Parcelforce 'Clearance fee'

evil_ed

here we go again, just because you don't agree then it must be mis information.

did you learn this word after being abducted by aliens and the goverment put out the information conserning the abduction?? i could easily say to you that i think you are from the press and looking for a story by all of the rebuttals (childish as they are and not based on any fact just assumptions)

do you not think that we have access to information on our intranet? fool!

we even have access to which post box has been knocked over and to any traffic problems in italy etc., in fact we have access to any information which may impact on our services and practises.

Schemes as to terms and conditions for provision of a universal postal service
(1) A universal service provider may make a scheme under this section in relation to the services provided by him in connection with the provision of a universal postal service or any of those services.
(2) A scheme under this section is a scheme for determining any or all of the following (so far as not otherwise agreed)—
(a) the charges which are to be imposed in respect of the services concerned,
(b) the other terms and conditions which are to be applicable to the services concerned, and
(c) procedures for dealing with the complaints of persons who use the services concerned.
(3) A scheme under this section may, in particular—
(a) adopt such system for the determination of the charges and other terms and conditions as the universal service provider concerned considers appropriate (including determining them himself subject to any conditions and limitations provided for in the scheme),
(b) specify the manner in which, time and place at which and person by whom the charges are to be paid.
(4) Subject to section 92(5) and (6), no provision may be made in any scheme under this section—
(a) for limiting the liability of the universal service provider concerned for loss or damage, or
(b) for amending the rules of law relating to evidence.
(5) A scheme under this section shall come into force on such day as is specified in the scheme; but no day earlier than the day after that on which the scheme has been published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes shall be so specified.
(6) A scheme under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases or classes of case determined by, or in accordance with, the provisions of the scheme,
(b) modify any previous scheme made under this section.
(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.
(8) The production of a copy of any of the Gazettes mentioned in subsection (5) which purports to contain a scheme under this section shall be conclusive evidence in all legal proceedings of that scheme.

evil_ed

we can find out anything related to information affecting us by visiting our one net intranet service and (my god) even by asking the relevant departments is the short answer to your question

well had enough of this cos am bored now and tandy will always argue and disagree

by the way you put a lot of importance in yourself if you think that a plc would bother hiring someone to come on a blog site for you, i do it cos i like a good debate lol

for everyone else, you have the right to appeal any charges and just because (for the moment) criminal procedings will not be brought by the crown prosecution service this does not overide your basic civil right to sue in the small claims court

by forever and have fun

evil

tandymalbot

(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.

Very silly boy. The whole point of this discussion is that, even if £8 or £13.50 is a fair reflection of the costs involved (it isn't), the only way for Parcel Force to collect this is by delivering first and invoicing later. This is what's known as a as a civil debt due to him. It is unlawful to delay deliver of the package by virtue of the Postal Services Act.

The reason they don't do this is because they know they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. We shall ignore the man with a law degree working in a call centre calling us all fools who is trying to tell us Parcel Force as a private courier are not acting as a Universal Postal Provider (i.e. nationalised mail service) in this instance then quoting the above saying that they (Royal Mail) are. Private couriers are not covered by the Postal Services Act 2000 nor aparty to the Universal Postal Service agreements. The above poster is particularly confused on this point, as well as the structure of Royal Mail and financial relationship with Parcel Force. To this end ignore him. Royal Mail have to date not defended a single knowledgeable dispute or small claim over their clearance fee.

Update: evil ed is clearly unhappy in his job as he sent me the following abusive PMs:

already given you more importance than you deserve for proving to me that the british schooling system has not worked in many years and for proving to me that it is good that i ask relative questions and listen and cogitate the answers before i speak or answer. (by the way, when i said relative questions, i did not mean about your mother):eek:
any further questions should be brought up with your mental health nurse because i have laughed enough at your expense already and i apologise for having done so:rotfl::rotfl:

Milesy

evil_ed wrote: »

Should you feel that the duty has been incorrectly raised you may write to:
H M Revenue & Customs
Siskin Parkway West
Middlemarch Business Park
Coventry
CV3 4PF

include the red and white label provided by HMRC and a cover letter outlining your appeal

good luck

I think you are ripping the mince now.... Why would I write to HMR+C about the Parcelforce clearance fee? what does it have to do with them?????

WD40

Milesy wrote: »

Also. Just a note. Surely I am in my rights to request a breakdown of what was done for this extra charge under the Freedom of Information Act. And I mean a exact breakdown.

Did you get anywhere with this enquiry? I don't have an issue with Import Duty or VAT, but PF's 'clearance fee' smells fishy. I'd love to know exactly what they do to deserve this £13.50.

gordon_k

The latest position on this, as of 3 September 2009 (as set out by Consumer Direct) is

"Postal items arriving into the UK from outside the European Union worth over £18 (£36 if a gift), or required for anti smuggling must be presented to customs and may be subject to Value Added Tax (VAT) and import duty. This charge is paid to HM Revenue & Customs by the delivery company in the UK on behalf of customers and operators reclaim this from the recipient when they collect the item. Where import duty or VAT is payable, the recipient is also subject to a customs clearance fee imposed by individual postal operators. According to Royal Mail, this fee covers the cost of collecting; administering; handling; and processing the duties due, and may go towards lost revenue. Postal Operators should only request a customs clearance fee when HM Revenue & Customs officials stop an item. Royal Mail Groups (RMG including Parcelforce) clearance fees are set at a fixed level (regardless of the goods value or duties raised). For Parcelforce, the fee is £8 (nonguaranteed items) and £13.50 (express services). Royal Mails fee is set at £8. You can dispute the clearance fee which has been levied by Parcelforce, they cannot withold your item once you have paid the customs charge."

