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

[perplexity]

Since April 2005 "HMCE" is "HMRC".

 

This page on their web site explains exactly what a handling charge has to cover:

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/customs/post/paying-tax.htm

 

i.e.

 

• 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

[buzby]

As the recipient of the goods, it is not your decision I'm afraid. If you deliver to a bonded address, no tax or duty is paid at tbe point of delivery - only when it is removed from there. My goods were sent to the local airport bond, and I then had the choice of who to clear the items through nag I used my agent.

 

In the absence of the poster shipping with all taxes paid, all FOB items will be cleared by the delivery company as an obligement. If you don t want this you can try and get it delivered to a bonded address instead (but many will not accept a late redirection).

 

If someone imports, it is an arrogance to believe you are exempt from fees that every importer knows, simply because you've bought I on the Internet and feel you shoulnt have to pay anything! Or can choose how and where you will.

[woad]

I think my point is being missed here. I am not saying I shouldn't have to pay /anything/. I am saying I shouldnt have to pay above the duty owed.

 

Look, this is very simple. Do you pay an [additional] fee for the revenue to collect your taxes? No.

Do you pay a fee for someone else to pay your taxes to the revenue? No. (if you use an accountant, that is your decision. And in any case, you still pay direct to the revenue)

If I bring a bottle of whatever through airport customs, I pay duty on the bottle. I don't pay an additional fee to cover the collection of the duty.

 

In no case am I objecting to paying taxes or duty. I am not being charged an additional fee to cover the collection of taxation. I do *not* object to paying any duty due on anything I "import". I object to having to pay PF for doing HMRCs work. If HMRC want the revenue, then they should bear the cost of collection. Its called the cost of doing business, and if outweighs the profit (revenue raised) then it is pointless engaging in it. Rather like spending 147million to 'combat' 140million of fraudulent benefit claims.

 

So why the hell should we have to pay an additional fee covering the collection of the revenue, when HMRC are already paying PF to do this on their behalf? The analogy is as such: HMRC outsource the processing of personal taxation to (say) G4S. That includes the handling of queries, and the checking of a random 8000 returns from a designated group. G4S decide that for any taxation matter that does not fall under PAYE deductions (ie class 2 and 4 NICs, self-assesment, 'complex tax affairs'), you have to pay a "fee" for G4S to process these on behalf of HMRC... even better, when the revenue decides you under paid by £900, the bill is for £950 with the additional £50 being an "administrative charge for collecting and paying the tax due to HMRC on your behalf".

 

And when that happens, where do you draw the line?

[buzby]

Why should anyone have to pay for;

 

Higher invoice amounts because you are not paying by your supplier's 'preferred' method? Or

Penaties for bouncing a DD you had no direct control over? (by the requestor and your bank). Or

Not remembering to tell DVLA your not actually using your car? EVERY year? Or

A hundred other situations where the consumer has been manipulated to pay for things they never had to previously? This is the same situation. Of the example you gave, if /when PAYE is privatised, to save on staff, the cost will be borne by the taxpayer directly indirectly - all you are complaining about is that the collection is paid directly because it was previously hidden. And it is this fact I find unbelievable that you find so difficult to accept.

 

We have now all learned to mitigate these costs - either by complying and switching to DD, movin to a different supplier who doesn't make the charge, or has a lower one. RM charges the least, so not only is the argument spurious - but f they charged th same as gneiss competitors (as VAT will have to be added to the collection fee for he service) this reall is a caseof shooting yourself in the foot!

[Fenris]

Buzby, you're missing the point that woad is, very articulately, making; Royal Fail/ParcleFarce are charging for a "service" they've already been paid to supply!

 

I've said it before on here, I'm happy to pay any VAT on the items I buy from the States but I'm pig sick of paying RM's "fee".

