DHL invoicing me for VAT + admin fee "paid on my behalf"...?

[Conniff]

Post #3 back in 2012 says:

 

 

Royal Mail refuse to deliver until you have paid these fees..

[MaximusMeridius]

Correct Conniff

 

In fact from my experiance they won`t deliver at all, you have to go to a main depot to pay and collect. I don`t mind paying these extra costs but I paid for the item to be delivered to my door, not to the main depot which consists of a 10mile round trip and has to be collected between the hours of 09.30-15.30.

[Conniff]

This could be the fault of the seller. There should be a warning that 'charges or duty may be payable' on the site you purchased from.

[MaximusMeridius]

No fault of the seller, I know when something I buy (usually from U.S.A) will/might get pulled by customs.

 

The point i,m trying to make is a courier will deliver to your door then invoice you, I have no problem with that.

 

My problem is with Royal Mail who make you collect your parcel from a depot even though I have paid for it to be delivered to my door, I understand that the postman cannot be expected to collect Custom payments when delivering parcesl but there should be a way of paying the money due, by phone or online. When they receive money then they can deliver the parcel to my door which is what they were paid/contracted to do.

 

I don`t lay awake thinking about this, it`s just something that used to annoy me, I have not bought anything from the States for a while so things may of changed with Royal Mail?

[Conniff]

Probably because they have been caught before. Have delivered parcels and sent a bill and then not been paid.

 

 

Mistrust is the way the world is turning unfortunately

[seylectric]

I came here looking for comments on exactly the same question as the OP posted, and I agree with him 100%. I think a lot of people are missing the point here. That the import duty is payable is not in question.

 

The question is, what legal right does a company have to pay a bill on your behalf then invoice you for it? The answer is they don't have any legal right.

 

It is completely irrelevant if the duty is due or not, if it is good value or not, if they are offering you a service or not, the point is you have no contract with them and you are effectively being forced to pay a fee to a company for a service you did not ask for. Incidentally I realise this is an old thread but DHL now charge £10, unless it drops to £5 for a lower amount of duty.

 

What if you had taken your car to a garage for a service, then they give you a £50 bill for the MOT after they tell you that they noticed the MOT was due so they MOT'd the car for you, or they noticed your tyres were worn so they replaced them? Is there any difference?

 

The point is this can not possibly be legally binding because there is no contract between you and the carrier. Any fees you owe for import duty are nothing to do with DHL or any other courier.

 

I successfully did a chargeback from Royal Mail for such a bill because apart from the fact that I hadn't asked them to pay anything on my behalf, I argued that there was no contract, that I was not liable for their admin fee, that they withheld my goods illegally and that the express service I had for was not completed because they had held the goods pending payment.

 

 

Tip: If your goods are being handled by Royal Mail this end and you have the tracking details, and are happy to pay, ringing them and paying by card saves you waiting for the bill to arrive and can get your goods to you 2-3 days earlier.

 

Sounds as if you were a little unlucky too, OP - Duty under £9 isn't collected.

[BazzaS]

I came here looking for comments on exactly the same question as the OP posted, and I agree with him 100%. I think a lot of people are missing the point here. That the import duty is payable is not in question.

 

The question is, what legal right does a company have to pay a bill on your behalf then invoice you for it? The answer is they don't have any legal right.

 

It is completely irrelevant if the duty is due or not, if it is good value or not, if they are offering you a service or not, the point is you have no contract with them and you are effectively being forced to pay a fee to a company for a service you did not ask for. Incidentally I realise this is an old thread but DHL now charge £10, unless it drops to £5 for a lower amount of duty.

 

What if you had taken your car to a garage for a service, then they give you a £50 bill for the MOT after they tell you that they noticed the MOT was due so they MOT'd the car for you, or they noticed your tyres were worn so they replaced them? Is there any difference?

 

The point is this can not possibly be legally binding because there is no contract between you and the carrier. Any fees you owe for import duty are nothing to do with DHL or any other courier.

 

I successfully did a chargeback from Royal Mail for such a bill because apart from the fact that I hadn't asked them to pay anything on my behalf, I argued that there was no contract, that I was not liable for their admin fee, that they withheld my goods illegally and that the express service I had for was not completed because they had held the goods pending payment.

