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

[cactuskid]

It seems we are dealing with different tax issues because my legal challenge against parcelforce is related to personal goods sent from Canada where I was charged according to the value declared for insurance purposes. When I challenged the charge I was told to go to a VAT tribunal. Upon requesting a VAT tribunal I was told it was not possible because I was not VAT registered.

 

So I will not bother this thread any longer

 

Chris

[buzby]

The value of personal goods coming in from Canada is 'NIL' because they are secondhand. You insure them for the value it will take to replace them if lost in transit, including any tax. THe two items are not linked. You are correct, you could not take it to a VAT Tribunal, but this was a bum steer anyway - as your complaint to the SENDING carrier for non delivery is where you claim, not Parcelforce, who do not operate in Canada. (As far as I'm aware).

[cactuskid]

there is no way to declare second hand goods on the declaration form and no way to recover the charge because not VAT registered. The options on the declaration form are 'Gift', 'Document' and 'Sample' if applicable

[buzby]

It would be 'Gift' that is selected in this case (if no other option is available), as Documents and Samples are routinely used by business users.

[cactuskid]

Gifts are liable to a VAT charge if the declared value (or insurance value) exceeds £40.

[buzby]

Gifts ard liable for dury AND VAT, and you state there was no option to select NIL value for previously-owned goods.

[baptiste]

It isn't a criminal act. You are reading the folklore not the actuality.

83 Interfering with the mail: postal operators

 

(1) A person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator commits an offence if, contrary to his duty and without reasonable excuse, he—

(a) intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post,

 

 

I also pulled up PF on this point, odd that they didn't say that it wasn't an offence, they gave in and asked what depot I'd had problems with, and said that they would edliver the item if I paid the VAT.

 

Invoicing invariably adds more to the cost, as it would. Paying on-the-hoof usually results in the cheapest option. Even at £13-odd, it is still less than the competition!

 

I don't think there is any 'competition' as the other companies you mention are couriers, and I really don't think PF would get away with charging anymore than they currently do.

[buzby]

Mail has to be wholly handled by Royal Mail in order to benefit from this 'intentional delay'. Also, are you seriously suggesting they cannot open international mails to assess contraband or duty?

[cactuskid]

Postal Services Act 2000

 

105(3) Duties (whether of customs or excise) charged on imported goods or other charges payable in respect of postal packets to which this section applies (whether payable to a postal operator or to a foreign administration) may be recovered by the postal operator concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him

PF can recover the charges and fees via civil recovery (if they are not paid). It implies the fact that they cannot hold the parcel pending payment for either duty or fees

--------------------------------------->

 

Postal Services Act 2000

 

105(2) The Treasury, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and the Secretary of State, may make regulations for—

©enabling persons engaged in the business of a postal operator to perform for the purposes of those enactments and otherwise all or any of the duties of the importer, exporter or person removing the goods,

PF are allowed to perform the duties of the importer or person removing the goods. But what if the person removing the goods has no duties required to perform? Notice that this section does not imply anything about PF having any affiliation with HMRC, it merely says they can perform the importers duties, not HMRC's duties!

--------------------------------------->

 

VAT Act 1994

 

3 Taxable persons and registration (1) A person is a taxable person for the purposes of this Act while he is, or is required to be, registered under this Act.

If i am not registered under that act then there are no duties for PF to perform on my behalf

------------------------------------->

 

Postal Services Act 2000

 

83.— (1) A person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator commits an offence if, contrary to his duty and without reasonable excuse, he—

(a)

intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or

 

(b)

intentionally opens a mail-bag.

 

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying or opening of a postal packet or the opening of a mail-bag under the authority of—

(a)

this Act or any other enactment (including, in particular, in pursuance of a warrant issued under any other enactment), or

 

(b)

any directly applicable Community provision.

In this section it is an offense to hinder or open mail without authority from an act that allows them to do so. So where is the act that allows them to do so?

-------------------------------------->

 

What I am saying here in general with these laws is that PF are saying they are acting as HMRC agents legally but without any act or regulation proof. The law does say they can act on behalf of the importer but not HMRC (BIG DIFFERENCE!). Once they have acted on behalf of the importer they can only recover the money by civil debt recovery, but that is only subject to the money being owed in the first place. If you are not VAT registered then PF have no duties to perform on your behalf. PF by law may pay your duties on your behalf then worry about getting the money back by civil means.

 

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SAYS PARCELFORCE ARE ALLOWED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE TAX MAN BY SEIZING GOODS UNTIL THEY ARE PAID FOR AND OPENING MAIL ETC.

 

Maybe there is some loophole that allows PF to have postal employees that work part time for HMRC in the PF building? Even if that is the case, PF are still unable to hold the parcel pending payment because that part is done by PF who are not HMRC.

 

Unless someone can show me the law as requested above then it looks like we have all been taken for mugs for a long time.

