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

[Cracked_Chap]

You have taken this posting right off track, deliberately in my opinion. You have stated nothing which has any relevance to this thread. You are a troll and I will ignore your posts from now on.

 

I suggest others don't bite.

 

Bye gez

[gezwee]

You have taken this posting right off track, deliberately in my opinion. You have stated nothing which has any relevance to this thread. You are a troll and I will ignore your posts from now on.

 

I suggest others don't bite.

 

Bye gez

 

You need help....... not sure you're on the right forum for your problems

[Cracked_Chap]

PostComm penned the Act which cover PF & Royal Mail in this instance:

 

2007 - It's all on moneysupermarket.com - I did my homework and am correct, I couldn't be bothered to format it for this site:

 

I have been told yesterday by Sean O'Hara (Post Comm) that Royal Mail have not provided legislation that allows them to hold packets in lien for their clearance fees. PostComm is sympathetic with my view that our right to pay import duties directly to Customs has been taken away and is approaching Post Watch about an on-line payment system.

 

It seems that Royal Mail are so desperate to cover their arses and not be found guilty until the last possible moment, they now want to see the original written notes of the relevant sections of the Postal Services Act 2000 to see if anything has been left out or misinterpreted. Their lawyers are clutching at straws.

 

In my view, and with regard to the current situation where Royal Mail cannot provide evidence that they are holding packets in lien legally, they should notify all depot staff to hand over packets to disgruntled customers immediately, if they refuse to do this, they are putting their staff in danger of prosecution.

 

Sean O'Hara has also told me the only way to enforce the Act is for me (or any other individual) to seek a criminal prosecution through the Crown Prosecution Service, I will be making my statement to the police on

 

Tuesday 23rd October.

 

I spoke to the legal department of H.M Customs yesterday (Friday) and

the nice lady there said that as far as she knew, Parcelforce acted as

agents for the public, delivering mail. She did not know of any

agreement or law that excluded them from section 104 of the Postal

Services Act and she knew of no 'agency' agreement with them that would allow Royal Mail to hold our parcels in lien.

 

To make sure, she has passed it on to her policy department and they will be getting back to me Monday or Tuesday.

 

I received this from C & E yesterday:

From: Evans, Diane (Customs & International)

Sent: 21 September 2007 15:46

To:

Subject: Written enquiry regarding Postal services

 

Dear M

 

I have been asked to reply to your email below as I have Policy responsibility for the import of goods by post.

 

You

have asked about the delivery and collection of taxes payable on

imported postal packets. I suspect the legislation you are seeking is

contained in the Postal Packet (Customs and Excise) Regulations 1986

(SI 1986:260), in particular Regulation 15 which provides for the

collection of duties and other taxes chargeable on goods imported in

postal packets.

 

Regulation 15(1) empowers the postal operator

(Royal Mail) to demand payment of any duty or other sum due to the

Commissioners of Revenue and Customs in respect of it, and pay any sum

received to the Commissioners.

 

Regulation 15(2) says if payment

is not made of any duty so demanded then the postal operator may, with

the agreement of the Commissioners, dispose of the goods as they see

fit.

 

Regulation 15(3) says if any amount demanded in accordance

with paragraph (1) , but not paid, is an amount other than duty, the

postal operator shall deliver the packet to customs and excise.

 

In

addition, Section 106 of the Postal Services Act would also seem to

cover the situation. Section 106(1) says a postal operator may detain

any postal packet if he suspects that it may contain 'relevant goods'. Section 106(2)(a) defines relevant goods as any goods

chargeable with any duty charged on imported goods which has not been

paid or secured.

 

Finally, you refer to the provision of an

invoice from Royal Mail; The Charge Label, which is adhered to the

packet, is considered to be the invoice.

 

I hope this clarifies the situation.

