staff, believing this strengthens their ability to manage the overall movement of goods for clients. While the focus is on addressing the growing workload, the additional staff also help process customs documentation promptly and accurately, indirectly reducing the chances of errors that could result in avoidable border checks.

“For new customers, it doesn’t look good if we are booking and cancelling our reputation could get tarnished. Some people are ruthless and will blame you. We employ more staff just so they can keep on top of communicating with clients to keep a good rapport.” (Intermediary, micro business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

Although less frequently adopted, some intermediaries reported providing additional staff training on new customs processes as a measure they sometimes implement. Training ensures that employees are well-versed in the latest regulations and procedures, reducing the likelihood of errors that could trigger border checks. While not as widely implemented, this is important for maintaining high standards of compliance and efficiency.

In terms of optimising processes, intermediaries also often spend extra time throughout the booking and goods movement process to mitigate the risk of checks. This involves thorough verification of documents to ensure smooth transitions through border controls. As a whole intermediaries aimed to avoid checks occurring at the border by identifying issues ahead of that point. However, larger intermediaries tended to have more formal and developed booking processes. By dedicating more time to these processes, intermediaries aim to pre-empt potential issues and streamline customs clearance.

“We work with our clients and try to encourage them to build in extra time to alleviate the impacts of these issues.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

Some intermediaries have separated border management from other operational functions. This specialised focus allows for more dedicated attention to customs processes, reducing the risk of errors and delays. This was particularly the case for larger intermediaries, typically in the freight forwarding sector. Although this approach is not widespread, it demonstrates a targeted effort to improve the processes some intermediaries have in place to manage border checks when they occur.

In terms of leveraging professional connections, although less common, some intermediaries occasionally make direct contact with agents at Border Force, HMRC, and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to gain further insight on the progress of border checks. Intermediaries using this method tended to draw on existing professional relationships, and at smaller ports in particular, these professional connections were felt to be helpful. Intermediaries felt that any information gathered via this direct contact supported them to anticipate delays or resolve issues more efficiently. Despite being less used, this strategy remains a key part of some intermediaries’ efforts to mitigate border check impacts.

Intermediaries also made reference to contingency planning. Developing contingency plans is a less common strategy, but it is particularly used for highly regulated goods where checks are more likely. These plans include alternative routing options and pre-arranged storage facilities to handle delays effectively. By having contingency measures in place, intermediaries can manage unexpected disruptions more efficiently.

5.5 1. Mitigation strategies desired by traders and intermediaries

Traders and intermediaries were asked how further support could help mitigate the impacts of border checks. One of the most frequently emerging spontaneous suggestions is the need for improved communication and real-time updates where these were not already provided. Traders and intermediaries stressed the importance of increased visibility into the progression of border checks. They explained that having real-time updates would significantly enhance their ability to plan and execute logistics operations more smoothly. They expressed a strong desire for updates through government customs systems, which would allow them to track the status of their goods more effectively. Both traders and intermediaries suggested this could help them manage logistics more efficiently, allocate resources better, and communicate more accurately with their customers.

One participant specifically suggested the development of a centralised online platform on gov.uk, where businesses can track the status of their goods in real-time. This platform would provide updates on where goods are being held.

“I suppose they could have a website where you put your bill, loading number or your commercial invoice number, so you could go in to see the state of your goods at all times, where they are, where they’re being held, and what’s the position of them? That would be useful because otherwise, you just don’t know the position.” (Trader, small business, 31 to 99 declarations per year)

Traders and intermediaries were highly motivated to improve border check processes to reduce the risk of checks and to support government customs operations at the border. However, without a clear understanding of why individual checks took place, beyond the more commonly understood documentary errors, they felt less able to make the necessary changes to their customs processes.

Participants emphasised communication would empower them to refine their processes and documentation practices, ensuring they meet all requirements and thereby minimise the chances of triggering additional checks.