 

 

Tip: If your goods are being handled by Royal Mail this end and you have the tracking details, and are happy to pay, ringing them and paying by card saves you waiting for the bill to arrive and can get your goods to you 2-3 days earlier.

 

Sounds as if you were a little unlucky too, OP - Duty under £9 isn't collected.

 

Taking your "don't have to pay them as there is no privity of contract" to its logical conclusion :

What if the contract that does exist (between the sender and DHL) has as an express condition that the recipient is liable to pay the import duty & DHL's admin fee?

 

DHL won't deliver unless you pay.

You can't force DHL to deliver if you haven't paid ; your contract is with the sender, not DHL.

 

If your contract with the sender has made you liable for custom and shipping fees, the sender won't have breached the contract if they say "your problem, sort it out yourself (by paying DHL )"

 

If you pay and then do a chargeback : expect DHL to appeal the chargeback or come after you for the fee.

 

It is true that duty (as in customs duty) under £9 isn't collected ; don't forget that customs duty is only levied for goods worth more than £135, but that VAT applies for goods imported (other than from the EU), where the cost of the goods, packaging and shipping is more than £15.

 

It is thus common to escape duty but still have to pay VAT.

[seylectric]

If the contract between the carrier and the sender has a condition stating that the recipient pays the the carrier for the customs duty and/or VAT due then that is an entirely different matter. Because a contract then exists AS LONG AS you have agreed to and are aware of that contract. This would usually be part of of accepting the terms of sale. However you will find that most Chinese sellers, particularly of small, one off items, don't bother with such things. In which case there is no contract.

 

We're talking about a situation where there is no such contract and DHL have simply taken it upon themselves to impose their bill on you. Paying the carrier for the duty and VAT is completely different to paying for the duty and VAT (which you are legally obliged to pay anyway), and that's the point here. If you haven't agreed to such terms at the point of sale then no contract exists. As DHL has no contract with you they cannot force you to pay.

 

They cannot legally withhold the goods in lien of payment either, so I assume you're simply guessing to suggest otherwise. In fact if they have been paid to deliver goods and fail to do so then they are breach of contract but that's a separate issue and has nothing to do with the original question.

 

I know all about customs duty, I pay tens of thousands of pounds a year. VAT is a different issue and is liable on all items over £15, if I remember correctly, coming from outside the EU or the Channel Islands. Other rules also apply.

 

But we're losing the plot again. This thread isn't about the existence or limits applying to customs duty or VAT though, it is about if the carrier has the right to pay it on your behalf and charge you retrospectively plus an administration fee and if no contract exists, they don't, it's as simple as that unless somebody can point me to legislation that says otherwise.

[BazzaS]

If the contract between the carrier and the sender has a condition stating that the recipient pays the the carrier for the customs duty and/or VAT due then that is an entirely different matter. Because a contract then exists AS LONG AS you have agreed to and are aware of that contract. This would usually be part of of accepting the terms of sale. However you will find that most Chinese sellers, particularly of small, one off items, don't bother with such things. In which case there is no contract.

 

We're talking about a situation where there is no such contract and DHL have simply taken it upon themselves to impose their bill on you. Paying the carrier for the duty and VAT is completely different to paying for the duty and VAT (which you are legally obliged to pay anyway), and that's the point here. If you haven't agreed to such terms at the point of sale then no contract exists. As DHL has no contract with you they cannot force you to pay.

 

They cannot legally withhold the goods in lien of payment either, so I assume you're simply guessing to suggest otherwise. In fact if they have been paid to deliver goods and fail to do so then they are breach of contract but that's a separate issue and has nothing to do with the original question.

 

I know all about customs duty, I pay tens of thousands of pounds a year. VAT is a different issue and is liable on all items over £15, if I remember correctly, coming from outside the EU or the Channel Islands. Other rules also apply.

 

But we're losing the plot again. This thread isn't about the existence or limits applying to customs duty or VAT though, it is about if the carrier has the right to pay it on your behalf and charge you retrospectively plus an administration fee and if no contract exists, they don't, it's as simple as that unless somebody can point me to legislation that says otherwise.