So the current view on the legal position is that, regardless of the fairness or proportionality of the "clearance fee", Parcelforce cannot lawfully withhold the item if you refuse to pay the fee, so long as you pay the VAT or Import Duty itself.

In practice, what seems to be happening is that people who have been told by Parcelforce they have to pay the Clearance Fee before the item is released, have paid the fee, and then successfully tackled the Royal Mail Group via small claims legal action, on the grounds that their mail has been unlawfully withheld. RMG have settled with them, reimbursing the clearance fee plus legal costs.

If, on the other hand, Parcelforce allow you to take the package without paying the clearance fee, they will then invoice you for the fee, and presumably approach it like any debt owed to their company.

In either case, you have to pay VAT and Import Duty before the package will be released to you.

As regards what the clearance fee is actually for, I think the section in bold above explains it. They use it as a way of offsetting their losses from customs charges they have paid to HMRC, but not managed to reclaim from the package recipients. I don't think they can credibly claim the charge is reasonable as far as the individual consumer is concerned. Basically a good way of ripping off money from people in a time-pressured situation who need their package.

Buzby

Hmm even consumer Direct cannot get their facts right. The '£18' limit they refer to was changed in 2008, possibly even 2007 - it was part of Budget measures. I would say if you are basing your argument on their advice, you're wasting your time.

As for the charge levied by ParcelForce, they are entitled to charge a fee for the services they provide. If Customs do not provide a facility for you to pay any duty directly at the point of entry, you have no alternative but to use PF's system. Whilst their charges may appear high - you have a right to use them or not, just get your shipper to arrange a different carrier or use an import agency that charges less.

There's no point trying to reinvent the wheel - if you make use of a facility that requires the private importation of goods, then the only person who is going to pay those fees is you. And before this denegrates into infringing your Human Rights, the issue is simple to comprehend, but building up a nonsensical head of steam over their liability to you and illegality of witholding your items, the second you pay the tax due, you get your item. Nothing wrong with that.

BobGeezer

Hi All,

An old thread, but there is a way to change this...

ParcelForce is charging a deceptively low rate for shipping VAT liable items as the cost is bourne by the recipent. This only applies if customs and excise intercept a package and charge back to ParcelForce for the handling. Therefore PacelForce, by charging a single price for VAT liable and VAT exempt items, are in effect undercharging the customer so not representing the fair cost of shipping. They are also aiding and abetting tax evasion as the packages not intercepted by C&E get through without any tax paid.

It is a good idea for as many people as possible to report ParcelForce Worldwide to the Office of Fair Trading and the Customs and Excise people for offences in both areas. This may enable the regulators to force them to charge two rates. This will stop much tax evasion and prevent a cost to the tax payer employing C&E staff to needlessly intercept millions of parcels a week. It will allow tax exempt parcels to be sent at the same price as they currently are sent. It will also mean that overseas goods will have postage charged at a fair rate and reduce the share unfairly going to ParcelForce Worldwide because of their deceptive pricing - currently the recipient pays this extra cost without having any choice.

Regards, Bob

custardy

BobGeezer wrote: »

Hi All,

An old thread, but there is a way to change this...

ParcelForce is charging a deceptively low rate for shipping VAT liable items as the cost is bourne by the recipent. This only applies if customs and excise intercept a package and charge back to ParcelForce for the handling. Therefore PacelForce, by charging a single price for VAT liable and VAT exempt items, are in effect undercharging the customer so not representing the fair cost of shipping. They are also aiding and abetting tax evasion as the packages not intercepted by C&E get through without any tax paid.

It is a good idea for as many people as possible to report ParcelForce Worldwide to the Office of Fair Trading and the Customs and Excise people for offences in both areas. This may enable the regulators to force them to charge two rates. This will stop much tax evasion and prevent a cost to the tax payer employing C&E staff to needlessly intercept millions of parcels a week. It will allow tax exempt parcels to be sent at the same price as they currently are sent. It will also mean that overseas goods will have postage charged at a fair rate and reduce the share unfairly going to ParcelForce Worldwide because of their deceptive pricing - currently the recipient pays this extra cost without having any choice.

Regards, Bob

so who is 'undercharging' the senders? given we are dealing with items sent fom abroad?

chris_yo

Buzby wrote: »

As for the charge levied by ParcelForce, they are entitled to charge a fee for the services they provide.

Yes, and the fee should be part of the price the sender pays for shipping. Not something that the recipient is expected to pay. And the fee should be proportional to the value of the item, not many times the value of the item as is possible now.

Buzby wrote: »

Whilst their charges may appear high - you have a right to use them or not, just get your shipper to arrange a different carrier or use an import agency that charges less.

The problem is that the sender has no idea that their domestic mail service is going to pass the parcel on to Parcelforce for delivery in the UK. The fee should be paid by the sender so that it can be arranged at the point of sale. What Parcelforce effectively do is to undercut other postal operators by offering a cheap price to the sender, but then bump up the profits after they have the parcel by charging the recipient too.

Imagine what would happen if DHL or any other courier started offering 10p flat rate shipping UK wide, but then demanded £20 from the recipient after DHL had taken possession of each parcel, and refused to release the parcel until the ransom was paid. People would be furious, and rightly so.

Maybe we should start an online petition to the Prime Minister.