 

Here's the thing, I collect action figures. I have to buy my Ghostbusters and Masters of the Universe action figures from a website which is located in America because I cannot buy them in the UK (save for eBay, but they've been imported from the same place and the price greately inflated.) . I pay the company to ship my figures from their warehouse (A) to my door (B). What actually happens is they ship from A, it goes to Germany and is then shipped out from there, going via customs (where, in over a year of buying these figures I have yet to have a box opened, so the excuse of taking an £8 fee for checking the contents of a package is, clearly, untrue.) it's then delivered to my "local" (16 miles away) Post Office where I have to drive to collect it and pay the "ransom" on it. So it's gone from A to B via XYZ! I've paid to have it delivered to me, not delivered to the PO most convinient to the postman!

 

This month I've paid £16 in Royal Fail fees. Usually I buy all my figures at once and have them all sent in one box so I only have to pay one fee, but this month it didn't work out that way, and both my packages got caught at customs. What pee's me off most is that it's inconsistant; whilst I paid two £8 fees on two packages that exceeded the £18 limit by about 50p each, a chap I know in London (who buys from the same website) had a large package of items totaling over £300 delivered straight to his door, sans Royal Fail and cusoms charges!

 

And this is a system you, Buzby, seem to think is fair?!

 

Toy collecting is my hobby and I'm being unfairly charged on my hobby through no fault of my own. Look at it this way: If you went to, say, Hobbycraft and you saw a cross-stich kit on the shelf for £10 and you then took it to the checkout and the girl said, "I've just got to collect that from the back. There's an £8.00 fee, OK?" You'd tell her, no, it's not OK! Wouldn't you? It's a fee for a "service" that you were given the option to refuse. When I buy an action figure from America I'm charged that fee without the option to say, "No, that fee's excessive and I do not wish to pay it". RM force me into paying it with the threat of sending my item back to America, so I'm left without the item(s) that is (are) legally mine! It all comes back to that "In lien" thing again and that's what I plan to challange RM on this year.

 

As far as I'm concerend the sooner Royal Fail are privitised the better it'll be for everyone; we'll likely get a better service with fewer missing parcels and this rediculous and excessive charging system would instantly become ilegal.

[postggj]

As far as I'm concerend the sooner Royal Fail are privitised the better it'll be for everyone; we'll likely get a better service with fewer missing parcels and this rediculous and excessive charging system would instantly become ilegal.

JUST LIKE THE GAS,ELECTRIC,RAIL AND JUST END UP WITH A CARTEL CHARGING WHAT THEY LIKE WITH TOOTHLESS REGULATORS AS IS THE NORM NOW,

[buzby]

Sorry, I'm not missing anything. Woad's point is noted but irrelevant for the reasons stated - it is now fully accepted that we are charged for what we use. Even if RM are paid a fee for collecting and administering the tax on C& Es behalf, are you saying this covers cash remitting, banking, cash transferring and all the piddling bits required to get the money to the government?

 

I go to my depot to collect a parcel, only to find I'm behind a queue of people bitching about the fee, trying to get my support whilst the queue gets even longer. Postage is right, it'll all be academic - privatised means well all pay VAT for their clearance and this will start at £20. My view is enjoy it whilst you can, as the writing is already on the wall.

[woad]

Why should anyone have to pay for;

 

Higher invoice amounts because you are not paying by your supplier's 'preferred' method? Or

Penaties for bouncing a DD you had no direct control over? (by the requestor and your bank). Or

Not remembering to tell DVLA your not actually using your car? EVERY year? Or

A hundred other situations where the consumer has been manipulated to pay for things they never had to previously? This is the same situation. Of the example you gave, if /when PAYE is privatised, to save on staff, the cost will be borne by the taxpayer directly indirectly - all you are complaining about is that the collection is paid directly because it was previously hidden. And it is this fact I find unbelievable that you find so difficult to accept.

 

We have now all learned to mitigate these costs - either by complying and switching to DD, movin to a different supplier who doesn't make the charge, or has a lower one. RM charges the least, so not only is the argument spurious - but f they charged th same as gneiss competitors (as VAT will have to be added to the collection fee for he service) this reall is a caseof shooting yourself in the foot!