 

I noted the VAT limits in the post preceding yours, but thankyou for the confirmation.

 

You say the seller (for a small item and e.g. from China) "don't bother with such things". The seller may not have informed the buyer of the details, but there is nonetheless a contract between them and DHL, on DHL's standard terms if no different terms have been agreed.

 

How are you going to force DHL to deliver the goods to you?

 

Their contract is with the sender, not you.

 

You can't have it both ways : if they have no contract with you to invoice you an admin charge, they have no contract with you for you to enforce delivery.

 

If you claim they are unlawfully withholding your goods, they'll claim they are (as far as they are aware) the seller's goods until they are delivered to you.

 

If you don't pay (and the seller doesn't pay) how will you enforce delivery?

You might try to pay any VAT or duty direct to HMRC : difficult but not impossible without knowing the consignment details (which will be on the paperwork held by DHL)

 

You might be legally correct (and I'm still not convinced!) but I suspect to enforce that in practice will be a Pyrrhic victory in terms of the cost against the cost of DHL's admin charge, even for someone used to HMRC's VAT, customs and excuse duties on imports from outside the EU.

[seylectric]

I'm not debating the point that DHL may not deliver the goods - again that is a different issue and in fact as far as I am aware, and certainly in my experience, Royal Mail/Parcelforce are the only ones who invoice you BEFORE delivery - but the point is that DHL are invoicing you for something that they do not have a contract with you for, and as such you are not liable to pay that invoice unless there is a contract that exists stating otherwise (e.g. in the Terms of Sale).

 

If you want to talk about the issue of delivery, which is a different issue, then obviously DHL's contract is with the seller. Your own contract with the seller is obviously that they are expected to get the goods you purchased to you safely and are probably in breach of that contract if they fail to do so, but again that's not the issue here.

[BazzaS]

I'm not debating the point that DHL may not deliver the goods - again that is a different issue and in fact as far as I am aware, and certainly in my experience, Royal Mail/Parcelforce are the only ones who invoice you BEFORE delivery - but the point is that DHL are invoicing you for something that they do not have a contract with you for, and as such you are not liable to pay that invoice unless there is a contract that exists stating otherwise (e.g. in the Terms of Sale).

 

If you want to talk about the issue of delivery, which is a different issue, then obviously DHL's contract is with the seller. Your own contract with the seller is obviously that they are expected to get the goods you purchased to you safely and are probably in breach of that contract if they fail to do so, but again that's not the issue here.

 

I've had DHL consignments from the USA where I have to pay the duty before they'll deliver.

 

You are choosing to "not debate the point that DHL may not deliver the goods" ; it surely is a key point though, if the goods don't get delivered, you can't claim DHL are holding them unlawfully (if they are still the seller's until delivered), and you have no privity of contract with DHL.....

[seylectric]

No, it's not that I am choosing not to discuss the delivery issue, you're missing the point. The issue here is whether it is legal for the carrier to ask you to pay them the taxes they have paid "on your behalf", and an admin fee. That's it. Because there is no contract between the carrier and you, as the recipient, unless you have agreed to this with the seller as part of the contract of sale.

 

If they refuse to deliver the goods as a result then that's a different issue. You don't owe them anything for delivery, the contract for delivery of the goods is usually with the seller, i.e. the seller usually pays the carrier to deliver the goods. The seller may have charged you a delivery fee but that again is a different matter, that's between you and the seller. Unless the seller has stated that the carrier may pay the duties on your behalf and charge you for the 'privilege', and you accept that as part of the Terms of Sale, then there is no contract.

 

Incidentally ownership of goods normally passes to the buyer when they are paid for, not when they are delivered, as far as I am aware. The seller has paid for delivery so would have a claim against the carrier if they didn't do what they had been paid to do, and you would have a claim against the carrier for illegally withholding your goods. As far as I can see it's black and white. There is no contract, you have not agreed for the carrier to pay your import taxes.

 

I stand to be corrected by one of the legal experts of course but just to break it down again, if you haven't asked or agreed for the carrier to pay any fees on your behalf then they can't reclaim it from you. It's that simple.