 

 

Mrs Diane Evans

Customs & International

Control & Movement Team

7th Floor North

Portcullis House

Victoria Avenue

Southend-on-Sea

Essex SS2 6AL

 

**********

 

I Replied:

Dear Diane,

 

Thank you for your email today, which I had not received.

 

I note that the legislation you have supplied refers to 'demand payment

of any duty or other sum due to the Commissioners of Revenue and

Customs in respect of it', which indicates that the Parcelforce

clearance fee is not covered.

 

Would you please confirm that the Parcelforce clearance fee is not a charge required to be paid to the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs.

 

I was willing to pay the Customs fee and had my money for the charge in hand when the police arrived. Although I tried to pay the Customs charge, the parcel was still held in lien for the Parcelforce clearance fee.

 

The police phoned me last week to make a statement and want to take the matter forward, I have delayed proceedings to gather more information. The Postal Commission legal department are confused by the wording of paragraphs 104 and 105 of the Postal Services Act 2000. They are awaiting the return of the author of the Act from holiday, to clarify

the matter.

 

Thank you very much for your assistance.

 

Kind regards,

 

M

**********

C & E Replied:

Dear M

 

 

The charge made by Parcelforce Worldwide is not paid to HMRC. It is levied by them as a contribution towards the cost of presenting the parcel to Customs, paying the duty and VAT on your behalf and collecting it from you. It is entirely separate from the duty and VAT charged by Revenue & Customs.

 

All companies that act as couriers whether Royal Mail, Parcelforce or independent companies such as UPS, DHL etc. will make a similar charge.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

Mrs Diane

Evans

Customs & International

Control & Movement Team

7th Floor

North

Portcullis House

Victoria Avenue

Southend-on-Sea

Essex SS2

6AL

 

Tel: 01702 361989

Fax: 01702

361937

 

Soooo... The charge can be levied but a parcel cannot be held in lien for that charge. That is what this thread is about.

[gezwee]

I'll play for a little bit longer.......

 

 

 

Regulation 15(1) empowers the postal operator

(Royal Mail) to demand payment of any duty or other sum due to the

Commissioners of Revenue and Customs in respect of it, and pay any sum

received to the Commissioners.

 

This would include CHIEF badge license fee required to effect clearance.

Would suggest you ask Di the direct question but she's no longer at Portcullis House.

 

Regulation 15(2) says if payment

is not made of any duty so demanded then the postal operator may, with

the agreement of the Commissioners, dispose of the goods as they see

fit.

 

See above

 

 

 

Regulation 15(3) says if any amount demanded in accordance

with paragraph (1) , but not paid, is an amount other than duty, the

postal operator shall deliver the packet to customs and excise.

 

So you would be happy to incur delivery to and storage costs at HMR&C facility? Lost on this argument as delivery to their facility + fine + storage would far outweigh the clearance fee set by PF.

 

In

addition, Section 106 of the Postal Services Act would also seem to

cover the situation. Section 106(1) says a postal operator may detain

any postal packet if he suspects that it may contain 'relevant goods'. Section 106(2)(a) defines relevant goods as any goods

chargeable with any duty charged on imported goods which has not been

paid or secured.

 

You rebutt charges, carrier detains goods .......... believe that would be a lien?

[rickyd]

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.

 

Gee, I guess they'll be closed down soon then!

 

Of course they're not breaking the law, they are running a commercial business for profit and any business involved in freight export/import has a right to charge for the extra work this requires. If you don't like their charges, you should choose somebody else. The problem is that Parcelforce has one of the cheapest handling charges around so instead of bleating, you ought to be grateful you didn't use UPS or TNT.

 

Your recent posts suggest that you think that the rules of commerce shouldn't apply here and that they should do the extra work for free - get real!

 

As for attacking Buzby, it's clear you're new to CAG. As one of our most valued members, most people have the decency to read what he has to say and calling him a Troll only proves your lack of understanding of his experience and wisdom.

 

Gezwee has also tried unsuccessfully to explain this for you but you seem hell bent on twisting the facts to prove your case.