 

 

You have provided the answer to your own questions... change supplier, or negotiate that you will pay the bill, but not an inflated charge for using cheque/cash/whatever. Or, you are within your rights to vary any terms of service - especially on a contract proposal, to add a charge for .

You do have control over a DD. The presenter must give you 28days notice of variation. Failure to do so means you contact the bank who immediately return the money to your account.

Not remembering to tell DVLA - well, frankly, that is your/mine/our fault!

 

Yes, I agree that there are other examples where the /consumer/ has been manipulated into paying. The difference here is that in those cases I am a consumer, and can vote with my wallet, or protest in other ways. This is different; it is an overlap between the Govt and a semi-private (or state-controlled) organisation. I have zero recourse, and it appears to have been sneaked in through Parliament.

 

SHOULD further parts of the taxation system be privatised/outsourced, I would hope that it receives much greater Parliamentary study, and very public scutiny; and that you do not blindly accept that shifting cost from Govt to the individua, or profiteering on the part of the outsourcer,l is necessary or acceptable.

[woad]

Sorry, I'm not missing anything. Woad's point is noted but irrelevant for the reasons stated - it is now fully accepted that we are charged for what we use. Even if RM are paid a fee for collecting and administering the tax on C& Es behalf, are you saying this covers cash remitting, banking, cash transferring and all the piddling bits required to get the money to the government?

 

I go to my depot to collect a parcel, only to find I'm behind a queue of people bitching about the fee, trying to get my support whilst the queue gets even longer. Postage is right, it'll all be academic - privatised means well all pay VAT for their clearance and this will start at £20. My view is enjoy it whilst you can, as the writing is already on the wall.

 

But we aren't using what we use! PF do NOT have to supply the service. When they negotiated the contract with HMRC they should have identified the costs, and charged HMRC accordingly. If there contract doesnt cover "cash remitting, banking, cash transferring and all the piddling bits required to get the money to the government", that is not my fault, or yours, it is *their* bid teams failure. I suspect that PF and HMRC came to a figure that was acceptable to each, and a "nod and a wink" that the contract cost would be lower if PF were allowed to charge Joe Public an "admin fee".

 

Here's a test. Go ask your MP if he is aware of the change, and his view on it, and whether he debated it in Parliament.

 

If you are perfectly happy to pay for a service that you have not asked for, then please allow me to send a few invoices. Prompt payment is appreciated. I take it that you run a business, and know the basic economics of costing a product or service?

[buzby]

You've also answered your own question but perhaps not in the way intended. When sold off, there will be less 'parliamentary interfefence' than at present. To believe there would be more flies in the face of current custom and practice. You may recall they've only now disclosed there is no requirement to hav a mascot featuring the monarch's head! But be answer is toll tell people they'd be silly to dispense with it. I'm all for the royals licencing their image - and leaving the purchaser of RM to decide whether they'll want to pay - I have a feeling they won't. Why a Dutch firm would want to eludes me, but a German firm might think it fun to continue.

 

Parliament will do nothing to devalue the money UK Plc will receive due to their hands-on interference. If involvement is minimal, then there s no hindrance to their plans to make money by charging the consumer more. The April 2011 price hikes are just preparing us for more!

 

It is YOU who are agreeing to the service fee by importing, if you dislike it, buy from within the EU, that is you choice. I've already explained how I import through my chosen importer service, and that at times RM is the cheapest depending on the value and type of goods.

 

I've enjoyed he debate but you are now simply going over ground already covered, and needs no repitition here. As to my MP, she's switch on and knows the score. There is no issue with the charges, but then they'd probably all say that, wouldn't they?

[Fenris]

As far as I'm concerend the sooner Royal Fail are privitised the better it'll be for everyone; we'll likely get a better service with fewer missing parcels and this rediculous and excessive charging system would instantly become ilegal.