 

The MOT example is probably the clearest, if you didn't ask the garage to MOT your car they can't charge you for it. They can't keep your car until you pay!

 

I would love to see a test case because I would assume that the carrier would have to prove that you had agreed to repay them any fees they had incurred or paid out on your behalf, which of course they would not be able to do. Unless there is a law that permits them to do this. If there is, I can't find it.

[CrappoMan]

...they are still the seller's until delivered...

 

You have said that twice now. Please read the Sale of Goods Act 1979 sections 16 & 17 dealing with passing of title and section 20 dealing with passing of risk. Another good read on the subject is http://www.internationalprivatelaw.com/files/Property_and_Risk.pdf

 

In short, unless specified in the contract of sale, title is passed when the goods are ascertained (the goods are paid for and physically allocated to the contract of sale), but risk is passed on delivery.

Due to this, you can walk up to the package in the DHL warehouse with your name on it and say "This in mine, I have legal title".

 

But if the package isn't delivered, the risk is still with the seller and you can request another package is sent.

[seylectric]

 

In short, unless specified in the contract of sale, title is passed when the goods are ascertained (the goods are paid for and physically allocated to the contract of sale), but risk is passed on delivery.

Due to this, you can walk up to the package in the DHL warehouse with your name on it and say "This in mine, I have legal title".

 

 

Yes, which is why I say they can't withhold your goods regardless of whether you have paid or not. It's one of the reasons Royal Mail decided not to contest my chargeback, which was for a four-figure sum. They actually conceded very quickly. The reason for that dispute is completely different to what is being discussed here but the principle is the same. There was no contract.

[BazzaS]

You have said that twice now. Please read the Sale of Goods Act 1979 sections 16 & 17 dealing with passing of title and section 20 dealing with passing of risk. Another good read on the subject is http://www.internationalprivatelaw.com/files/Property_and_Risk.pdf

 

In short, unless specified in the contract of sale, title is passed when the goods are ascertained (the goods are paid for and physically allocated to the contract of sale), but risk is passed on delivery.

Due to this, you can walk up to the package in the DHL warehouse with your name on it and say "This in mine, I have legal title".

 

But if the package isn't delivered, the risk is still with the seller and you can request another package is sent.

 

S16 notes that title cannot pass if the goods aren't ascertained, not that it MUST pass when ascertained.

 

S17(1) notes for ascertained goods that it is the intention of the contracting parties that decides it.

S17(2) gives guidance on what concepts intention should be decided upon

 

S18 gives specific rules in the absence of defining terms in the contract.

 

Rule 5 of S18 and S19 note that the seller can retain right of disposal of the goods even once despatched.

(note can: not does, but 'can' depending on the wording of the contract).

 

So, the contract determines it (or the common intention of the parties if the contract is silent as to it)

 

s20 deals with risk. Risk may be connected with ownership but doesn't determine ownership, nor does ownership determine risk - else S20(4) wouldn't be needed !

 

Interesting that you cite an international law text.

This highlights that we don't know under which jurisdiction's law the contract is formed. (Example, seller in china, buyer in the UK, which ebay site was the purchase on ? Ebay.com?? .co.uk).

 

If by air courier, on what basis are you determining the package "passing the rails of the ship "?

Or the basis of shipping : FOB? FCA??

[seylectric]

I think in a nutshell it basically states that it is generally accepted that the goods are yours once you have paid for them. The general rule of thumb as I understand it is a seller can refuse to sell you his goods, but once he has done and accepted your payment then the goods belong to you.

 

But again, we're going off at a tangent here...

[BazzaS]

I think in a nutshell it basically states that it is generally accepted that the goods are yours once you have paid for them. The general rule of thumb as I understand it is a seller can refuse to sell you his goods, but once he has done and accepted your payment then the goods belong to you.

 

But again, we're going off at a tangent here...

 

"It states" : what states?.

 

As for your "general rule of thumb" : wrong.

The goods don't belong to you once paid for. That is fallacy.

 

What about people who have paid for a sofa, and the sofa firm goes bust before delivery?.