 

If you strip this back to basics there are are only three components to (so why is it so difficult to understand?)

 

1 You contract for a parcel to be delivered for which there is a carriage charge.

2 If it is an international delivery there may be duty to be paid in line with HMRC's charges

3 If the carrier to completes the clearance work on behalf of the customer and collects and pays the duty to HMRC they levy a charge for this work

 

Now which bit should they be doing for free?

 

Why don't you go to court?

 

If you're proved wrong, Parcelforce will continue doing what they do and millions of international packets will be handled each year without any problem.

 

If you're proved right, the CWU will come knocking on your door over the thousands of redundancies caused by the loss of business; Parcelforce will face the biggest fine in history; Lord Mandleson will be really unhappy with you and the carriers still in the game will be able to increase their prices due to lack of competition.

 

On the upside, you may be able to sell your story to the tabloids, the fee may come in handy in paying for the new identity you might need.

 

So, as Dirty Harry famously said " are you feeling lucky?"

Edited November 1, 2009 by rickyd

[wheresmyhairgone]

Gee, I guess they'll be closed down soon then!

 

Your recent posts suggest that you think that the rules of commerce shouldn't apply here and that they should do the extra work for free - get real!

 

Erm no, they are working for HRMC as tax collectors, so HMRC should be paying them.

May be they are paying them some sort of commision thats why they are cheaper then everyone else. I don,t know, do you?

 

As for attacking Buzby, it's clear you're new to CAG. As one of our most valued members, most people have the decency to read what he has to say and calling him a Troll only proves your lack of understanding of his experience and wisdom.

 

I agree BUT sometimes the " I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG, SO SHUT UP" tone of Buzby`s posts can bring out the worst in people

 

 

 

If you strip this back to basics there are are only three components to (so why is it so difficult to understand?)

 

1 You contract for a parcel to be delivered for which there is a carriage charge.

Agreed

2 If it is an international delivery there may be duty to be paid in line with HMRC's charges

Agreed

3 If the carrier to completes the clearance work on behalf of the customer and collects and pays the duty to HMRC they levy a charge for this work

The carrier is not doing this work on behalf of the customer, they are doing it on behalf of HMRC

Now which bit should they be doing for free?

None of it, i suggest they look to HRMC for payment for this work they are forced to do

 

 

If you're proved right, the CWU will come knocking on your door over the thousands of redundancies caused by the loss of business; Parcelforce will face the biggest fine in history; Lord Mandleson will be really unhappy with you and the carriers still in the game will be able to increase their prices due to lack of competition.

 

Now this statement is very silly you must agree. Might as well close down this site if we all thought like this.

If he was proved right then they would ammend the regs.

 

On the upside, you may be able to sell your story to the tabloids, the fee may come in handy in paying for the new identity you might need.

 

Again this is very silly, do you not think?

 

 

So, as Dirty Harry famously said " are you feeling lucky?"

 

CC is questioning the legalities of PF being able to kidnap his parcel and hold it to ransom. He may be right. He may be wrong

 

He thinks he is right, do you really believe that he should shut up and stop posting on this thread because some people (you included) think he is wrong?

[rickyd]

CC is questioning the legalities of PF being able to kidnap his parcel and hold it to ransom. He may be right. He may be wrong

 

He thinks he is right, do you really believe that he should shut up and stop posting on this thread because some people (you included) think he is wrong?

 

Several of our more experienced contributors have already answered each of these points, in detail with great clarity, but for avoidance of doubt:-

 

When any freight forwarder, courier company or postal delivery agent handles customs clearance they are not acting on behalf of HMRC, but on behalf of the client who requested their services.

 

It has always been perfectly possible to do our own clearance, but personally I would much rather pay an experienced operator £14 than to traipse around with sheaves of paperwork and make my payment at an HMRC office, then go back to the depot with the clearance papers to collect the parcel. My time is worth more than that and I, like countless others have better things to do.

