Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wrongly convicted Horizon victims in Scotland to be exonerated NEWS.STV.TV Victims who faced wrongful convictions are to be exonerated the day after Royal Assent is granted.  
    • If anybody has any advice here, it would be greatly appreciated, I already suffer with pre-existing disabilities & have struggled with this so far. 
    • so return of goods order etc etc read upload  scan pages to jpg, redact in mspaint. the convert to and merge to one mass PDF  read upload and use the online listed sites for all 3 stages. do you want to keep the car? i will guess this was a manual paper claimform direct from the co.court or was it org sent from salford bulk processing and has just got reaq ssigned?      
    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

*ADMIN FEE WAIVED* DHL Admin Charge - "Invoices Remain Unpaid"


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3128 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

Ordered supplements from the USA some time ago, delivered by DHL. 2 months later a letter by post demanding VAT and £10 admin fee. Emailed them, and they responded

 

Dear Customer,

Thank you for writing to us and apologies for the delay in response.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused to you.

Whenever a product is imported to UK and the value of the product exceeds £15.00,

It is liable for import Duty and VAT payment for customs clearance.

The VAT calculation is done by the HMRC for the package which is imported to UK.

Please find attached customs document for customs reference number. UK Customs HMRC contact number 0300 200 3700.

The reason why the Duty & VAT was not updated is because this shipment was not updated in our collection file that is why you did not receive any call or text message from DHL regarding this payment before delivery. For more query on this kindly contact our Aviation team at 01332 857 082

Spoke to HM Customs who advised me that VAT at 20% was payable, couldn't comment on admin fees. I emailed offering to pay VAT, was told to ring an 084 number. I declined and asked for an email address but they said
Unfortunately, we do not have a direct email address for the head office. Hence, we request you to contact our head office at 0844 248 0777, option 6.
Emailed them again saying that I expect all correspondence to be dealt using the email address given on their letters. Waiting for a response.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again OD you have not managed to find any evidence to support their lawfulness

 

The contract is between the seller and the parcel company

 

there is no statutory implement to force a 3rd party into a commercial contract without their knowledge or consent

 

This is the advice this forum offers until EVIDENCE appears that updates that guidance

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Admin fee is not unlawful if procesing a shipment on behalf of HM revenue and customs

 

The administration fee is what dhl are trying to charge

the administration fee IS UNLAWFUL

The only fee that would be collected for HM revenue and customs is the vat

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr XXXXX

 

Thank you for contacting Royal Mail.

 

Royal Mail Group is authorised under the Postal Packets (Customs and Excise) Regulations 1986 and section 105 of the Postal Services Act 2000 to clear postal items through customs where no other arrangements have been made. This involves paying duty and taxes to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) up front, dealing with all relevant HMRC paperwork and record keeping, and processing the payment collected from the recipient.

 

Our charges have been created as part of the Overseas Letter Post Scheme, created under Section 89 of the Postal Services Act 2000.

 

Certain Royal Mail products or services have the charges, terms and conditions detailed in documents called ‘Schemes’. These Schemes are published under the Postal Services Act 2000 and mean that it is not necessary for Royal Mail to have individual contracts with each and every customer purchasing these products or using these services.

 

You can read the relevant legislation at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/contents and our Overseas Letter Post Scheme can be found at http://www.royalmail.com/sites/defau...0March2015.pdf

 

As you can see these charges have been created legally under the relevant laws and Royal Mail are legally authorised to recover both the customs charges levied and any other charges payable.

 

I hope you have found this information helpful. If there is anything else we can help you with though, please let us know.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will cover all the other courier companies as well who levy a handling charge on behalf of HMRC

 

The Postal Services Act has now been amended as of 2011

 

In place of Universal Service Provider, "Postal Operator" has now been inserted

 

 

So the likes of TNT, DHL, FedEx etc can lawfully impose this handlig fee as they are licenced as "Postal Operators"

 

It is up to the recipient which carrier they decide to use as to the cost of that handling fee

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

As they are collecting on behalf of HMRC it should be HMRC that pays them.

But it does have a cost and if refusals to pay an admin charge increase I can see carriers refusing to do the service and the parcel being dumped in some customs warehouse somewhere awaiting collection.

That will be more than the admin charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"(7)Any charge payable by virtue of this section may be recovered by the universal service provider concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him."

 

 

This would apply to the person that contracted the courier to do the delivery.

 

That would be the sender.

 

Royal Mail choose to try and make the recipient responsible but the legislation does not say this.,

 

It does not grant power to create a civil debt for a service to a third party that they did not request.

 

AND it is a CIVIL debt and therefore normal common law applies.

 

 

Also their terms and conditions are not relevant to the third party.

 

ONLY IF the receiver contracts the company to make the delivery directly do their T+Cs bind them.

 

In many cases it is the SELLER that decides the method of postage and therefore the contract T+Cs bind them and not the receiver.

 

SO other than a bad interpretation and mis application of statute, do you have any evidence that they can bind a third party to their T+Cs?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"(7)Any charge payable by virtue of this section may be recovered by the universal service provider concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him."

 

 

This would apply to the person that contracted the courier to do the delivery.

 

That would be the sender.

 

Royal Mail choose to try and make the recipient responsible but the legislation does not say this.,

 

It does not grant power to create a civil debt for a service to a third party that they did not request.

 

AND it is a CIVIL debt and therefore normal common law applies.

 

 

Also their terms and conditions are not relevant to the third party.

 

ONLY IF the receiver contracts the company to make the delivery directly do their T+Cs bind them.

 

SO other than a bad interpretation and mis application of statute, do you have any evidence that they can bind a third party to their T+Cs?

