UK All Things Vaping — News, Reviews & GuidesEstablished 2022
The Vapour Hut
Back to blog

Portsmouth’s illegal vape figures: what the 2025-26 Trading Standards data shows

Portsmouth Trading Standards recorded 63 illicit-vaping-product complaints, 10,017 vape packs seized and 18 shops evidenced as selling illegal vapes in 2025-26. Here is what those figures show, what they do not prove, and how adult buyers and retailers can read the data responsibly.

The Vapour Hut Editorial Team24 July 2026
Portsmouth’s illegal vape figures: what the 2025-26 Trading Standards data shows

Portsmouth Trading Standards’ latest published figures show 63 illicit-vaping-product complaints, 10,017 vape packs seized and 18 shops evidenced as selling illegal vapes in 2025-26. That is a useful local enforcement signal for adult UK readers and retailers, but it is not a national estimate of the illegal vape market.

The figures matter because they cover a financial year that includes the start of the single-use vape ban in England from 1 June 2025, confirmed in GOV.UK’s single-use vapes guidance. They also land before two wider compliance changes: Vaping Products Duty from 1 October 2026, set out by GOV.UK, and the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, published on legislation.gov.uk and announced by the Department of Health and Social Care as receiving Royal Assent on 29 April 2026 in a GOV.UK press release.

This article explains what Portsmouth’s numbers show, what they cannot prove, and how adult buyers and retailers can use the data without over-reading it.

The headline Portsmouth figures

Portsmouth City Council says its illegal tobacco, vapes and underage-sales statistics are published by financial year, from April to March, and updated twice a year. For 2025-26, its Trading Standards page lists three complaint lines that set the context: 70 underage-sales complaints, 63 illicit-vaping-product complaints and 293 illicit-tobacco-product complaints.

The vape seizure line is the standout number. Portsmouth lists 10,017 vape packs seized in 2025-26, with a council-stated value of £120,104. For comparison, the same table lists 1,011 vape packs seized in 2024-25, valued at £12,121. That is a large change in recorded local enforcement output, but the careful wording matters: seizure totals show what was found and seized through council activity, not everything being sold in the city.

The inspection figures add another layer. Portsmouth lists 37 retail inspections for tobacco and vapes in 2025-26, 33 inspections leading to seizure, and 18 shops where selling illegal vapes was evidenced from a seizure or test purchase. In plain English, the dataset shows complaints received, visits made, goods seized and shops evidenced in Portsmouth. It does not prove how many illegal vapes were sold, how many buyers encountered them, or whether the same pattern applies nationally.

That distinction is important for anyone reading enforcement stories. A local authority can have better intelligence one year, different inspection priorities, more reports from residents or more post-ban disruption in the market. Any of those can affect seizure totals.

Compliance desk showing anonymised vape seizure figures and sealed plain packs.

Complaints, seizures and evidenced shops are different things

The Portsmouth figures are strongest when each metric is read on its own terms.

A complaint is a report received by the council. It may be useful intelligence, but it is not automatically proof that an offence happened. A seizure is an enforcement outcome: officers found goods they considered illegal or non-compliant and removed them. A shop evidenced as selling illegal vapes is narrower again, because Portsmouth says that line is based on seizure or test purchase evidence.

Metric in the Portsmouth dataWhat it meansWhat it does not proveWhy it matters
63 illicit-vaping-product complaintsReports received by Portsmouth Trading Standards in 2025-26That every complaint was proven, or that 63 shops offendedComplaints can guide inspections and show what the council was told
10,017 vape packs seizedPacks removed through local enforcement activityTotal illegal vape sales in Portsmouth or the UKSeizures show tangible enforcement outcomes
37 retail inspectionsVisits or inspections relating to tobacco and vapesThat all retailers in the area were inspectedInspection numbers help explain the enforcement workload
33 inspections leading to seizureInspections where goods were seizedThat every inspected premises committed the same type of breachThis shows how targeted the inspected cases may have been
18 shops evidenced as selling illegal vapesShops where Portsmouth says sales were evidenced by seizure or test purchaseThat only 18 shops in the city were problematicIt is the most direct retail-sales line in the dataset

For adult buyers, the practical point is simple: do not treat one unusually high seizure figure as a full market map. Treat it as a prompt to check products more carefully and to report suspicious sales through the relevant local route.

How the single-use vape ban fits into the data

The national ban on supplying single-use vapes came into force in England on 1 June 2025, according to GOV.UK’s single-use vapes ban guidance. Portsmouth’s local guidance also says the ban applied from 1 June 2025 and explains the practical retail test: products sold after that date should not be single-use, and reusable products are expected to be rechargeable, refillable with e-liquid and have a replaceable coil.

That timing explains why Portsmouth’s statistics page treats earlier years as not relevant for the single-use vape ban enforcement line. The rule had not yet started before June 2025, so there is no like-for-like earlier full-year history for that specific measure.

The single-use ban should not be confused with the older nicotine-product rules that were already in place. A product can be reusable and still raise compliance concerns if it breaches UK requirements on liquid volume, nicotine strength, labelling or notification. Likewise, the Portsmouth seizure figure is not only a disposable-vape story. It sits within broader illegal-vape enforcement.