 

Let us say 30 people have paid for sofas, and there are 20 completed sofas waiting for allocation. According to your premise, all 30 people each own a sofa : but there are only 20.

 

No, the 30 people are owed what they paid for a sofa, but as an unsecured creditor. They don't own the actual assembled sofa. (They might be in a better position than an unsecured creditor if their payment had included terms creating a Quistclose trust...... But that would indeed be going off at a tangent)

 

It isn't going off at a tangent to show (as I have just done) that your understanding is wrong. It isn't going off at a tangent when title to the goods is a key concept in enforceability of delivery if DHL might decline to deliver if not paid for the duty & admin charge.

 

When I paid the duty & admin charge DHL advised I print the confirmation : I was never asked for the printout (no doubt as their system showed I'd paid!)

I don't doubt that the delivery driver would have wanted to see the confirmation of payment had their system been showing I hadn't of paid!

[seylectric]

"It states" : what states?.

 

As for your "general rule of thumb" : wrong.

The goods don't belong to you once paid for. That is fallacy.

 

What about people who have paid for a sofa, and the sofa firm goes bust before delivery?.

 

Let us say 30 people have paid for sofas, and there are 20 completed sofas waiting for allocation. According to your premise, all 30 people each own a sofa : but there are only 20.

 

No, the 30 people are owed what they paid for a sofa, but as an unsecured creditor. They don't own the actual assembled sofa. (They might be in a better position than an unsecured creditor if their payment had included terms creating a Quistclose trust...... But that would indeed be going off at a tangent)

 

It isn't going off at a tangent to show (as I have just done) that your understanding is wrong. It isn't going off at a tangent when title to the goods is a key concept in enforceability of delivery if DHL might decline to deliver if not paid for the duty & admin charge.

 

When I paid the duty & admin charge DHL advised I print the confirmation : I was never asked for the printout (no doubt as their system showed I'd paid!)

I don't doubt that the delivery driver would have wanted to see the confirmation of payment had their system been showing I hadn't of paid!

 

Sorry, no. If anybody's understanding is wide of the mark here it is yours. If you have paid for something then you own it. Using your logic, if you didn't own it and took the company to court then their defence would simply have to be that they don't owe you anything! Whether you ever receive it or not is an entirely different matter. In the case of the sofa, if you didn't own what you had paid for then you would have no claim to it! Whether they actually have it or not, have built it or not, or go bust or not it doesn't alter the fact that you still own a sofa because that's what you paid them for, i.e. you paid them for a sofa on the understanding that's what you would get.

 

All along this debate you seem to be confusing ownership with delivery issues, neither of which are the real point of the thread.

 

If DHL fail or refuse to deliver, that doesn't mean that you don't own the goods simply because you have not paid, or refuse to pay their bill! You own the goods as soon as you have paid for them. That is the whole point of payment, it is an exchange of cash or whatever form of payment you have used in exchange for goods. You swap your payment for their goods. That's been the case for thousands of years!

 

The delivery issue is a different matter, the person you have paid then has to do what he has to do to get those goods to you but this is about whether DHL are right to pay the customs duty "on your behalf" and charge you for the privilege.

 

Basically what you are saying is that if I sell you something and I don't deliver it to you, there is nothing you can do about it, you're screwed because you don't own anything so you have no claim against me. Sorry but that's just absurd! If you have paid for something you must own it.

 

"It states" : what states?.

 

The Sale of Goods Act of course!

 

I'm not going to start quoting the various relevant passages because it's all there in the link CrappoMan posted above but reading through that Act, it could not possibly be any plainer right from the off that the sale of goods is the transfer of goods for payment, i.e. that ownership transfers to you:

 

"“A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.”

 

So if I buy a sofa from you, you owe me a sofa. And if you owe me a sofa I must own it, otherwise you would owe me nothing. Whether you have built it or not, go bust, have lied from the start and disappear with my money because you never had one to sell or the delivery van is abducted by space aliens is completely irrelevant. You still owe me a sofa. It's mine. I paid you for it so I own it.

 

That's the whole point of the Act!

 

I would like to know on what basis then that the delivery driver would be able to refuse to hand over goods that belong to you, regardless of whether you had paid any fees or not.

