Parcelforce clearance fee's (C&E duty etc)

[gezwee]

OK. So we all agree that we should pay the vat and import duty. But we hate the idea of having the parcel delayed and to pay a handling fee. So we pay the fees and hope that Parcel Force will settle a threatend action and refund the handling fee. The argument doesnt get to court.

 

So how should we draft the letter before action?

 

With care, if PF see too many of these they'll take the offensive and hit you for costs.

 

They are acting within the law by holding goods in lien of payment, the terms of international carriage are convened under Hague Visby and CMR each of which gives the operator right of lien over goods.

 

What you should be asking yourself is why the supplier of the goods is not making you aware of clearance charges when they contract the carrier.

 

Nothing in this life is free, would it be reasonable to expect PF to clear your goods and defer duty and VAT to HMR&C without charging for this service?

 

Start knocking the ones (nope, I don't work for them) that operate on a small margin and you start the slippery slope of reducing competition in the market and allowing a free for all for those unscrupulous clearing agents who think nothing of charging £100.00 minimums.

[gezwee]

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

 

I'm a 'forum troll' am I? With almost 10,000 posts to my name on here alone, I'm a pretty unsuccessful troll. However, I to purchase (and sent) many items of mail abroad - as such, I've probably dealt with more parcels with duty pending that you've had hot dinners - and I ensured my exposure to such additional charges were minimal, and fully legal.

 

The bleatings from someone who feels they have a beef, and look for ludicrous tangents to get out of paying for the services consumed make me wonder who you really expect to pay for the services you use, the taxpayer?

 

As for the insults - thank you - I'll wear them like a badge of honour - but if I'm supposed to be 'ignorant' it's a shame that forum rules don't permit me to say what I thing you are.

 

As for 'understanding of the law' I'm afraid neither of us are equipped for this - the law is all about interpretation. When you get a judge to agree with you, do let us all know, but until the -. Keep your offensive personal remarks to yourself.

 

 

Hi Buzby

 

Think we should let the small minded on here go away and spit their dummies elsewhere...... clearly they believe they are right and expect a free ride in life.

 

Gez

[wheresmyhairgone]

 

I'm a 'forum troll' am I? With almost 10,000 posts to my name on here alone, I'm a pretty unsuccessful troll. However, I to purchase (and sent) many items of mail abroad - as such, I've probably dealt with more parcels with duty pending that you've had hot dinners - and I ensured my exposure to such additional charges were minimal, and fully legal.

 

 

You are still missing the point!!!!!

 

 

May i suggest you revisit this thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/229570-paid-now-they-want.html

 

It appears you forgot to put on your reading glasses in your haste to make a statement to show of your knowledge of the global postage services.

 

I would think the OP would benefit from your self acclaimed vast knowledge, maybe you would like to read his/her original question again and advise accordingly

[gezwee]

 

I'm a 'forum troll' am I? With almost 10,000 posts to my name on here alone, I'm a pretty unsuccessful troll. However, I to purchase (and sent) many items of mail abroad - as such, I've probably dealt with more parcels with duty pending that you've had hot dinners - and I ensured my exposure to such additional charges were minimal, and fully legal.

 

 

You are still missing the point!!!!!

 

 

May i suggest you revisit this thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/229570-paid-now-they-want.html

 

It appears you forgot to put on your reading glasses in your haste to make a statement to show of your knowledge of the global postage services.

 

I would think the OP would benefit from your self acclaimed vast knowledge, maybe you would like to read his/her original question again and advise accordingly

 

Me thinks you should read post #7 in said thread and await the OP's response...... we should not make assumptions about the terms they entered into.

 

Rudeness and arrogance on your part will not assist the OP nor does it provide the basis for a reasoned argument.

[wheresmyhairgone]

Me thinks you should read post #7 in said thread and await the OP's response...... we should not make assumptions about the terms they entered into.

 

Rudeness and arrogance on your part will not assist the OP nor does it provide the basis for a reasoned argument.

 

 

Me thinks you should read the whole thread taking note of posts #1,#3,#4,#5.

 

I don,t think i was rude, arrogant maybe.

 

over to you.

[Cracked_Chap]

gezwee - it's a shame that people come on and miss the point entirely, you are just another in a long line that can't be bothered to read before posting.

[gezwee]

Me thinks you should read post #7 in said thread and await the OP's response...... we should not make assumptions about the terms they entered into.

 

Rudeness and arrogance on your part will not assist the OP nor does it provide the basis for a reasoned argument.

 

 

Me thinks you should read the whole thread taking note of posts #1,#3,#4,#5.