JUST LIKE THE GAS,ELECTRIC,RAIL AND JUST END UP WITH A CARTEL CHARGING WHAT THEY LIKE WITH TOOTHLESS REGULATORS AS IS THE NORM NOW,

 

Really? You think SHOUTING is going to help get your point across? People who write in CAPITAL LETTERS should be intorduced to to an English textbook.

 

But to answer your... er, points raised:

 

1) Before British Gas was privitised we were all paying way over the odds for the fuel. Now, it could be argued that we're doing so again, but one has to take into account inflation. Just imagine how much we'd be paying for our gas now if there were no competition and British Gas were still the only supplier? They always were able to put any price on their product and I can't see how not privitising it would have made a jot of difference. At least now we, as customers, have a choice as to whom we dicide to buy our utilities from. We didn't have that option before privitisation. You really think that was a good thing? That we could only buy our gas from one company, thus holding us all to ransom with their cries of, "Well, if you won't buy from us who're you going to buy from?" Honestly? If you think it was better when BG had a monopoly, well...

 

2) For Electric see above.

 

3) British Rail was rubbish before the network was privitised. It could be argued that the companies who bought British Rail had a lot to do before getting it to the level we have today... which is still rubbish! See my point #1 regarding the cost; if it were still British Rail we'd still all be paying sky-high prices for a pathetic service.

 

Here's a thought: BUPA is a privite company. I remember when my Dad had an operation on BUPA; he was well cared for and the room (yes, room, not dingy bed in the corner of a filthy room with 40 other people in it!) was clean and smelled pleasent. You don't get that with the state run NHS now, do you? Just imagine how well run a privite RM will function? We might actually get the items people send to us! Hell, we might even get them in the timescale RM currently suggest we should be getting them! Post Offices might be clean and smell of Pine, as opposed to dirty and smelling of... not Pine! Staff might take a little pride in their work and not just dupm mail out on the porch because they can't be bothered to push it through the letter box. We might do away with Ninja delivery men, who manage to shove a card through your box ten seconds after pulling up at the end of your drive! I could go on, but you don't like competition or well run organisations so I fail to see why I should bother.

 

It is YOU who are agreeing to the service fee by importing, if you dislike it, buy from within the EU, that is you choice. I've already explained how I import through my chosen importer service, and that at times RM is the cheapest depending on the value and type of goods.

 

That has got to be the dummest thing you've said thus far buzby. I've already stipulated that I can't buy the items I'm getting from the US anywhere but the US, but if I don't like the RM "fee" I should buy within the EU?

 

From what you're writing I get the feeling you're importing to sell on to consumers. Now I can see why you're not concerend by these fees; you can pass them on to your customers. Which is all well and good... for you. You try getting charges £8 per month every month for a year on personal items and then come back on here and tell me that you're happy with paying that.

[buzby]

Ferris, you're just being dim! If you insist in buying from the US, then use an importer whose rates you find agreeable, not belly-ache abou the fees you have to pay. Your feeling is also wrong, I don't deal with consumers in the sense you mean. But in addition to knowing how to spell 'dumb', I can also work out where the best deal and route to receive my goods tax paid.

 

Something that appears to eluded you!

[Fenris]

Ferris, you're just being dim! If you insist in buying from the US, then use an importer whose rates you find agreeable, not belly-ache abou the fees you have to pay. Your feeling is also wrong, I don't deal with consumers in the sense you mean. But in addition to knowing how to spell 'dumb', I can also work out where the best deal and route to receive my goods tax paid.

 

Something that appears to eluded you!

 

Yeah, you may be able to spell "dumb" but that comment's really rich coming from someone who manages to miss the "T" off of "the" in half his posts! Most of your posts are unreadable because you miss out letters left, right and centre. People in glass houses...

 

And I'm really not sure how much simpler I can make this for you: I buy goods from a website in America and they ship them to me. Unfortunately that means that, once they enter the UK they're handled by Royal Fail. I have no control over that. This fact seems to elude you. You're quick to throw stones but slow on the uptake when someone points out a simple fact.