 

Chris

[cactuskid]

Btw, if the Postal Packets (Customs and Excise) Regulations 1986 allows PF to act on behalf of HMRC then can someone please show me that regulation? It seems to have disapeared off the face of the earth!

 

Chris

[buzby]

No 'regulation' is required, as PF is C&E' s agent in the process of clearance. This has been so for at least 40 years to my knowledge. As to their right to civil recovery for taxes not paid, this did not work as it meant staff could avoid the admin, deliver the parcel and say they did not get paid. This results in the previously assessed amount being taken off the total PF remits to the Govt, leaving them to pursue it, which of course they have neither the manpower or facilities to to on the scale required on a national basis. Holding on to the goods pending payment is seen as a far more effective method of being paid, and regardless of who came up with the idea, would certainly NOT be objected to by C&E if it meant they got they revenue they were due.

 

Perhaps you should investigate what is meant by 'seizure' when goods are in this state, they are not released, they are destroyed. They most certainly are not held pending payment od tax. I realise this does not suit you purposes or feelings of injustice, but you arguments are flawed and will not make much headway. If you don't like what they do. Move abroad to a different administration, or don't import. This way you can avoid the situation you complain so vociferously about.

 

Try your MP if you wish to change things, but until then, you'll be on a hiding to nothing.

[dragonkeeper]

buzby it's a begger when they keep quoting the same info in a different manner,

all I can is that you must be a very patient person

 

dk

[baptiste]

Mail has to be wholly handled by Royal Mail in order to benefit from this 'intentional delay'. Also, are you seriously suggesting they cannot open international mails to assess contraband or duty?

 

er, no I'm not, I just quoted the relevant section, are you seriously suggesting that you don't understand how to extract the relevant part?

 

buzby it's a begger when they keep quoting the same info in a different manner,

all I can is that you must be a very patient person

 

dk

 

What? people are wrong to quote the law that's the basis of the whole argument? I'm hearing nothing new from either of you two in answer to cactuskid's points. In fact you seem to be desparately trying to make irrelevant points and to confuse people.

 

Now why would you do that, what exactly is your aim, we know what cactuskid's aim is, what are you trying to do?

[buzby]

You are at liberty to interpret it any way you like. Just because YOU think it has a particular interpretation don't mean it has. That remit has been given to the judges. I've explained why you need to do to address this imagined anomaly. However as I've been importing items since 1970, and know how it works in practice, I do what I can to minimize my exposure to costs or those services/couriers that provide a good ANC cost effective service.

 

What I don't do is look at the letter of the law ant try to mould it into my understanding of what SHOULD be happening. That is a recipe for insanity. Do you seriously believe you are the first to be aggrieved at this situation, and nobody has done anything about it? By all means huff and puff, but we both know where the govt is involved you'll either need a lot of money or a list of MPs to assist. Otherwise, it's a fart in a thunderstorm, and nobody will be any the wiser.

[cactuskid]

In a law court they assess points of law, so I am relying on points of law. Like I said before, present me with the law (statute/regulation etc) that forces PF to act as HMRC agent and you win the argument without quible. I will also pull out of my civil claim against PF is someone presents me with that law.

 

PF's main defense is that the Postal Packets Regulations 1986 'allow' them to act on behalf of HMRC. Send me a link to that statute please or at least show me proof that it is in the statute database.

 

Chris

[buzby]

Where is this 'law court'? Points of law are not assessed, they are followed to the letter. any ambiguity is then at e discretion of the judge to make, and he can be overruled by a higher court if need be.

 

For your next point, I'm not hot enemy. As C&E to provide proof thar PF is acting as their agent. It is their game, and their ball - something you don't seem to realise? As for PFs assertions why not ask them to provide the proof you seem to need? For the record, the Postal Packets regulations won't have what you are looking for, try looking at something more relevantt, like the Customs Regulations on the importation of goods within GB & Northern Ireland, which takes precedence.

 

As I cannot usefully add anything further. I've reached the end of my attempts to guide you. Have fun.

 

You ask everyone but the actual people best placed to provide you with answers to your queries!

[cactuskid]

PF have used the Postal Packet Regulations 1986 and Postal Services Act 2000 in their defense so it is most relevant, but I will check out the Customs Regulations that you refer to also thanks.

 

Chris

[cactuskid]

btw, PF also use regulation 106 of the Postal Services Act 2000 to defend their right to charge but in their defense claim they fail to mention regulation 106 relates to packets containing contraband ?! It is all just very irregular and I dont like it. Maybe I should attempt to gain a copy of the 1986 regulations directly from the stationers.

 

106. Power to detain postal packets containing contraband.

(1) A postal operator may—

(a) detain any postal packet if he suspects that it may contain relevant goods,

 

(b) forward any packet so detained to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

 

 

 

(2) In this section “relevant goods” means—

(a) any goods chargeable with any duty charged on imported goods (whether a customs or an excise duty) which has not been paid or secured, or

 

(b) any goods in the course of importation, exportation or removal into or out of the United Kingdom contrary to any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force by virtue of any enactment.