 

I don,t think i was rude, arrogant maybe.

 

over to you.

 

As there were only 7 posts, 1 of them being mine I'm pretty sure I noted everything - Having said that I have read again and my opinion has not changed.........

 

1. When entering contract of carriage did the OP agree terms?

 

2. Did the OP agree equipment required for carriage, origin or destination and subsequently amend?

 

3. Did the OP with hold information in an effort to reduce contractual costs?

 

4. Did the OP agree to effect export entry within terms?

 

5. Did the OP agree to issue export docs and subsequently amend their position?

 

6. Did the OP with hold details of product to be exported in an effort to reduce costs?

 

7. Did the OP agree variable BAF/CAF surcharges on signing carriage terms?

 

These are all questions that only the OP can answer and until such time that he/she does it still remains an poor argument for your earlier post.

[gezwee]

gezwee - it's a shame that people come on and miss the point entirely, you are just another in a long line that can't be bothered to read before posting.

 

Tis a pity you have no understanding of international carriage or the conventions the primary carrier must apply.

 

Please only post if you have something meaningful to add

[gezwee]

Apologies CC, I should have added, I never post in a thread without reading from start to finish first.

 

Your earlier post re: your enquiries, you failed to mention if upon enquiring you had made it clear that PF were not the primary carrier.

 

For international transport of goods PF would be subcontracted to the primarys own terms and conventions. The shipper 'should' make the consignee aware of the terms they have entered into. PF would be bound by the primarys terms and invoke DDP terms for destination.

 

You assume there is no cost for PF to clear entries to the UK and they unlawfully with hold goods on arrival.

 

Rest assured there is a cost (probably closer to £4.00 per entry) and they are acting within the internationally agreed conventions of carriage.

[wheresmyhairgone]

This is the question asked by OP:

 

Hello

 

I was wondering if anyone could help me with my legal rights on a particular issue?

 

I paid for shipping of some goods TO Australia. When the goods were picked up I was told the price and I wrote a cheque there and then for it. I was also given a receipt for this payment confirming what I have paid. The cheque has sinced cleared my bank account.

 

Now the company has sent me an email saying they need a further payment of 150 pounds in order to ship my items.

 

I don't understand how this can happen if I was given an invoice and I paid for it in full and have received a receipt for this. Surely I have entered into a contract at this stage and they cannot vary the terms.

 

What are my legal rights in this case? Any help would be appreciated.

 

BUZBY`S reply:

 

It would appear you have bought the goods, and they are yours. However delivery costs are additional - unless you agreed otherwise. If they are simply seeking the cost of shipping the item to the UK, then this isn't unreasonable - BUT if the item is to be imported into the UK, then there will be additional clearance fees and duties, depending on what the item is.

 

 

I fail to see what your post in that thread has to do with my point about reading question correctly.

 

It does however show that you did read the question correctly and gave the correct advice.

 

This tit for tat is getting a bit silly now so i,ll leave the last words to you

[Cracked_Chap]

But you don't understand what this thread is about - please read my original posts in 2007 when this all started on moneysupermarket.com Parcelforce Clearance Ransom Charge then you may understand that what you are posting is irrelevant. I have been on this for two years, I can say that I am now pretty much an expert on the subject.

[Cracked_Chap]

Parcelforce can act as a private courier or as a carrier of the Crown's mail - we are not dealing with private couriers we are dealing with The Postal Services Act 2000 sections 104 - 105 and 106 where they are acting as Royal Mail.

[gezwee]

This is the question asked by OP:

 

Hello

 

I was wondering if anyone could help me with my legal rights on a particular issue?

 

I paid for shipping of some goods TO Australia. When the goods were picked up I was told the price and I wrote a cheque there and then for it. I was also given a receipt for this payment confirming what I have paid. The cheque has sinced cleared my bank account.

 

Now the company has sent me an email saying they need a further payment of 150 pounds in order to ship my items.

 

I don't understand how this can happen if I was given an invoice and I paid for it in full and have received a receipt for this. Surely I have entered into a contract at this stage and they cannot vary the terms.

 

What are my legal rights in this case? Any help would be appreciated.

 

BUZBY`S reply:

 

It would appear you have bought the goods, and they are yours. However delivery costs are additional - unless you agreed otherwise. If they are simply seeking the cost of shipping the item to the UK, then this isn't unreasonable - BUT if the item is to be imported into the UK, then there will be additional clearance fees and duties, depending on what the item is.

 

 

I fail to see what your post in that thread has to do with my point about reading question correctly.