 

And it's "...apperars to have eluded you" or "...appears to elude you". If you're going to try and insult someone, have the good grace to do it properly, eh?

[buzby]

Actually, I use an iPod and sometimes cannot capture any typos - but that's the difference typos Vs mis-spelling, I'm not dumb if I can spell - If you don't show respect, you don't get any back!

 

You've also missed where I explained how to avoid using RM clearance, letting you pay (probably more) by using your own import agent. Where you live is of no consequence.

[Fenris]

Actually, I use an iPod and sometimes cannot capture any typos - but that's the difference typos Vs mis-spelling, I'm not dumb if I can spell - If you don't show respect, you don't get any back!

 

You've also missed where I explained how to avoid using RM clearance, letting you pay (probably more) by using your own import agent. Where you live is of no consequence.

 

You're the one doing all the muck chucking sunshine, so don't give the respect speech! You've no clue how to treat people and you've shown that time and again in this one thread. I don't know what you mean by "I'm not dumb if I can spell". The point is, you can't but you're happy to pick up on others when they've misspelled something, aren't you? I'm mildly dislexic, but I still make an effort. Ipod, or no, it's no excuse for making apparent someone else's mistakes when you're clearly lacking in writing skills yourself.

 

I may well have missed your post regaring how to avoid RM's clearance fees; as I said in my first post in this thread (which you clearly missed) I haven't read the whole thread as there was too much of this kind of tit-for-tat in the preceding pages, something I have little interest in reading. The only thing I'm really interested in is stopping RM from taking these extortionate "charges" from me every month. You can try and stick up for RM as much as you like, but these charges far outweigh any actuall outgoings RM pay on my behalf (not that I've ever asked, nor given them permission, to do so). They don't even deliver the parcel to my door, I have to make a 32 mile round trip to collect it from town. It's just another way for them to take money from their customers in an underhand way. And it proves that the carges are dodgy as cactus kid got a refund after taking them to Court! RM wouldn't have settled before the Court date if they thought the charges were fair and legal, would they?

 

But you, buzby, keep ignoring these facts and keep sticking up for RM. Do you, perchance, work for them? Can't see why you'd so vehemently defend them otherwise.

 

I await your next insult!

[HSBCrusher]

hello folks.

 

if you cant post in a civil manner, then please don't post.

[buzby]

Afraid you're really getting nowhere - by all means, ignore the threat then jump in with ill-informed musings, as if there are any facts going - you've already proved you've missed them.

 

The biggest laugh of which you believe that I'm somehow sticking up for RM. i'm not, they're the least worst but cheapest - and that'll be gone soon anyway. As for why RM settle, have YOU ever taken them to court? I have. I lost, but I cost them over £4k in defence costs over three days AND they never even got their capped costs which they applied for! so before talking more cobblers, think on this - if it costs RM £500 minimum to get a win in Court, or rollover and pay what the claimant asks - do you think that's a 'win'? Of course it isn't - only another money saving enterprise. They're not going to fight over a principle (which I was, as it cost me nowt).

 

As for 'working for them?' I couldn't take he drop in salary. But keep on believing what you will. VAT on RM services will be the next hike you'll see (because they are the only firm who don't charge for it as they are exempt).

 

Come the sell off, just wait for parcels to be billed with VAT at 20% followed by letter post. If you don't like paying for services now, just wait for the privatised RM where you'll pay tax on everything.

 

Who will you complain to then?

[Fenris]

Afraid you're really getting nowhere

 

You're not wrong! I simply can't make my arguments any plainer for you. Several people have pointed out valid points to you and your only argument seems to be, "It's the cheapest and thing's are only going to get worse" but you provide no further details or evidence to back up your points. And then you feel the need to call me ill informed for posting facts!

 

by all means, ignore the threat then jump in with ill-informed musings, as if there are any facts going - you've already proved you've missed them.

 

What threat? Who's making threats? Enlighten me, what've I missed? The same thing you said I'd missed previously and then failed to back up with a link, or something else that would have proven your point?