 

 

(3) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to section 105.

 

 

(4) The Commissioners may open and examine any postal packet forwarded to them under this section—

(a) in the presence of the person to whom the packet is addressed, or

 

(b) where the address on the packet is outside the United Kingdom or where subsection (5) applies, in the absence of that person.

 

 

 

(5) This subsection applies where—

(a) the Commissioners have—

 

(i) left at the address on the packet notice requiring the attendance of the person concerned, or

(ii) forwarded such notice by post to that address, and

 

(b) the addressee fails to attend.

 

 

 

(6) If the Commissioners find any relevant goods on opening and examining a postal packet under this section, they may detain the packet and its contents for the purpose of taking proceedings in relation to them.

 

(7) If the Commissioners do not find any relevant goods on opening and examining a postal packet under this section, they shall—

(a) deliver the packet to the addressee upon his paying any postage and other sums chargeable on it, or

 

(b) if he is absent, forward the packet to him by post.

 

 

Chris

[baptiste]

You are at liberty to interpret it any way you like. Just because YOU think it has a particular interpretation don't mean it has. That remit has been given to the judges. I've explained why you need to do to address this imagined anomaly. However as I've been importing items since 1970, and know how it works in practice, I do what I can to minimize my exposure to costs or those services/couriers that provide a good ANC cost effective service.

 

What I don't do is look at the letter of the law ant try to mould it into my understanding of what SHOULD be happening. That is a recipe for insanity. Do you seriously believe you are the first to be aggrieved at this situation, and nobody has done anything about it? By all means huff and puff, but we both know where the govt is involved you'll either need a lot of money or a list of MPs to assist. Otherwise, it's a fart in a thunderstorm, and nobody will be any the wiser.

 

I can clearly see and follow the logic of Cactuskid's interpretation of the law, Consumer Direct also agree that this interpretation may be correct, and it seems that PF do too, as they provided no alternative when I presented it to them, and have admitted as much to others (you will now claim that this hasn't happened and ask for details, when these are provided you will ignore them and again try to claim that it's everyone else who is interpreting the law incorrectly).

 

So, no 'imagined anomally', I'm really not sure why you keep on trying to make out there is one, could it be that you are trying to confuse people?

[buzby]

(1) PF use the powers granted to them. However, C&E have powers that take precedence, not just postally but for any good arriving within GB&NI borders, the administration of this are covered by other Acts. Since PF are a Royal Mail company, their interpretation - when questioned - will be based only on that individuals uinderstanding or interpretation of the Act.

 

(2) As for the S 106 provided above - is completely, totally an irrelevance. If you are unsure what 'contraband' is, I suggest you look it up. This refers to items that CANNOT be legally imported. So if PF are using this as their juistification, this is flawed, but I do not beleive they would be stupid enough to try!

 

(3) As for me confusing people? I must be doing my job then of educating, as the process IS complex, but not helped when irrelevances are brought it in a vain hope of point scoring (as why not quote something relevant?).

[cactuskid]

There should not be any argument over this issue unless it is a challenge on fairness. There is obviously a legal mess happening here otherwise it would not be bothering people so much i.e. ther is no smoke without fire.

 

Like I said before, all that is needed to solve this issue is a copy of Postal Packet Regulations 1986. Personally I think that is where the problem lay because a regulation written in 1986 is not supported by an act written in 2000 (Postal Services Act 2000) (24 years prior)! The Postal Packet Regulations 1986 seems to have just disapeared off the face of the earth so there is no way to prove it is the regulation linked to Postal Services Act 2000.

 

Chris

[buzby]

Fairness? Is this a playground debate? Surely if this is trotted out as justification, the game is over? Hardly anything is fair, but it most certainly will be legal. We've lost the presumption of innocence, and a whole raft of things that to any right-thinking resident would stand amazed at how our 'rights' have been eroded. This is par for the course. You work within it until it chains or becomes too onerous. IF it can be changed with a simple vote (like ID cards) great But this argument is really about people who don't want to pay their customs agent for work done to clear their goods into the UK.

 

Therefore I have no sympathy as they imported without knowing the process. Other countries simply don't deliver and you don't even get an opportunity of claiming your goods at all (like Itsly) and that is in the EU!

[cactuskid]

Strange how everything I write gets interpreted wrongly just to produce an argument. I wont repeat my comment

[buzby]

Wrongly? To suggest that the defining statute was the PPR alone was nonsensical, is that better? I was trying to gloss over this but if you want it said, there it is.

 

Acts of Parliament can cover a variety of similar issues AND be contradictory. When judicial decisions are made, ALL the relevant acts are read and the defining principle defined from all of them ( if at all possible).

[cactuskid]

The Postal Packet Regulations 1986 is key to this problem. A law cannot be accepted or disputed if nobody has a copy of it. Does anyone have a copy of The Postal Packet Regulations 1986 ? Lots of people quoting from it especially PF but no sign of the regulation itself

 

Chris