 

That's plainly wrong and very naive........ the consignee contracts the carriage, there's no getting away from incoterms. This has been discussed numerous times on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly the act states "Recovered"

 

Charging a fee is not a recovery

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point one there is no such thing any more as a Universal service provider since 2011

 

Point 2 is that the postal operator under licence is allowed to invoice this processing charge on behalf of HMRC.

 

The legislation allowing that has already been posted

 

I will comment no more as that is referenced fact and not personal opinion

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it says charges may be recovered, but for it to be a recovery I think you will find that it needs to have been paid out first. AN ADMIN FEE IS BEING CHARGED AND NOT RECOVERED and therefore the legislation you posted does not support that

 

It also does not state as a matter of fact that a thrid party can be forced into a civil debt.

 

 

You have posted fact and chosen an interpretation.

 

I disagree with that interpretation

 

There is no case law to back your argument

 

Also just because something is provided by ROYAL MAIL does not make it cast iron evidence. Nor can it be said to be impartial.

 

So after examining the legislation I can still not support your position. THE FACTS do not support it.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point one there is no such thing any more as a Universal service provider since 2011

 

Point 2 is that the postal operator under licence is allowed to invoice this processing charge on behalf of HMRC.

 

 

ANd also your qutoe

 

"The Postal Services Act has now been amended as of 2011

 

In place of Universal Service Provider, "Postal Operator" has now been inserted"

 

SO point 2 is not really a point at all :)

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No your opinion does not suport the referenced facts

 

The legislation itself cannot be in error as we have to comply with that legislation, and i use primary and delegated legislation, Not Stare decisis

 

That was my very last comment and i am signing off now as there is nothing left to be proved and you are entitled to your own opinion

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary legislation you referenced to was this

 

"(7)Any charge payable by virtue of this section may be recovered by the universal service provider concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him." which is from the link you referenced.

 

Clearly you cannot make any more comments as I have challenged your flawed interpretation of the primary legislation that you yourself referenced, which is not surprising as you yourself has said in the past that you have along history at a company that deals with post. Hardly a an unbiased position.

 

You may sleep now

Edited by SabreSheep
formatting

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

all the common carriers do this as they process the customs paperwork on your behalf and deliver the item before they make this charge. The alternative is that evrything sits in their bonded warehouse until the recipient pays up or if they refuse the goods go back to where they came from.

I have said before, people are entitled to do their own customs paperwork, I did with my business but it is not straightforward and you can be charged fees for holding the goods in the warehouse if you dont do them in a timely manner.

The real problem is that there are many stupid people in this world who are ignorant of the laws of their own countries and then bleat about things they should have known about after the event. I agree that DHL do themselves a slight disservice by actually delivering items without collecting the duties and their charges upfront but this does mean they are not buried in parcels. UPS collcet the money at the time of delivery and if you dont want to pay the £10-15 charges then they send the goods back. Buy stuff from the EU and you wont have this problem. No doubt the OP likes the idea of unregulated medicines being available at the click of a button but there is always a price to pay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point one there is no such thing any more as a Universal service provider since 2011

 

Reforms introduced in 2011 and 2012 ensure that Royal Mail is the designated provider of the Universal Service until at least 2021 (10 years from the passing of the Postal Services Act 2011).

 

http://www.royalmailgroup.com/about-us/regulation/how-were-regulated/universal-service-obligation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is correct but other private carriers can now do postal services as an end to end suppler of those postal services under licence

 

That is why postal operator has now replaced universal service provider under he act

 

In a few years time we will be getting every tom dick or harry delivering our postal products

 

TNT/Whisti as an example

 

If you require clarity might i suggest referencing OfCom who are the regulator

 

But that particular point is "off topic" to the original question raised by the OP

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone fancies suing DHL you will find they are a common carrier and have the same protections in law as RM. The railways used to be in the same boat but as they dont carry loose goods any more I am not sure if they still are. This is not the same as being a universal service provider which is about delivering everywhere for the same price under the same terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is correct but other private carriers can now do postal services as an end to end suppler of those postal services under licence

 

That is why postal operator has now replaced universal service provider under he act

 

In a few years time we will be getting every tom dick or harry delivering our postal products

 

TNT/Whisti as an example

 

If you require clarity might i suggest referencing OfCom who are the regulator

 

But that particular point is "off topic" to the original question raised by the OP

 

 

I thought you were leaving this thread. 3 times now?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be aware that there are [problem] emails coming out claiming to be these delivery companies and they want money to redeliver a parcel, plus the customs fees etc....I've had a few lately even though I haven't ordered anything from abroad.

 

I did get money back from the Royal Mail who overcharged me VAT (I had a VAT exemption certificate at the time) and that took several months to happen. They had NO reason to charge the VAT as it was clearly stated on the parcel and accompanying invoice that it was a VAT exempt item coming from the USA - AND they overcharged me on the 'assumed price' of the item - which was an old needlework kit - costing 10 quid - they said it was 100 quid..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a call from DHL in response to my query. A pleasant gentleman reassured me that all carriers charge an admin fee, and he explained that the process of obtaining custom clearance was more involved than just pressing a few buttons on the computer. He agreed to waive the admin fee on this occasion (£8, which is currently £10). So I ended up paying the VAT amount.

 

Whilst I'm not convinced that, given the huge number of parcels they process, £10 is a fair charge. Neither am I sure about the legality of this under contract law as has been extensively debated on this and other threads.

 

I've decided to keep things simple for myself in future; either I will limit myself to ordering items costing no more than £15 (no VAT or admin fee payable), or I will factor in VAT and admin charge to the total cost to work out whether I'm saving money by importing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good result

 

As for "everybody does it", "All the banks sold PPI - Didnt make it right then either"

An industry standard does not decide legality :D

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...