Research and analysis

Executive Summary: Understanding experiences of using the Goods Vehicle Movement Service (GVMS)

Published 29 January 2026

Prepared by Ipsos for HMRC

Authors: Amrita Sood, Andrew McKeown (both from Ipsos)

Research report number: TBD

The views in this report are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of HM Revenue and Customs

1. Introduction  

HMRC commissioned Ipsos to conduct qualitative research to examine how traders, intermediaries, hauliers and drivers use the Goods Vehicle Movement Service (GVMS) when importing goods into the UK through South-East facing ports.   

The aim of the research was to understand the user journeys of different types of GVMS users. The research also aimed to identify any challenges encountered by GVMS users, and to identify potential areas for improvements to GVMS.   

2. Methodology  

Forty qualitative depth interviews were conducted with GVMS users in December 2023 and January 2024. Interviews were conducted across the 4 main GVMS user categories, involved either in creating or using Goods Movement References (GMRs) as part of the GVMS process:   

• 1 trader, UK based and using GVMS on their own behalf   

• 15 intermediaries, UK-based, including customs agents and freight forwarders   

• 14 hauliers, based both in the UK and internationally   

• 10 drivers, based in the UK and internationally   

Interviews with traders, intermediaries, and hauliers were conducted via MS Teams. Interviews with drivers were conducted on the Eurotunnel and on ferries between Dover and Calais.   

3. Key findings  

GVMS users generally experienced a smooth process and had a good overall experience of their journeys with GVMS.   

Most intermediaries and hauliers interviewed had a good understanding of what information would be needed to complete GMRs correctly and were able to anticipate any changes to the goods’ journey. Intermediaries had often implemented automated or manual processes to ensure that GMRs were completed correctly. Where challenges occurred, these were often linked to delays in securing the information needed to obtain a GMR. This was often due to a lack of awareness about what specific information needed to be included in the GMR.  

Good communication between all those involved in the journey helped ensure that intermediaries and hauliers could respond effectively to any changes. This meant that they could resolve issues quickly and avoid delays to the journey. Complex consignments, such as groupage, were more likely to create a risk of delays if there were to be an inaccuracy with the information listed for the GMR. Hauliers and drivers generally had clear lines of communication with each other, which helped them to quickly address any problems that arose.  

Most hauliers and drivers were aware of what steps to take if a consignment was called for inspection on arrival at the UK port of entry. However, hauliers’ back-office teams responsible for GVMS tended to have to rely upon drivers to alert them to an inspection. Some felt that it would be useful to have an alert system for hauliers when a consignment was called for inspection. Similarly, hauliers and intermediaries relied upon drivers or customs officials contacting them if there was a problem after goods left an EU-side port.   

Participants made suggestions for potential improvements to the GVMS system. These included the suggestion that GMRs could be sent directly to hauliers from the GVMS portal, rather than downloaded and sent separately. There was also a suggestion that there should be an option to add multiple MRNs to a GMR, rather than to do each one separately. This function was available at the time of fieldwork, indicating a lack of awareness amongst GVMS users. There was a desire for increased communication from customs officials about the reason why a consignment had not cleared customs.