 

If you or I did our own clearance would we be acting on behalf of HMRC? Of course not, we would be acting for ourselves. In this instance Parcelforce is employed by the client and is conveying the duty payable from them to HMRC. this is an additional service and they are entitled to charge extra for it. Where no duty is payable, no extra work is invloved and no charge is made.

 

The ability to hold onto the parcel is just common sense, as Parcelforce will have paid the duty on behalf of the client, why would anyone expect them to release it until they had been recompensed?

 

I cannot believe we're having such a long discussion over £14.

 

This is nothing to do with stopping people having an opinion, but my post was about the obvious lack of understanding of a principle that several experienced forum members had clearly explained. Why they should be subjected to a barrage of insults is beyond me.

 

The points about the union may have been exagerated, but the ramifications of Parcelforce's customs clearance activities being declared illegal are massive. Cutting off another stream of income from a company already knee deep in disputes would hardly help the future job prospects for those currently employed. As for paying a massive fine - what do you think?

 

Fortunately this won't happen as there is nothing sinister going on here as time will no doubt prove and before you make the assumption, I don't work for Parcelforce, HMRC or the Treasury.

 

I don't really think he should shut up and stop posting because I think he is wrong, but I do think he should digest the accumulated wisdom he can find on here and not make rude comments about those who provide it.

Edited November 1, 2009 by rickyd

[rickyd]

 

I suggest others ignore the 'Buzby' posts completely and not entertain him/her. I can back up everything I have stated with sections from the Act and letters from HMRC which are on moneysupermarket.com 'Parcel Force Ransom Charge'.

 

I will not be wasting MY time answering future Buzby posts which are ignorant, antagonistic and from, in my opinion a forum troll.

 

You demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding or knowledge of buzby's input to this forum. Gezwee also has imparted much wisdom on here whereas you seem to have appeared from nowhere via the moneysupermarket.com forum and cast aspertions around like confetti.

 

If you don't agree with the advice offered, that's fine. Please don't go impuning those who have helped countless others just because you disagree with them.

 

Out of interest how are you getting on with the action you began in 2007?

[rickyd]

It is clear that you are wrong Buzby. Try re-reading the thread and note that two people have succeeded in legal action against PF. I shall be pursuing the same course and am very grateful to the constructive posters here.

 

Is this correct? Reading his thread I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that in both cases Parcelforce had settled out of court?

 

If they did there is still no legal case to base future claims on. I certainly don't remember seeing a headline saying "parcelforce charges ruled illegal" anywhere.

[Cracked_Chap]

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26) - Statute Law Database

 

I may seem abrupt - it is because I have had to thoroughly read the Act and have spoken and received emails from many people explaining it to me.

 

Some people here seem to be confusing private couriers with the Universal Mail Service in the UK. The above part of the Act defines Royal Mail (and the Universal part of parcel Force) as the Universal Postal Service for this country. There is only one - Royal Mail. Some parts of the Act refer to private couriers also, but, we are concerned with the special case of Royal Mail only.

 

If they bothered to contact outside agencies, which of course they won't because they prefer to write twadle instead, they would get the same answers as I did. Royal Mail and Parcel Force are breaking the law as I described with regard to them being the Universal Postal Service for the UK.

 

Don't argue, back up your statements with facts from a horses mouth - like I did.

[rickyd]

That's an interesting link and whilst I approve of your efforts I do wonder about your interpretation as your premise fails on two counts;

 

1 the act specifically describes a service with a universal cost base throughout the UK - Parcelforce have some variations for regional pricing; specifically it costs the same to post a letter to the Outer Hebrides as to Birmingham but parcel costs can vary with distance.

 

2 to quote the act " (i) at least one delivery of relevant postal packets is made every working day to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom or to such identifiable points for the delivery of relevant postal packets as the Commission may approve, and (ii) at least one collection of relevant postal packets is made every working day from each access point, which is clearly not the case.