 

The biggest laugh of which you believe that I'm somehow sticking up for RM. i'm not, they're the least worst but cheapest - and that'll be gone soon anyway. As for why RM settle, have YOU ever taken them to court? I have. I lost, but I cost them over £4k in defence costs over three days AND they never even got their capped costs which they applied for! so before talking more cobblers, think on this - if it costs RM £500 minimum to get a win in Court, or rollover and pay what the claimant asks - do you think that's a 'win'? Of course it isn't - only another money saving enterprise. They're not going to fight over a principle (which I was, as it cost me nowt).

 

As for 'working for them?' I couldn't take he drop in salary. But keep on believing what you will. VAT on RM services will be the next hike you'll see (because they are the only firm who don't charge for it as they are exempt).

 

Come the sell off, just wait for parcels to be billed with VAT at 20% followed by letter post. If you don't like paying for services now, just wait for the privatised RM where you'll pay tax on everything.

 

Who will you complain to then?

 

There you go folks, someone who doesn't understand irony!

 

Royal Mail charge VAT on most of their services, it's only 1st, 2nd and Standard Parcels that are "exempt". Not that you'd know it for the price we pay for their abysmal service. If paying 20% VAT means my parcel turns up in the condition it was sent, I'll be more than happy to pay it! As it currently stands I can send a parcel via Parcel Monkey (DHL, City Link etc.) for less money, inclusive of VAT, than I can via Standard Parcels with the same amount of likelyhood that it'll get there in one piece. So, currently, all I'm getting VAT free are two sub-standard postal services.

 

And again, you're completely missing the point! I'm more than happy to pay for a service I have instructed to be carried out on my behalf! Why do you find this concept so difficult to understand?

 

I look forward to the day when RM are held to account and those of us who actually understand what's going on here, like myself, woad and cactus kid, can put this to bed once and for all.

 

@ The Mods: Please don't edit out ligitimate parts of my post. I was making an anology, not being offensive! I have removed your "edited" statement but have left out my original comment for the sake of keeping the piece.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Fenris
see post 316

[buzby]

Irony? Sarcasm more like! Anyhoo - RM services as defined by their Act of Parliament are VAT exempt. I've been a customer of RM for a very long time and never had a VAT invoice from them, so do explain what all these services they provide that carry VAT. Even my PO Box is exempt!

 

In the meantime, RM will be called to account when they lose Crown Immunity - and a level playing field arrives for the first time.

[Fenris]

Irony? Sarcasm more like!

 

Yes, that was sarcasm, the previous comment was ironic. Not my fault you can't tell one from the other!

 

Anyhoo - RM services as defined by their Act of Parliament are VAT exempt. I've been a customer of RM for a very long time and never had a VAT invoice from them, so do explain what all these services they provide that carry VAT. Even my PO Box is exempt!

 

In the meantime, RM will be called to account when they lose Crown Immunity - and a level playing field arrives for the first time.

 

No, they're not. You keep saying you know this, that and the other about RM, but you must have missed the Court case, because only certain services are currently exempt. As of 31st January 2011 VAT will be added to more services.

 

From their website:

 

Summary

 

These are some of the services we will charge VAT on:

 

Express and Tracked services

 

* Special Delivery™ 9.00a.m. Stamp, Franking and Account

* Special Delivery™ Next Day Account

* Royal Mail Tracked® and Tracked™ Next Day

* Royal Mail Sameday®

 

International Services (VAT will only be added to EU destinations)

 

* International Contract Services

* International Airsure®

* International Admail and Admail Packets

* International Redirections

 

Advertising, Catalogues and Magazine Services

 

* Big Book

* Royal Mail Heavyweight

* Mailmedia®

 

Unaddressed Mail

 

* Door to Door

 

Receiving and Managing Mail Services

 

* Keepsafe™

* Timed Delivery

* Early Extraction™

* Early Collect™

* Selectapost™

 

Other Services

 