Another key point that emerged was the need for clearer points of contact regarding border checks. Traders and intermediaries emphasised the importance of having clearer instructions on who to contact at HMRC, Border Force, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or other agencies for questions about border checks. The current lack of clear points of contact often leads to confusion, making it challenging for businesses to obtain the information needed to resolve issues promptly. Participants suggested a dedicated helpline for queries about the status of border checks. They felt this would significantly reduce the time spent navigating various departments and waiting for responses, thereby expediting the resolution process and improving the overall experience of dealing with border checks. Whilst a dedicated government helpline already exists to offer support with queries about border checks, this was not mentioned by participants.

5.6 Views towards prompted mitigation strategies

Within the research, a series of prompted suggestions for strategies that could mitigate the impact of border checks were presented to participants. This was to better understand where pain points occurred in the process and identify potential areas for future consideration for improvement. Traders and intermediaries were asked to give their thoughts on these.

Traders and intermediaries expressed strong support for resolving checks earlier in the supply chain. This approach aligned with their current practices and intentions to avoid delays and disruptions at the border. Participants emphasised that receiving earlier notice would save them time, energy, and money, enabling more efficient and smoother processes.

“Anything to make it more efficient and smoother, if you can pre-empt a check coming in, it will save me time, energy, and money.” (Trader, micro business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

The support for resolving checks earlier was particularly strong among intermediaries. They appreciated the idea of having sufficient time to address any issues before the shipment arrived at the border. This was seen as a way to ensure smoother operations and reduce last-minute complications. 

“Definitely, we then have time to sort it out rather than being told when the shipment arrives, with a day at least to deal with it.” (Intermediary, micro business, low volume of declarations (less than 1,000 per year))

“We get audited twice a year and we get advance warning for that. It means the process goes smoother. I don’t see why we couldn’t have a similar principle here.” (Intermediary, micro business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

Despite the unanimous support for resolving checks earlier, participants also acknowledged challenges in implementing such a strategy. Few were able to envision specific changes within the current processes that would facilitate earlier resolution of checks. It was felt that while the concept is highly desirable, practical implementation may require significant adjustments to existing systems.

Traders and intermediaries gave mixed feedback regarding the potential strategy of conducting physical checks at their premises. There were notable differences in reception based on the type of goods being transported and the operational contexts of the businesses involved.

Participants transporting high-value goods with specific storage requirements, such as pharmaceuticals and fine art, responded particularly positively to the idea of on-site checks. For these participants, the main appeal of this strategy is that it enables them to maintain stringent storage conditions and reduce the risk of damage or loss. On-site checks could save costs and provide added security, given the expense of storing high-value goods.

“It could be of value, it’s something that exists already if you have a customs warehouse. Lots of the big trailer operators use it.” (Intermediary, small business, high volume of declarations (more than 50,000 per year))

Some participants highlighted that where it makes logistical sense, providing more flexibility and choice about where a check takes place would be a welcome revision to current processes.

“We do have this and it’s frustrating as it’s not being used enough… We have not had the option to choose to be stopped at our premises; they are just stopped at the border, and we cannot ask for it to be sent on to us, they don’t understand that we have that in place.” (Intermediary, medium business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

However, not all feedback was positive. Some traders reported having experience with on-premises checks, with mixed results. One trader involved in moving large industrial machinery agreed to on-site checks but said this led to slowdowns in their processes. Delays due to HMRC staff exceeding scheduled times required rescheduling and led to additional haulage costs. This highlights a concern amongst some traders about the practicality of integrating on-site checks into tight supply chain timelines without causing disruptions.

Moreover, while some intermediaries appreciated the concept, they remained cautious about its implementation. Concerns about whether HMRC staff could reliably fit these checks into their schedules without causing delays were prevalent. One intermediary shared a specific instance where a local customs officer was sent to their premise for a flagged issue, indicating that while the system can work, it requires precise coordination and efficient communication.

There was also broad support for the idea of sharing non-sensitive, commercial data or product data with HMRC to potentially help reduce the impacts of border checks amongst both groups. However, the extent of support and concerns about the practical considerations varied.

Traders generally viewed the idea of sharing data with HMRC positively. Many believed that providing additional information could help expedite the customs clearance process and reduce the likelihood of delays caused by insufficient documentation.