 

It does however show that you did read the question correctly and gave the correct advice.

 

This tit for tat is getting a bit silly now so i,ll leave the last words to you

 

Glad we agreed on something

 

I'm not into arguing for the sake of it, appears you are of the same mind. I merely look to show all points of view and trust that a sound opinion can be formed after all evidence and opinions are presented.

 

Will have a look back on there when the OP responds, maybe they've been mugged and we can assist (may even have knowledge of the carrier from a previous life) or maybe they are not posting the whole story :?

[gezwee]

Parcelforce can act as a private courier or as a carrier of the Crown's mail - we are not dealing with private couriers we are dealing with The Postal Services Act 2000 sections 104 - 105 and 106 where they are acting as Royal Mail.

 

Thats excellent news CC, but since when is a parcel with an origin outside of the Crowns jurisdiction a sound argument for not effecting clearance via an approved agent of the realm or meeting applied costs?

[Cracked_Chap]

Youn can choose a private courier - you have a contract - you agree terms and pay for the service you require.

 

Royal Mail is under different conditions laid down by different laws, is a fully regulated UK mail service which is bound by laws which they are breaking - simple.

[Cracked_Chap]

I think what some are saying on here is:

 

They should be able to charge a fee for paying the Duty on our behalf, even though that is not necessary.

 

That fee can be anything they desire and the consumer should not be able to complain about it.

 

They should be able to break the law which is supposed to regulate them to obtain the fee that they have imposed on us.

 

What a strange World we are living in that some people think this is right

[gezwee]

Hi CC

 

I think the problem is that when we buy from abroad we contract the carriage to our supplier. Said supplier enters into a DDP agreement with carrier and could not give a jot what terms are applied at destination (they have after all made a sale).

 

You seem to be implying that the consignee at destination is contracting carriage.

 

Goods arrive on UK soil, said goods (over a given value etc etc) must be entered via CHIEF and encumbent Duty, excise must be discharged into an HMR&C regulated deferment account held by the clearing agent.

 

Badges for CHIEF are not free nor is the time or equipment required to service an import entry........ I assume form your comments that you would expect PF staff employed in this department to be giving of their time ex gratis?

 

I'm still looking for the law they are breaking?

 

Failure to clear goods on arrival presents carrier with disproportionate penalty via HMR&C - as much as 10k for minor offences.

 

Failure to clear also presents carrier with possible forfeiture of equipment and subsequent destruction by HMR&C.

 

Any consignee within the UK is within their rights to reject costs and return to sender but.......... you would then have a tussle with your supplier for the return of monies already paid.

 

PF are stuck between a rock and a hard place, its not their system and its not a process of their making but it is a process that they are legally obliged to adhere to and at £13.50 per entry it is not in any sense extortionate.

[wheresmyhairgone]

Glad we agreed on something

 

I'm not into arguing for the sake of it, appears you are of the same mind. I merely look to show all points of view and trust that a sound opinion can be formed after all evidence and opinions are presented.

 

Will have a look back on there when the OP responds, maybe they've been mugged and we can assist (may even have knowledge of the carrier from a previous life) or maybe they are not posting the whole story :?

 

 

Hi

 

Now we shook hands a made friends i will explain my interest in this thread.

 

Like BUZBY i send and receive many parcels.

 

If customs want to employ RM to collect taxes for them then Customs should pay RM for the service not me. I know there is more to it then that but thats my view in a nutshell.

 

I think what the OP is saying that in this day and age Customs should be able to hold onto the parcel and request payment themselves and not involve a third party who will charge me a fee.

 

When i buy something from a shop i don,t expect a shop to charge me a fee for collecting the v.a.t. even though that shop will incur costs for collecting the v.a.t.

 

A company does not charge its employees a fee for collecting tax & N.I for the goverment even though they have to employ accountants to deal with it.

 

Granted these are very loose examples.

 

I don`t know who is correct, you, buzby,or the oposing views but what i do know is that just because there are rules and regulations it doesn`t make it right.

 

Can i just try one more example to try and explain my position on this:

 

Scenario:

 

You have been on holiday, while you was away the goverment anounced a cut in the customs department. They have contracted airport customs out to a third party. You get home to dear old blighty, collect your bags and proceed through SOMETHING TO DECLARE . You pay the duty that you owe, but whats this!!!! £13.50 fee to pay for the third party`s running costs.

[Cracked_Chap]

Yet again you are stating incorrectly.

 

The postal agent is dependant on who pays the postage. If you pay postage for an item that is sent from abroad, you are the responsible party.

 

Don't bother arguing until you check for yourself, I already have.