* Business Mail Secure

* Admail

* Local Collect

* Callers Services

* Rural Deliveries

* Rural Carriage of Goods

 

Contract Services

 

* Pre-Sorted Delivery

* Mailroom Management

* Mailroom Consulting Services

* Royal Mail Relay®

 

These are some of the services that remain exempt from VAT

 

UK Services

 

* First and Second Class (Stamped, Franked and PPI)

* Special Delivery™ Next Day (Stamped and Franked)

* Standard parcels

* Recorded Signed For™

* Cleanmail®, Cleanmail® Plus and Cleanmail® Advance

* Mailsort® (70, 120, 700 and 1400)

* Walksort®

* Presstream®

* Sustainable® Mail

 

As for being invoiced, you've just proven the point woad, cactus kid and I have been trying to make! We don't get invoiced for the £8 fee but they insist we pay it anyway!

 

You don't get invoiced for VAT when you buy a packet of biscuits, you don't get invoiced for VAT when you buy a new TV, or Blu-Ray player, you don't get invoiced for VAT when you buy a DVD, the VAT in included in the price you pay at POS and always has been. Why would you expect Royal Mail to invoice you for VAT? Your PO Box is, most likely, not exempt, you just don't see the VAT because it's included in the price you pay as it is with everything that attracts VAT.

 

For the sake of interest, here's a full list of all RM services that will attract VAT from the end of next month:

 

The following products/services will be liable to VAT from 31 January 2011:

Admail

Application of Indicia

Archiving

Bespokes

Big Book

Business Collections (paid for)

Business Mail Secure

Business Reply Service (International)

Callers Service

Calling for Priority Mail

Collection from Locked Private Posting box (weekends)

Collection from Private Posting Box

Courier Service (Bespoke)

Departmental Billing

Diversion (Delivery at Another Address)

Docket Completion

Document Imaging

Door to Door

Early Collect

Early Extraction

Election Mail – constituency communications

Evening Delivery – Trial

Floor fees

Government Postage – By Elections

Government Postage – European Elections

Government Postage – General Elections

International Contract Service

(changes to this service will be published in December)

Keepsafe (Business and Social)

Large Mail Order Returns

Large Mail Order Returns 2nd Class

Local Collect

Mail Disguising

Mail Opening

Mailmedia

Mailroom Accreditation

Mailroom Audit

Mailroom Consultancy

Mailroom Healthcheck

Mailroom Management Services

Paper Posting Cheque Admin Charge

PO Locked Boxes

Postal Voting

Pouch Services

Pre-sorted Delivery

Private Boxes – Early Collection

Private Boxes – Night-time Collection

Private Boxes (collections from post boxes and private boxes not owned by Royal Mail)

Private Posting Box Collections

Red Tag

Redirections (International)

Redirections FastTrack

Rental of Post Boxes

Retail Smilers

Retention of Mail (Business Retentions only)

RM Heavyweight

RM Relay

Royal Mail Tracked

Royal Mail Tracked Next Day

Rural Newspaper Distribution Service

Sale of Post Boxes

Secure Card Destruction

Secure Mail Opening

Secure Mail Screening

Selectapost

SmartStamp subscription fee

Special Delivery 9am

Special Delivery 9am Pre-paid Stationery

Special Delivery Consequential Loss

Special Delivery Next Day (on Account)

Special Delivery Saturday Guarantee

Special Delivery with Business Response items

Timed Delivery

Spring Services:

Mailmedia

Special Delivery

Business Reply

Admail

Door to Door

Big Book

Tracked

 

The following services are not liable to VAT if they are purchased on their own, but will become liable to VAT if the

“enhancement” listed is purchased at the same time.

 

Special Delivery Next Day (Stamped and Franked mail) when bought with,

- Saturday Guarantee

- Consequential loss

 

Standard Parcels when bought with,

- Additional compensation

 

International airmail (to EU countries) when bought with,

- Airsure

 

Redirections when you pay for,

- Fastrack fee

 

International Signed For when bought with,

- Advice of Delivery

 

As you can see, PO Boxes are mentioned. I don't know which kind you have, but it's clear to me that PO Boxes of the kind listed are not VAT exempt.

