Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I purchased an item costing approximately £3000 from an online retailer. The item was sent via Royal Mail Special Delivery. The item never arrived. Tracking shows as delivered with a signiture and printed name which is not mine. I informed the retailer and they in turn informed Royal Mail who started an investigation. After the investaigation Royal Mail said the item was delivered to a house number opposite me and that I should check with them. I checked and nothing had been received by that neighbour. After this the reailer initiated a claim with Royal Mail. It has been 5 days since then and I have not heard back from the retailer. My question is: Legally, do I really need to wait for the Royal Mail claim? As far as I see it I have a contract with the retialer. I have paid them money and they have agreed to provide me with goods. I have paid my money but not recieved the goods. The Royal Mail aspect is nothing to do with me and not my problem. Am I correct in this thinking?   If so, what should I do?
    • Hello to all on this wonderful forum! I have just joined and hope to be able to share my experiances and knowledge with you all whilst also benefitting from others.
    • The top ranking highlights China's growing influence on the word economic stage. View the full article
    • read it properly, doesn't say will anywhere. i don't think we've ever see any of these threats go anywhere.    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
        • Thanks
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2515 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ok, so I cannot get my head around what disbursements are for the purposes of vat.

 

Could someone in the know please advice where we stand.

 

My friend runs his own sole trader company fixing/repairing garden equiptment (Lawn mowers etc etc)

 

He rents a commercial Unit approx 2000 sq ft.

 

His landlord purchases Buildings insurance on the unit and charges my friend (the tenant) but also charges 20% VAT on top.

 

Now I understand that Buildings insurance is exempt from VAT with only an IPT able to be charged.

 

Now, the landlord pays £1011.89 for the insurance and passes this exact amount on to the tenant with vat added on top so a total of £1011.89 + VAT at £202.38 TOTAL £1214.27.

 

Is the landlord right to add vat or wrong?

 

I don't know if it acts as a disbursement or not, and if a disbursement is vatable or not. Could someone please clear this up as the hmrc website (700) at section 25 is baffling me.

 

thanks in advance

 

thepalace1

Link to post
Share on other sites

a disbursement is a charge or cost for processing something and as the LL hasnt actually done anything then there is no "value" to add and thus no tax. However, this doesnt stop the LL from applying VAT, it just means they dont HAVE to.

If the LL is honest then it is cost neutral as the taxman gets the money, if they arent as honest as they should be they make a small gain by the differential in their total VAT bill by claiming back the vat (not ) paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...