[BazzaS]

Sorry, no. If anybody's understanding is wide of the mark here it is yours. If you have paid for something then you own it. Using your logic, if you didn't own it and took the company to court then their defence would simply have to be that they don't owe you anything! Whether you ever receive it or not is an entirely different matter. In the case of the sofa, if you didn't own what you had paid for then you would have no claim to it! Whether they actually have it or not, have built it or not, or go bust or not it doesn't alter the fact that you still own a sofa because that's what you paid them for, i.e. you paid them for a sofa on the understanding that's what you would get.

 

No. You don't own it until title passes to you. Until then the seller owes you the price of the goods, or more likely the cost of you sourcing the goods elsewhere (depending on the terms of the contract)

 

The courts rarely order "specific performance" (a remedy in equity), instead relying much more often on damages for contract law

 

Robinson v Harman is a case from 1848 which refers to common law : "the rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed"

 

So, if Acme limited agree to sell you a sofa, you pay them, and before they go to the warehouse to get a sofa for you someone sells that last sofa to Mr Bloggs and gets it out the warehouse first: you don't get to go round to Mr Bloggs' house and say "hand over my sofa".

According to your "logic" both you and Mr Bloggs own the sofa (fine if there are two, but if there were two there wouldn't be an issue).

 

The court won't order them to provide you a sofa if they don't have any more sofa's

 

You get to source a sofa elsewhere, and sue Acme for the cost. The court will support you if the only sofa of that model is available only from 3 retailers all who charge double Acme's price : you get what it costs to set it right, (so you don't have to suffer "loss of bargain" but you have to "mitigate your loss" ; if there are two retailers charging triple and one double, you can only claim the double cost, you can't just go to the most expensive retailer.

 

 

All along this debate you seem to be confusing ownership with delivery issues, neither of which are the real point of the thread.

 

If DHL fail or refuse to deliver, that doesn't mean that you don't own the goods simply because you have not paid, or refuse to pay their bill! You own the goods as soon as you have paid for them. That is the whole point of payment, it is an exchange of cash or whatever form of payment you have used in exchange for goods. You swap your payment for their goods. That's been the case for thousands of years!

 

Then why does the sale of goods act have sections dealing with transfer of title?.

If it was as you state there would be no need for statute law on this, and no other case law, just the case / common law from "thousands of years ago"

 

The delivery issue is a different matter, the person you have paid then has to do what he has to do to get those goods to you but this is about whether DHL are right to pay the customs duty "on your behalf" and charge you for the privilege.

 

Basically what you are saying is that if I sell you something and I don't deliver it to you, there is nothing you can do about it, you're screwed because you don't own anything so you have no claim against me. Sorry but that's just absurd! If you have paid for something you must own it.

 

Covered above. Just because you are repeating your misunderstanding doesn't make you correct.

 

You own the ability to take them to court for breach of contract, not the item until title passes.

 

You own it when title passes to you. If title doesn't pass you all you "own" is the promise to supply you with it, which gives you standing to sue if they breach the contract, or the status of an unsecured creditor if they become insolvent.

 

 

I'm not going to start quoting the various relevant passages because it's all there in the link CrappoMan posted above but reading through that Act, it could not possibly be any plainer right from the off that the sale of goods is the transfer of goods for payment, i.e. that ownership transfers to you:

 

"“A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.”

 

So if I buy a sofa from you, you owe me a sofa. And if you owe me a sofa I must own it, otherwise you would owe me nothing. Whether you have built it or not, go bust, have lied from the start and disappear with my money because you never had one to sell or the delivery van is abducted by space aliens is completely irrelevant. You still owe me a sofa. It's mine. I paid you for it so I own it.

 

That's the whole point of the Act!

 

The Sale of Goods Act determines who may be found at fault in a contract law court action. It doesn't determine how the winner of the case gets restitution: "give me money so I can get a sofa elsewhere" is "damages" (s.51), the usual outcome, while "give me a sofa" is "specific performance" (S52, which a court "may" order).

"may", not will, while damages are the usual measure .

 

One reason why courts prefer damages to specific performance is so the courts don't get drawn into being a long term 'referee'.