 

Once the RM has been privitised they will be held to account and their underhand practices will be done away with. No other postal carrier can hold goods in lien of payment, even the likes of DHL and UPS have to deliver the goods with an invoice for the VAT and their fee. Only RM shirk this rule and once they become a fully privite company they'll have nowhere to hide from the law and no little loopholes to take advantage of.

[buzby]

Of course VAT is being added next year! You are talking about an event that takes place next year. As it stands there is NO VAT, so my comments are perfectly accurate. If you want to discuss your importation problems in the future, say so. Yet you seem to believe that is is something that needs 'fixed' yet you are now aware it will cost you even more, something hat has been pointed out repeatedly since the start of the thread.

 

The cost of importing will become higher as a result, and the service provided fully taxable as a service supplied to an end user. All part of the great levelling of a playing field that discriminates, not against the consumer - but it's competitors!

 

And with this, they will become accountable fully for their actions. However, if you are suggesting this new company will deliver the goods regardless with an invoice to pay the tax and duty at your convenience you'll be disappointed big time. Parcels will be held as security against payment as only this keeps accounting simple.

[barracad]

As you can see, PO Boxes are mentioned.

 

No they're not.

[Fenris]

Of course VAT is being added next year! You are talking about an event that takes place next year. As it stands there is NO VAT, so my comments are perfectly accurate. If you want to discuss your importation problems in the future, say so. Yet you seem to believe that is is something that needs 'fixed' yet you are now aware it will cost you even more, something hat has been pointed out repeatedly since the start of the thread.

 

The cost of importing will become higher as a result, and the service provided fully taxable as a service supplied to an end user. All part of the great levelling of a playing field that discriminates, not against the consumer - but it's competitors!

 

And with this, they will become accountable fully for their actions. However, if you are suggesting this new company will deliver the goods regardless with an invoice to pay the tax and duty at your convenience you'll be disappointed big time. Parcels will be held as security against payment as only this keeps accounting simple.

 

Wow! Just wow! You've not read my post at all have you? They are already charging VAT on most of their services! I put the long list of services they'll be charging for next year to complete the post! Go back and reread the whole thing and not just the bits you think I've gotten wrong. You're just making yourself look foolish by picking points and trying to turn them around to look like I've written something I haven't.

 

Privite companies are not allowed, by law, to hold mail in lien of payment. That means they cannot hold your parcel to ransom! No-one else does this. It's only RM that do and they can only get away with it because they play on people's fears! Once they're fully privitised they won't be able to hide.

 

I'm just going around in circles with you, you have no concept of the law and you clearly don't read my posts. I'm not going to reply to your posts any more as you seem just to be here to improve your post count. You have no valid arguments, your "facts" are outdated and incorrect and your consumer law leaves a lot to be desired.

 

This is supposed to a forum where people can come and ask advice on consumer issues. In this case it's a place to be flamed and insulted by one person who thinks he knows everything about everything but has proven he knows nothing. Yes buzby, to make it clear to you, I'm talking about you! Just to clarify, as you seem to have difficulty reading my posts!

 

No they're not.

 

Yes, they are. I suggest you reread the list.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Fenris

[barracad]

They are already charging VAT on most of their services!

 

No they're not. Some, yes - but definitely not most. The majority of services are exempt from VAT currently, although this is changing in the very near future as you have already highlighted.

 

 

Yes, they are. I suggest you reread the list.

 

No they're not. I've read the list several times, suggest you read the list. PO Boxes are not mentioned, save for locked boxes which whilst technically still PO Boxes are in fact a different service/product.

[hinge]

I hate to reopen this but its been a good read.

 

But my question is if Parcelforce are adding charges for contracts that are not in place,

Can we add our own fee for collecting or a fee for admin for them cashing our cheques.