What makes a vape product suspect under UK rules

The core UK product rules are set out in the MHRA and GOV.UK guidance on e-cigarette regulations for consumer products. That guidance states that, for relevant nicotine-containing products, tanks must not exceed 2ml, nicotine-containing refill containers must not exceed 10ml, and e-liquid must not contain more than 20mg/ml nicotine. The same guidance covers notification, packaging and labelling requirements, including child-resistant and tamper-evident packaging for certain products.

It is also important to use precise language about the MHRA list. A published MHRA notification means a product has been notified and appears on the published list. It should not be described as an approval, endorsement, quality certificate or guarantee of safety.

Portsmouth’s own guidance on illegal tobacco and vapes lists practical warning signs such as missing manufacturer or importer details, missing or questionable ECID information, non-compliant nicotine warning wording and unusually cheap offers. Adult buyers do not need to become enforcement officers, but they can avoid products that look untraceable, disguised or outside UK limits.

For a broader view of packaging and labelling pressure, see our related guide: UK vape packaging consultation 2026 explained.

Plain vape product checklist showing UK legal-limit checks for adult buyers.

What adult buyers can do before purchasing

For adult vapers, the practical advice is to buy carefully, check traceability and avoid turning suspicion into a purchase.

  • Check whether the product appears on the MHRA published list where that is relevant, using the MHRA/GOV.UK notification guidance as the starting point.
  • Check the pack for traceable manufacturer or importer details.
  • Check that nicotine warnings and labelling are present and credible.
  • Be cautious about any product that appears to exceed the UK 2ml tank, 10ml nicotine refill-container or 20mg/ml nicotine-strength limits set out by MHRA/GOV.UK.
  • Be wary of stock that looks disguised, untraceable, unusually cheap or inconsistent with the single-use vape ban described by GOV.UK.
  • Report suspect sales to the relevant local authority or Trading Standards route rather than buying the product to investigate it yourself.

None of those checks makes a buyer responsible for enforcing the law. They simply reduce the chance of buying something that does not meet basic UK compliance expectations.

What retailers should take from Portsmouth’s figures

Retailers should read the Portsmouth data as a documentation reminder. The most useful lesson is not that Portsmouth is unique, or that every local area will show the same pattern. It is that Trading Standards datasets are increasingly specific: complaints, inspections, seizures and evidenced sales can all become public-facing numbers.

A legitimate retailer should be able to explain where stock came from, show supplier records, check MHRA publication status where relevant, train staff on age-restricted sales and remove products that do not meet current rules. That means checking products before they reach the shelf, not only after a question has been raised.

Retail compliance records and plain vape stock boxes in a back-office setting.

The next compliance layer is tax and enforcement. GOV.UK says Vaping Products Duty takes effect from 1 October 2026, with registrations opened from 1 April 2026 and the duty charged at £2.20 per 10ml of vaping liquid produced in or imported into the UK. We have covered that transition in more detail here: Vaping Products Duty: UK Retailer Guide.

The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 is also part of the wider enforcement backdrop. The Department of Health and Social Care said when the Act became law on 29 April 2026 that it includes stronger enforcement powers, including the ability to implement a retail licensing scheme and tackle illicit tobacco and vape sales. The Act itself is available on legislation.gov.uk.

This is not legal advice. For live compliance decisions, retailers should work from official guidance, keep records current and contact the relevant authority where there is uncertainty.

What the data cannot tell us

The Portsmouth figures are useful, but their limits are as important as the headline numbers.

They cannot prove UK-wide illegal-vape prevalence. They cannot show the total number of illegal products sold in Portsmouth. They cannot prove that the illegal market rose by the same proportion as the seizure figure. They also cannot explain, on their own, why 2025-26 seizures were much higher than 2024-25.

Several things can move a seizure total. Trading Standards may receive better intelligence. Officers may focus on a particular product type or area. Residents may report more suspected sales. The post-ban market may change what officers find. A small number of inspections can also produce a high seizure total if those inspections are highly targeted.

That is why the best reading is cautious. Portsmouth’s 2025-26 data is a local enforcement signal after a major rule change. It deserves attention, but it should not be stretched into a national market estimate.

What this means for UK buyers and retailers

Portsmouth’s 2025-26 Trading Standards figures show a clear local enforcement story: more than 10,000 vape packs seized, 63 illicit-vaping-product complaints and 18 shops evidenced as selling illegal vapes. Read properly, that is a prompt for better checking, not a reason to guess at the size of the whole UK illegal-vape market.

Adult buyers should focus on traceability, labelling, MHRA publication where relevant and the legal product limits set out by MHRA/GOV.UK. Retailers should focus on supplier due diligence, staff guidance, stock records and prompt removal of anything that does not meet current requirements.

The practical conclusion is straightforward: local Trading Standards data is useful when it is treated as evidence of local enforcement activity. For current legal requirements, use the primary sources and your local authority route, not assumptions drawn from a single headline figure.

Sources