 

Parcelforce is a separate company within the Royal Mail Group and therefore it is not not classified as a universal carrier per se, unlike the Royal Mail letters service. There's also the question of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) rules, as shown below:-

 

Article 18 Customs control. Customs duty and other fees

1 The postal administrations of the countries of origin and destination shall be authorized to submit items to customs control, according to the legislation of those countries.

2 Items submitted to customs control may be subjected to a presenta- tion-to-Customs charge, the guideline amount of which is set in the Regula- tions. This charge shall only be collected for the submission to Customs and customs clearance of items which have attracted customs charges or any other similar charge.

3 Postal administrations which are authorized to clear items through the Customs on behalf of customers may charge customers a customs clearance fee based on the actual costs.

4 Postal administrations shall be authorized to collect from the senders or addressees of items, as the case may be, the customs duty and all other fees which may be due.

 

Letter Post – Conv Art 18 Update 2 September 2007

 

So not exactly breaking the law, more like following the international postal rules!

 

So, the real question isn't whether they are allowed to levy a charge, but if the charge is the correct one based on their actual costs.

Edited November 2, 2009 by rickyd

[Cracked_Chap]

"Parcelforce is a separate company within the Royal Mail Group and therefore it is not not classified as a universal carrier per se"

 

You need to phone PostComm and find out for yourself, they penned the Act - Parcel Force is a private courier on one side of it's business, but it is also a Universal Service Provider locked in with Royal Mail.

 

I have already checked this, I don't need to argue about it, phone up and check for yourself before posting any more twadle.

 

If you can't be bothered to check outside agencies when I have already done so, then you are just as I have said previously to other twadle writers, a forum troll.

[rickyd]

Gee, I guess that's the end of Parcelforce charging for customs clearance then, except that you are just plain wrong!

 

I phoned Parcelforce and they confirmed that they are not a mail carrier and actually use Royal Mail themselves as an agent for some their deliveries on a contract basis, but Parcelforce do not deliver letters! The linkage to Royal Mail you suggest is as tenuous as telling hospital contract cleaners that they are part of the NHS.

 

I notice that you do not mention the unequivocal proof that lies in the UPU rules, which are what governs each member county's postal administration. Is this because it destroys your ill-founded points?

 

I can't make my mind up whether you're ignorant, unintelligent or just plain argumentative. Whichever is true, I won't be wasting any more time with you.

 

Please feel free to continue your pointless and misguided postings without me.

 

And thanks for lumping me into the same "troll" category as buzby and gezwee, I feel truly honoured to be elevated to their ranks.

 

PS you might like to re-visit the meaning of troll and then take a look in the mirror!

 

 

If your definition of "troll" puts me in the same category as buzby and gezwee, I'll take that as a compliment.

 

Fortunately I have a thick skin so I'm not easily offended.

[Cracked_Chap]

You only have to phone PostComm to confirm what I am saying - pay for the phone call - others have. If you want to be taken seriously don't post unsourced opinions, take the trouble to contact outside agencies and state your sources in your posts.

 

I have stated my sources, giving names and telephone numbers on moneysupermarket.com.

 

Trolls on here take an oposing view for the sake of it, but will not do the legwork involved in backing up their spurious statements.

[rickyd]

My unstated source? the Universal Postal Union Rules (updated Sept 2007)

 

www.upu.int

 

Is this a clear enough source for you?

 

by the way read the factsheet provided by your exalted PostComm -

http://www.psc.gov.uk/postcomm/live/factsheets/Universal_postal_service.pdf

 

no sign of Parcelforce anywhere! It only covers Royal Mail letters;RM standard parcels; RM Special delivery;RM redirection; and RM inbound foreign mail.

 

As you still haven't grasped the difference here's the maths:

 

Send a 2.00kg parcel to any other address within the UK by RM parcels and it'll cost £4.41

 

Send the same package by Parcelforce and its £10.50 (slowest) to £19.50 (next day) within Scotland, rising to £29.50 if the address is in Hampshire.