 

The rest is irrelevant to this thread and is just a method of extending it to confuse, in my opinion.

[Cracked_Chap]

where'smyhair..... the problem is there are no running costs, all packages go through customs - some come out the other end with a duty ticket on them. At that stage there is no additional cost to Royal Mail. I have checked the procedure with HMRC.

 

They are charging the fee for paying the Duty on our behalf and acting as a collector of that Duty. Our Government has given Royal Mail a cash cow and allowing it to break the law to collect it.

[gezwee]

Yet again you are stating incorrectly.

 

The postal agent is dependant on who pays the postage. If you pay postage for an item that is sent from abroad, you are the responsible party.

 

Don't bother arguing until you check for yourself, I already have.

 

The rest is irrelevant to this thread and is just a method of extending it to confuse, in my opinion.

 

Hi CC

 

I'm really trying to help you here but you seem to want all answers to be positive to your position.

 

So you enter into a purchase agreement from an international supplier and agree transit costs within said terms.

 

You transfer monies for said goods and transit.

 

Supplier enters contract for transit and forwards goods.

 

Who is paying for transit and who enters contract.........?

 

Simple example: I purchase goods from Ebay, I agree costs and transfer money for item and postage ...... if said item goes missing in transit the seller makes a claim. They entered the contract of carriage not me.

[gezwee]

where'smyhair..... the problem is there are no running costs, all packages go through customs - some come out the other end with a duty ticket on them. At that stage there is no additional cost to Royal Mail. I have checked the procedure with HMRC.

 

They are charging the fee for paying the Duty on our behalf and acting as a collector of that Duty. Our Government has given Royal Mail a cash cow and allowing it to break the law to collect it.

 

 

Hadnt seen that last post, really think you should check again.

[Cracked_Chap]

I don't need to check again - you give me evidence to the contrary, I did my checking in 2007.

 

We are not talking about private couriers - don't you understand the difference?

[gezwee]

Hi

 

Now we shook hands a made friends i will explain my interest in this thread.

 

Like BUZBY i send and receive many parcels.

 

If customs want to employ RM to collect taxes for them then Customs should pay RM for the service not me. I know there is more to it then that but thats my view in a nutshell.

 

I think what the OP is saying that in this day and age Customs should be able to hold onto the parcel and request payment themselves and not involve a third party who will charge me a fee.

 

When i buy something from a shop i don,t expect a shop to charge me a fee for collecting the v.a.t. even though that shop will incur costs for collecting the v.a.t.

 

A company does not charge its employees a fee for collecting tax & N.I for the goverment even though they have to employ accountants to deal with it.

 

Granted these are very loose examples.

 

I don`t know who is correct, you, buzby,or the oposing views but what i do know is that just because there are rules and regulations it doesn`t make it right.

 

Can i just try one more example to try and explain my position on this:

 

Scenario:

 

You have been on holiday, while you was away the goverment anounced a cut in the customs department. They have contracted airport customs out to a third party. You get home to dear old blighty, collect your bags and proceed through SOMETHING TO DECLARE . You pay the duty that you owe, but whats this!!!! £13.50 fee to pay for the third party`s running costs.

 

Hi

 

This is slightly different from contracting to a carrier - personal items carried via UK port of entry can be declared for Duty/excise and the control points will accept payment on arrival in order to release your goods to free circulation.

 

Goods carried commercially will not be entertained by local control points and indeed you would be pointed in the direction of a local clearing agent if for arguments sake you chose to bring a container of tobacco into Felixstowe.

 

In the case of PF, they will be subcontracted to domestically deliver plane and container loads of goods arriving from all origins - regardless of how small the individual consignment may be our friends at HMR&C would still view this as part of a commercial transport operation and would apply all encumbent laws if they failed to enter goods in a timely manner. Once you dig down into the mire of regulations you will see that PF are as much a pawn in this as you or I.

 

With regard to cost, as I said in earlier post, I believe if it were broken down their true cost would be closer to £4.00 per entry although you should also bear in mind that they will be guaranteeing duty etc to HMR&C on day of arrival which may be some time before they present the consignee with invoice.

 

I suppose we should also consider that if entry costs were regulated we would see a sharp increase in transport costs as it is pretty evident that the profit margin from entering goods is used to offset transport costs.

[gezwee]

I don't need to check again - you give me evidence to the contrary, I did my checking in 2007.

 

We are not talking about private couriers - don't you understand the difference?

 

You still havent said who you deem to have contracted carriage - theres nothing to clarify until you do?

 

Lol, more than you