“Yes, if it helps speed the process up - anything that makes it move quicker and easier, we’re happy with.” (Trader, large business, more than 100 declarations per year)

Amongst some traders, the level of enthusiasm was somewhat tempered by concerns about the practicality of implementing this strategy. Smaller businesses, in particular, were cautious about the additional burden that might come with collecting and sharing more data.

“Yes, but it depends on how much information and how much time it’s going to take.” (Trader micro business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

Intermediaries expressed a general willingness to share supplementary data with HMRC, recognising the potential for improved efficiency and reduced delays. Many intermediaries already include supplementary information within declarations whenever possible, such as additional product data on supplier invoices.

“We already provide customs with information before the item arrives, not sure how we could upload additional documents. What would they do with it? If it is something customs want and feel it would help, we would do it.” (Intermediary, small business, medium volume of declarations (1,000 to 50,000 per year))

Despite their openness to the idea, intermediaries raised concerns about potential redundancy and inefficiency in data handling by HMRC. There were concerns about providing data that might already be in HMRC’s possession. Participants presumed that the supplementary data would primarily focus on goods’ type, value, and origin information.

In addition to strategies like conducting checks at their premises, sharing data with HMRC, and resolving checks earlier, traders and intermediaries were asked for their thoughts on several other potential mitigation strategies. These included training and education for businesses, expanded physical infrastructure, and improved digital infrastructure. There were varying levels of support and potential take-up for these strategies between the 2 audiences.

The concept of training and education for businesses received widespread support. Participants felt that ongoing training on declaration processes and product classifications would be highly beneficial. For example, one trader who ran a small business suggested an educational programme by customs authorities, including a behind-the-scenes tour of the container docking process, to help regular traders understand the intricacies of customs operations. 

“Customs could do an educational programme, invite regular traders to an evening of what we do, how we do it and why we do it. Behind the scenes physical tour of when a container docks the yard, the process of the booking in, how they do that and why, what they are looking for”. (Trader, micro business, 1 to 9 declarations per year)

Demand for expanded physical infrastructure was particularly strong at major ports handling goods via ‘Roll-on, roll-off’ and ships. Traders and intermediaries highlighted the need for better facilities to accommodate the high volume of goods passing through these critical points. Enhanced infrastructure could alleviate congestion and improve the overall efficiency of the border-crossing process.

Participants were also broadly supportive of increasing and improving digital services as a mitigation measure. For some, technological improvements in customs systems have already played a role in highlighting how digitisation can help to make customs processes smooth and efficient. Traders and intermediaries emphasised that for users to benefit and adopt new or additional digital services widely, these services must be implemented efficiently.

“Technological improvements would benefit us so much.” (Intermediary, large business, high volume of declarations (more than 50,000 per year))

6. Conclusions

Traders and intermediaries recognised border checks as essential for the movement of goods and acknowledged their critical role in upholding regulatory compliance.

Most traders and intermediaries reported positive experiences with border checks and the frequency of border checks was generally in line with expectations.

Traders often cited discrepancies in paperwork and the movement of high-risk items such as chemicals and electronics as triggers for border checks based on perceived risk profiles. Intermediaries additionally emphasised that inaccuracies and late information from traders were common causes of checks.

Traders and intermediaries were generally able to distinguish between documentary and physical checks. Documentary checks were more frequently experienced and were typically less disruptive, compared to physical checks which were less frequent but more disruptive, particularly those at inland check locations. Longer physical checks were particularly challenging for goods moving as part of less flexible supply chains.

The most significant impacts for traders were direct costs for payment of rearranged transportation, storage costs and contract penalties (where these applied), impact on staff time for management of check processes, and reputational damage following late delivery of goods to customers. Intermediaries faced similar costs, with impact to staff time and reputational damage particularly acute within this audience due to the service-based nature of their businesses.

Both traders and intermediaries found lengthy border checks stressful. This was especially the case for those moving goods across manufacturing where longer physical checks at inland locations were more frequent, and where goods were often high-value and time-sensitive as part of tight Just-In-Time supply chains.