 

Now, for the very last time - you tell me who's providing the Universal Postal Service? (here's a clue - the price has to be U N I V E R S A L - i.e. the same everywhere in the country)

 

Drat, I've taken your bait.

 

I'm off to talk to the seagulls outside in the hope of more intelligent conversation.

[Cracked_Chap]

The letter below has a PDF attached to it which states that Parcel Force is a subsiduary of Royal Mail therefore covered by the Act as a Universal Postal Service.

 

I cannot show you the letter for fear of prosecution but you have the contact details, phone up and confirm for yourself.

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this issue. I attach a letter confirming Postcomm's position in relation to this matter.

 

Regards,

 

 

Sean

 

Sean O'Hara

Deputy Director, Customer Protection

Postcomm - the independent regulator for postal services

Hercules House

6 Hercules Road

LONDON

SE1 7DB

Tel: 020 7593 2190

mobile: 07770934461

www.psc.gov.uk

 

This communication is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you should not copy, forward, or disclose this communication or the information contained in it to any person, nor should you use them for any purpose. Disclosure may give rise to criminal proceedings under the Postal Services Act 2000. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete it from your system.

 

Contact Info:

P: 020 7593 2100

F: 020 7593 2142

E: [email protected]

W: Postcomm - the Postal Services Commission - Postcomm

[barracad]

I have checked what the 'handling' charge is for, it is solely for collecting the Duty, which is an extortionate charge.

 

You've spent two years looking into this and checking your facts, and that's all you've discovered? I've managed to find out in around two seconds what the charges are for:

• operating the postal customs depot
  
• handling the package for customs examination
  
• opening, repacking and resealing the package if required
  
• paying the charges to HMRC on your behalf
  

 

HM Revenue & Customs: Goods posted from outside the EU: tax payments, queries or refunds

 

The sensible people on these forums know that there is a difference between paying the Duty and the Handling fee which is unnecessary in this computer age.

 

Pretty impressive computer that can do all the things listed above!!

 

Ah well I guess it's understandable that you could have missed what the handling fee is used for if you've been writing about it on other forums for two years similar to what you've been doing on this site, you will have been quite busy being abusive towards other posters and calling them 'trolls' if they dare to have a difference of opinion or even post something factual that doesn't fit in with what you're trying to achieve.

 

I'm surprised your mate Sean at Postcomm couldn't advise you what this charge is for. After all, even though he seems to have led you to believe they disagree with the charge, the amount of the charge was in fact agreed by them and relevant notifications issued as with all products which fall under the price control.

 

Mind you, it appears your mate Sean is equally as busy as you...

 

I have been told yesterday by Sean O'Hara (Post Comm) that Royal Mail have not provided legislation that allows them to hold packets in lien for their clearance fees. PostComm is sympathetic with my view that our right to pay import duties directly to Customs has been taken away and is approaching Post Watch about an on-line payment system.

 

... so he told you just a couple of days ago that he is going to approach Post watch (an organisation that hasn't existed for over a year) about introducing an online payment system - would that be something like http://www.royalmail.com/fee2pay which has existed for at least three years that I'm aware of?

 

I have been on this for two years, I can say that I am now pretty much an expert on the subject.

 

I could say that using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly defended a small village in the Amazon Basin from a horde of ferocious army ants. I could also say that I while on vacation in Canada, I successfully negotiated with a group of terrorists who had seized a small bakery. I imagine these claims hold as much truth as your claim to being an expert.

[Cracked_Chap]

barracad The letter was from 2007 as per my previous posts.

 

The handling fee info has been put up since this action and in my opinion is excessive. This work used to be done by HMC employees and the Duty paid for it.

 

I don't care about paying duty but the law states that they can't hold the parcel in lien for the handling fee - that is what this thread is about. You have the right to protest against that fee but Royal Mail don't allow you to.