So, you sue Acme Ltd for your sofa, and court finds in your favour with a) an order for specific performance, or b) damages.

a) Acme provide you with a sofa. However there is now "bad blood" between you and Acme. Do you go back to court every time there is a delay in getting your sofa??

What if when it arrives you say it isn't right? Back to court you go!

b) Acme pay you damages and you get your sofa elsewhere. Sorted. Sure, you might run into problems with the 2nd retailer and might have to go back to court against them, but even if this happened, each retailer gets one hearing (at each level, so discounting appeals) rather than an open ended commitment on the court to referee an ongoing dispute.

 

If the sofa firm goes bust and there is no sofa, how can they owe you a sofa? It doesn't exist, and never will.

The firm has ceased trading, so a court can't order them to provide you a sofa. You become an unsecured creditor, not the owner of a non-existent sofa.

 

If things were as simple as you believe : there would be no need for the Sale of Goods Act, or it would consist of one line or so.

 

I'm amazed that you seem to believe people can own (in terms of have title to) something that doesn't exist :

Firms will often take orders for products they don't yet have in stock or haven't yet been built : remind me how you can own something that doesn't exist, or how 30 people can own a whole sofa if (at that time) only 20 sofas exist to be shared between them?

 

Even if 20 sofa's exist, and only 20 of the 30 "owners"! turn up at the site to "claim" them : S239 of the Insolvency Act prevents them being given preference over the other creditors. If the company is insolvent unsecured creditors won't get all their money back : why should some get all their money back (or all the value of money paid by means of the goods) leaving less in the asset pot for the others.

Your " logic" would have the effect of seeking to have an unsecured creditor elevated to a more favourable position than other unsecured creditors. S239 of the Insolvency Act forbids this.

 

Courts may order specific performance but only in equity where it is "fair, just and reasonable". It would be the exception rather than the rule, an example would be if there was a contract for sale of land, contracts had been exchanged but completion had not occurred before the seller went into liquidation.

[BazzaS]

I would like to know on what basis then that the delivery driver would be able to refuse to hand over goods that belong to you, regardless of whether you had paid any fees or not.

 

I suspect it would never get "on the van", but even so:

DHL will refer to their contract with the seller.

All they would need to do is return the item to the seller noting they didn't deliver it due to the breach of the contract between seller & DHL.

 

They won't have stolen it as a) they don't intend to permanently deprive, and even if you managed to persuade a court it was your property rather than the seller's, and that you MIGHT be permanently deprived of it, they'd never meet the dishonesty tests within "Ghosh"

They'd note it was a contractual dispute only.

 

Their contractual dispute with the seller.

Your contractual dispute with the seller.

No contract between you and DHL.

 

I agree that if a courier delivers the item and then invoices you, they might struggle to recover the duties and their admin charge. FedEx use this model in my experience.

I'd suggest that if you want to dispute their right to charge you : pay any statutory duties and leave them having to persue you only for their "admin charge", using the privity of contract argument that has been raised.

 

Perhaps DHL used to use this model, but in my experience now ask you to pay online before delivering the consignment : perhaps as a result of problems recovering the charges using the "old" post-pay model.

You might try paying online only the duties / tax and omitting the

£8 (consumer, less than £400 tax/duties) /

£10 (business, less than £400 tax/duties) /

2% (£400 or more tax/duties) admin charge.

It might be worth a try : try it and let us know??

 

Or, arrange for the seller to pre-pay (or the seller agree to be invoiced for) the tax/duty.

[albertc30]

Hi all.

 

I totally agree with the original thread.

 

The issue is not the vat or duty fee but the courier charging you for a service you did not request.

 

I am now in a battle myself with DHL for charging me £10.60 for an item that was marked, according to them, at a value of £53.02 plus the £10.00 admin fee.

 

I don't even know what is this about!

 

They say it refers to an LED sample. What? A sample worth £53.02?

 

I did bought some LED's, 3 to be precise, 1 orange, 1 red and 1 green but even that was sent from the UK. So what on earth is this about?

 

And off course, they say I have received and signed for it.