Traders relied more on email and phone updates to stay up to date with check processes, whereas intermediaries relied on more efficient supply chain management systems and the National Clearance Hub webchat. Both audiences struggled greatly to predict how soon border check processes might resolve, a key determinant to mitigating against impact. Participants also struggled to understand what had caused some checks, and therefore how to move processes forward.

For both traders and intermediaries, the way in which they were notified and updated about border checks was cited as a pain point in the process. For traders, vague initial notifications could cause confusion about required corrective actions, disrupting logistics and customer communication. Intermediaries faced similar issues, which sometimes necessitated time-consuming follow-ups. Intermediaries raised concern around this hindering their ability to manage checks effectively, and impacting reputation and customer satisfaction.

Traders and intermediaries proactively employed a wide range of strategies to mitigate against impact from border checks. Most commonly, participants communicated with customers in advance about potential risk of checks and added buffer time into delivery schedules wherever possible. However, there was strong desire for more real-time updates on check processes, clearer articulation of causes of checks and more direct points of contact to further reduce future business impact.

Traders and intermediaries showed widespread support for resolving checks earlier in the supply chain and providing additional data to HMRC in order to improve check processes. There was also some support for conducting checks at traders’ premises for those moving high-value goods and goods with very specific storage requirements. However, there were questions about practical implementation of these strategies to ensure they are effective in mitigating against impact.

7. Appendix A: Key recruitment segments

Twenty traders and 15 intermediaries were included in the research. Below is a breakdown of the sample according to key recruitment criteria.

An initial quota aimed to recruit 3 traders from the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing sector, but only one was recruited. Recruitment across quotas cannot always be guaranteed. To balance quota achievement and a smooth fieldwork process, Ipsos and HMRC worked collaboratively and flexibly to achieve a mix of businesses by size, sector, trade activity, and volume of declarations.

Totals in the sample table for transportation methods add up 35, despite applying to only 20 participants. The reason for this is that traders often use more than one mode of transport to move goods. This was taken into account during recruitment.

Table 3 shows the breakdown of the traders sample according to key recruitment criteria - business size

Business size	Number interviewed
Micro (0 to 9 employees)	2
Small (10 to 49 employees)	10
Medium (50 to 249 employees)	5
Large (250 to 500 employees)	3

Table 4 shows the breakdown of the traders sample according to key recruitment criteria – sector or types of goods traded

Sector or types of goods traded	Number interviewed
Agriculture, forestry and fishing	1
Manufacturing	6
Wholesale, retail and trade	10
Others	3

Table 5 shows the breakdown of the traders sample according to key recruitment criteria – importer or exporter

Importer or exporter	Number interviewed
Importer	3
Exporter	1
Both importer and exporter	16

Table 6 shows the breakdown of the traders sample according to key recruitment criteria – volume of declarations

Volume of declarations	Number interviewed
1 to 9 declarations per year	2
10 to 30 declarations per year	6
31 to 99 declarations per year	8
More than 100 declarations per year	4

Table 7 shows the breakdown of the traders sample according to key recruitment criteria – transport methods

Transport methods	Number interviewed
‘Roll-on, roll-off’	11
Air	9
Sea	13
Other - postal consignment	2

Table 8 shows the breakdown of the intermediaries sample according to key recruitment criteria – type of intermediary

Type of intermediary	Number interviewed
Customs agents or brokers	4
Hauliers	3
Freight forwarders	5
Express operator or fast parcel operator	3

Table 9 shows the breakdown of the intermediaries sample according to key recruitment criteria – volume of declarations

Volume of declarations	Number interviewed
Low (less than 1,000 per year)	5
Medium (1,000 to 50,000 per year)	7
High (more than 50,000 per year)	3

Table 10 shows the breakdown of the intermediaries sample according to key recruitment criteria – business size

Business size	Number interviewed)
Micro (0 to 9 employees)	4
Small (10 to 49 employees)	5
Medium (50 to 249 employees)	4
Large (250 to 500 employees)	2