 

Unfortunately some people have taken the thread off at a tangent - we are talking about Royal Mail breaking the law as stated in section 104 105 & 106 of the Act - if you have anything that disproves they are breaking the law, please post giving your sources.

[barracad]

The letter was from 2007 as per my previous posts.

 

If that is the case I will happily retract that part of my post, but it does read as though you are saying that he quoted that to you yesterday!

 

I don't care about paying duty but the law states that they can't hold the parcel in lien for the handling fee - that is what this thread is about. You have the right to protest against that fee but Royal Mail don't allow you to.

 

Unfortunately some people have taken the thread off at a tangent - we are talking about Royal Mail breaking the law as stated in section 104 105 & 106 of the Act - if you have anything that disproves they are breaking the law, please post giving your sources.

 

I believe that you have to prove they are breaking the law, rather than them prove that they are not. Either way, section 106 clearly gives provision for Royal Mail to detain packets where there is duty payable. The handling fee is being asked for in addition to the duty. If they were asking for a handling fee on its own it would be a different matter but as there is duty to be paid they have the right to hold the item.

[Cracked_Chap]

Duh - yeh - but they hold it in lien even if you pay the Duty - we all know that by now.

[gezwee]

Still rude I see........ pity you have no etiquette, you may have received more welcoming posts from other members.

 

Instead of wasting another 2 years of your life stop using UK parcel carriers.

 

When you purchase from international suppliers, stipulate delivered to HMR&C facility only and effect the clearance and collection yourself.

 

The only reason I can see that you seem so hellbent on disputing paying the fee pre-delivery is because you are looking for a lawful dispute to not pay it post-delivery.

 

Do the donkey work yourself and effect clearance/collection in your own time.

 

You seem to have very little understanding of UK border controls at the moment so perhaps this will enlighten you.

 

Your comments are becoming increasingly inane and show your immaturity.

[Cracked_Chap]

I don't receive parcels from abroad, I have only had the experience once in 2007 and refused to pay the handling fee. I phoned the Royal Mail legal department and they eventually caved in and let me have the parcel for nothing, I didn't even pay the Duty!

 

I find it strange that you and some other trolls find it ok for a majority publicly owned company to continuously break the law when collecting their fee.

 

That is my point and the point of many others that have succeeded in challenging the payment.

 

If they want to hold a parcel in lien for their handling fee, then they should get the Government to change the law in their favour.

 

I suggest that the postage you pay to have your parcel delivered from abroad should have all postal fees (including handling charges) paid at the post office. All (non-EU) parcels go through the same Customs handling procedure regardless of whether duty is imposed on them or not.

 

Only those that have Duty applied are charged the handling fee, so it is a double punishment just because your parcel happens to have a value of £17 or over (roughly). It means that those with duty applied are paying for the handling fees of those that don't have it applied - an unfair system if you ask me.

 

I believe you are signing on as different users, giving it full troll factor, a nut with a compulsive oposition to sense

[rickyd]

gezwee - why on earth are you still responding to this muppet?

 

Thanks goodness there's no audio on here - can you imagine?

 

(ps I've told HMRC that he skipped paying duty in 2007 too but don't tell him! Sadly I think he'll get away with it on grounds of diminished responsibility)

[Cracked_Chap]

I didn't skip paying duty - Royal Mail paid it on my behalf -

[gezwee]

gezwee - why on earth are you still responding to this muppet?

 

Thanks goodness there's no audio on here - can you imagine?

 

 

I like muppets, takes my mind off the important things in life

 

Thinks Royal mail paid his duty now, their usual policy would be to effect drawback the minute they realised they had a nutter on their hands.......would lmfao if they ran an audit at the local clearing office in a couple of years time and set HMR&C on him.

 

Audio would be good, got this picture in my head of a window licking gimp who singlehandedly managed to find every troll on this site within 20 posts :lol:

 

Anyway, enough of laughing at the impaired...... time to move on to some meaningful conversation with those seagulls