 

I was willing to pay the VAT for the total of £6.99, the cost of my 3 LED's but now I won't pay any of it.

 

I can even find the business that has sent me this LED sample in my eBay purchases.

 

In my opinion, it would be much better, to just make me go and get it, just like parcel-force done a few years back. This way you would definitely know what was it being related to.

 

I will stand my ground and won't pay. They can send as many threatening letters they want and pass it on the collecting agencies. I just won't have it.

 

The banks got away for too long and so will these money grabbing companies that like to put their hand son our pockets to take our hard earned cash.

 

If nobody puts on a fight and questions these business practices they will carry on forever. And for those of you saying it's just a £5.00, then, now it's £10.00, I bet you won't be saying that when they hit you in the face with £20.00 or £30.00 or more for a simple admin fee. They have to get the item to your door step, it's their contractual obligation to the sender, their client.

 

Regards,

Albert

[amgrl]

Hello everyone,

 

I am also having a similar issue with DHL (Germany).

 

 

I ordered a gift that shipped from Tunisia and was picked up by customs.

 

 

For a 10 euro customs charge, DHL tacked on another 10 euro for their admin fee for paying it on my behalf + VAT on that fee,

charging me a total of 21.90 euros.

 

 

I completely agree with the first and last post of this thread, and I am standing my ground by not paying this fee

as I consider it completely unethical to charge for a service I did not agree to.

 

 

I've already received letters from creditors, which have their own fees, so I'm pushing about 100 euros now.

Furthermore, I've written letters to my local consumer protection agency and the creditor explaining my dispute with DHL.

We are all just waiting to hear what DHL has to say about it.

 

Meanwhile, I did some research and it seems there has been new legislation surrounding parcel delivery. Just google "parcel delivery European commission."

 

“Convenience” for customers is a topic.

One of the DHL reps over the phone mentioned the law changed in June allowing this fee;

it seems that, with these new policies, parcel delivery companies have been given the freedom to mitigate customs clearance

on behalf of the consumer by charging fees they deem appropriate. Basically, they've become legal loan sharks.

 

I will keep everyone posted on what happens in my situation, and I believe that if enough people speak out about this fee,

these companies will realize that consumers won't fall for this [problem]/extortion/unethical bs.

 

Best, J

[albertc30]

Hi all.

 

I might be paying mine but all due to having found what I got from ebay.

 

It turns out this was for a PIR flodd light I bought in the UK but the seller decided best to have it shipped from Hong Kong.

 

They have agreed to refund me all moneys that DHL are asking of me, allowing me to pay DHL.

 

Other than that, it's outrages that most of you see this as a favor. I am a grown up person and in good mental health so I'll make my own decisions, not the government and sure as hell not these money grabbing businesses.

 

If we all pay what's to stop other business from doing exactly the same?

 

Regards,

Albert

[albertc30]

When couriers take on a client’s shipment they have a contractual obligation to have it delivered to the end person’s door.

 

 

Now to go on and charge us an ADMIN fee, for releasing parcels from customs, is outrageous and it seems the government supports these practices.

 

If anything there seems to be a conflict of interest where the more parcels are held back by customs

the more fees will these business charge plus taxes on top.

 

I'll have someone making decisions for me when the time comes that I cannot make them myself

and will not take it lightly others doing so on my behalf and without my express consent.

 

Together we can put a stop to it. It's our hard earned money.

 

 

These companies are just getting their hands in our pockets and getting richer whilst we, middle class,

can hardly afford the food we put on our tables.

 

 

And to make matters ever worse, after a couple of weeks, demanding payment

and threatening with debt collection agencies who will charge you for doing so.

 

I'll be starting a petition soon and start a blog about it.

 

If we get together we can make a difference.

[ssparks2003]

A lot of the problems that arise of the handling fees and VAT are down to the ignorance of the buyers of the realites of international shipping. Just because someone posts a letter to you from 10 miles down the road and it flops onto the mat the following day with nothing to pay, it does not follow that the same goes when somthing is shipped from China.

 

The buyer needs to be aware of the incoterm that relates to the metod of shipping that has been selected prior to ordering as this will define what additional charges you will be reciving.