Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • SERVICE BY EMAIL Rules 6.3(1)(d) and 6.20(1)(d) of the Civil Procedural Rules (“CPR”) allow service by email of claim forms and other documents; these Rules are supplemented by Practice Direction (“PD”) 6A. In accordance with PD 6A.4, in order for service by email to be valid, the recipient party must have previously indicated in writing to the party serving that they are willing to accept service by electronic means and provided a fax number, email address or other electronic identification to which it must be sent. The PD also requires the sender to ask if there are any restrictions on the size of documents that can be received by email.
    • NO EMAIL. Not only for the reasons outlined above. CPR Rules state that PAPLOC's can't be served by email unless you give them express consent to this (just giving them your email address is *not* express consent), meaning that they have to be served by post. Either way, a court claim can't arrive by email either. The courts will send that by post. They'll file it to your old address and you'll have no idea until a couple months later when all of a sudden a CCJ is on your credit file because they've obtained what we call a backdoor CCJ. In easier terms, stick to proper post for legal/contractual disputes.   In this case, ignore entirely. That is more useful for more "normal" private parking invoices.   
    • I read the Ignore thread that your reply linked to and it recommends that a letter be sent: You should write to the car park owner - the supermarket etc - not the parking company- with a brief letter denying that any money is owed at all. Also ask the car park owner if they have given authority to the car park operator to bring any legal action against you. You should also complain and asked them why they are prepared to sell their reputation by treating their customers as enemies – and wouldn't it be better that the £160 odd, which the private parking company is trying to take from you were spent in their shop/supermarket rather than going to a wholly non-productive company such as [X X X name the company X X X]? The car park owner will also realise that it is their reputation which is associated with their draconian action - not the parking company which is merely acting as a fall-boy. Should I do this or just ignore it entirely?
    • Thank you so much! This is all I have in terms of documentation hope it's ok.  Morality Law JC Acquisition Claim.pdf
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

VAT on imports - confusing problem


mattcarr41
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3910 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

hello all

 

I have a problem regarding import VAT for my business.

 

At the start of the year, I purchased goods from a company in Saudi on agreed payment terms of 60 days from shipping date.

 

When I received the relevant documents, I forwarded these onto my customs clearing agent, who then took care of duty, vat etc on my behalf using their deferment HMRC account, and I would then pay back to them the sum paid in VAT once I had received the goods.

 

however, the supplier in Saudi then changed their minds on the payment terms and insisted on a bank guarantee from me (letter of credit or such like) which I was not in a position to offer.

 

therefore, they changed the consignee for the goods to a company based in the UK with whom they already dealt with, and this company took complete ownership.

 

I then completed my vat return for the period, but HMRC are refusing to issue a reclaim on the vat associated with these goods as my business never took ownership, but of course the agent acting on my behalf had paid the duty and vat on my behalf.

 

the other uk company refused to pay the vat, although they paid the duty element direct to my agent as they had now taken the goods themselves.

 

therefore, I have not paid any sums to the supplier or the agent, and the agent are now trying to take me to court for the outstanding amount they paid originally (£11,500)

 

HMRC still refuse my claim, the company who have taken ownership of the goods have agreed with HMRC that they will pay the vat for these goods in their sales (which will show on their VAT return), and my agent is currently £11,500 out of pocket

 

I have tried speaking with all parties involved without success, and now face the prospect of losing in court and having to make the payment of £11,500 plus costs although I haven't ever actually received any goods

 

any advice on this would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Summary:

1: So basically you paid your supplier to send the goods to the UK.

 

2: Your agent pre-paid HMRC Vat & duties, but never received the goods.

 

3: Your supplier sent the goods via their agent in the UK, whom received the goods, & paid a fee to your agent, but have not yet paid the Vat & duties to HMRC.

 

4: You have not paid anyone for the Vat & dutes or rejected the goods.

 

5: You are attempting to to reclaim the Vat & dutes from HMRC that you have not paid as yet.

 

Greetings [mattcarr41] Firstly you have a number of options to resolve this,

 

1a: Your agent returns the fee to your supplier's agent in return for the ownership of goods.

 

1b: You pay your agent the Vat & duties & the fee for the service, when they receive the goods.

 

2a: Your agent requests a refund from HMRC for the failed import & keeps the fee from your supplier's agent & your agent refunds you the fee for the service.

 

2b: You pay your supplier's agent Vat & duties plus a fee for the service which may be more expensive than your own agent's fee.

 

3a: You reject the goods, then you can either request a refund from your supplier or re-delivery via your agent which is more expensive as you are doubling transit costs.

 

3b: Your agent requests a refund from HMRC for the failed import & refunds the fee from your supplier's agent.

 

3c: Your supplier's agent returns the goods to your supplier in Saudi.

 

4: Once you have ownership of the goods, normally only once you sell the goods on you can get a refund from HMRC, occassionally end-users can get the goods zero VAT rated or a refund from HMRC.

Edited by ASIIndustries
  • Haha 1

Andrew

ASI Industries = As i in does tries!

 

As i in does tries!: My definition.

I will try, i may never succeed in the goal, but at least by trying i have a greater chance of success than never trying at all!

 My opinions are my own & occasionally may offend, but it is not my intention to cause offence in the first place!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...