Parcelforce 'Clearance fee'

paddyrg

I suggest the handling fee includes the cost of short-term credit and filling out the forms which do not apply to those packages which are not pulled by customs for duty/vat purposes.

Xaphania

My above post metions "research" I felt this required a little qualifying (before the hacks descend to query on my argument)

custardy wrote: »

all this typing and yet you want someone to do your clearance for you.
have you worked out what VAT is yet?

Holding mail in liew of a payment of clearance fees is in breach of law sadly you are somewhat out of date. go find the postal services act 2011 (you are referring to PSA 2000) and see the addendum "(4A) A postal operator may detain a postal packet to which this section applies until any duties and charges in respect of the packet that are recoverable by virtue of subsection (3) have been paid.")as long as duty and Vat etc have been paid RM/PF if they wish these clearance fees either have to invoice you AFTER delivery or as it is not a criminal matter take civil action against you if you do not pay, which would be awkward as you have documentation from them of demanding this money or they will not deliver goods you own legal right to. good luck with that out of date documentation

The red text is an edit to a quote made by Custardy (the edit not the quote) ... I think in his efforts to read the small print he overlooked the big print. At the top of the paragraph in question it clearly sates ...

104A Power to detain packets in respect of unpaid or underpaid postage

As far as I am aware this "handling fee" is not the postage charge, as postage has already been paid on the item. This fee is for "services" which include the processing of the item through customs and the "pre payment on your behalf of customs charges" (I neglected to mention that above but it is very important as I'm sure it adds a whole 1/2 pence for electronic fund tranfers to this "fee"). As for filling out forms, all the mail is entered onto the system, customs charges or not!! You don't honestly think somebody sits there with a calculator and a stack of forms? The details are entered into the system which calculates if anything is due and bills accordingly, why else do you think there are so many errors with people recieveing the wrong bill amount? and when did I ask PF to extend me credit?

I have read most of the act and so far I do not see any mention of the right to detain mail pending payment for the rendering of "unsolicited" services.

The legal definition of "unsolicited" is that it was not needed, wanted or asked for. As custardy has already pointed out, it is possible to arange for a different method for your package to clear customs, that being so shouldn't PF ask before they go ahead and assume that you want to use theirs? Most of their mail is recieved from other mail handlers who do not usually inform their customers that they will use PF or incur this charge. Although, of course, they absent themselves from this argument by simply claiming that your issue is with PF (or whoever).

custardy

that being so shouldn't PF ask before they go ahead and assume that you want to use theirs?

or shouldnt the recipient look into applicable duties before ordering?
pretty much every international site i order off lists all duties are the responsibility of the customer

Xaphania

custardy wrote: »

or shouldnt the recipient look into applicable duties before ordering?
pretty much every international site i order off lists all duties are the responsibility of the customer

Actually they list that VAT and import duty are the responsibility of the Recipient, and I DID look into applicable duties, funny how this "handling fee" doesn't show up on HMRC site or when using calculation sites. They only really show up on forums like this where people are prepared to talk straight about RIP OFF charges. You also seem pretty schtum on the fact that these charges are only levied against people who are stupid enough to pay them coz they're lumped to another charge, or that careful reading of your referenced bullsh!t reveales you were talking out of your a$$.

Wasn't it you that said something about only quoting the bits of the act that suited you?

paddyrg

Xaphania wrote: »

The legal definition of "unsolicited" is that it was not needed, wanted or asked for.... it is possible to arange for a different method for your package to clear customs, that being so shouldn't PF ask before they go ahead and assume that you want to use theirs? Most of their mail is recieved from other mail handlers who do not usually inform their customers that they will use PF or incur this charge. Although, of course, they absent themselves from this argument by simply claiming that your issue is with PF (or whoever).

It is quite possible to not want something yet have to pay it, so I don't think that's the strongest argument TBH.

I see the whole question is really that consumers order from overseas, but don't ask the seller to use a specific courier that doesn't do the final delivery via RM. They could insist on FedEx*, UPS*, DHL*, etc but don't. So, speaking of unsolicited - RM get unsolicited goods by the same measure to deliver on, they have to incur costs in order to do so, and want to recover those costs. They get those costs because the customer didn't make the sender choose a non-partner of RM.

It is really hard to see why it is RM's fault - by the time they're involved, it is too late. Why is it their duty to spend money asking somebody if they would like their clearance services to be used, holding the item in their warehouses whilst the customer who is waiting for their item collects their letter and writes back, a whole extra cycle of a few days and more chances to go wrong (and a LOT more whining about why RM won't just deliver a parcel but have to come and ask if they should deliver the parcel or hold onto it at their own cost whilst the consumer faffs about with trying to clear the items themselves...). In honesty, that's going to take longer and cost more than £8. Have you any idea just how much incoming post gets handled daily by RM - the cost of the storage alone would be staggering, then having to pick items individually as responses trickled in in random order. I know other private clearance companies charge £10/item/day storage whilst clearing, for instance.

*Incidentally, each of those companies is typically higher overall postage costs plus frequently higher clearance costs, as well as the duty and tax of course.

Xaphania

Doesn't change the fact that said "charge" is over-inflated and definitely should apply to the clearence of all mail through customs, not just that which incurs custom charges. Or that PF and RM are BREAKING THE LAW by witholding mail for which the postage and VAT/duties have been paid.

I didnt' say it was RM or anybody elses fault I just don't see why they can't invoice people like the rest of the civilised world. If we do really and truely LEGALLY owe them the money then they can recoup it the same way that other companies recoup non-payment by customers - instead of sending ransom notes for our packages. The reason they don't is simple, they are not allowed to charge their OVER INFLATED rate for "services" but only the "resonable cost" incurred. Many people recieving the invoice would refuse to pay it, and rightly so, but they pay the charge when it is lumped in with the duty because ... mostly ... it is not listed as a separate item they are being charged for they just get the bill for x amount after the item has cleared customs.

custardy

Xaphania wrote: »

Actually they list that VAT and import duty are the responsibility of the Recipient, and I DID look into applicable duties, funny how this "handling fee" doesn't show up on HMRC site or when using calculation sites. They only really show up on forums like this where people are prepared to talk straight about RIP OFF charges. You also seem pretty schtum on the fact that these charges are only levied against people who are stupid enough to pay them coz they're lumped to another charge, or that careful reading of your referenced bullsh!t reveales you were talking out of your a$$.

Wasn't it you that said something about only quoting the bits of the act that suited you?

I've highlighted that part. Think that has you covered

Xaphania

custardy wrote: »

I've highlighted that part. Think that has you covered

Where in the name of the most holy #### does it say that I paid ANYTHING to ANYONE.

I think, in truth, it has you covered. Charging somebody for something because they are stupid enough to pay it is DEFINITELY against the law.

And again, I don't see ANY counter argument?!?

custardy

Xaphania wrote: »

Where in the name of the most holy #### does it say that I paid ANYTHING to ANYONE.

I think, in truth, it has you covered. Charging somebody for something because they are stupid enough to pay it is DEFINITELY against the law.

And again, I don't see ANY counter argument?!?

Don't need one
6 years,13pages and we are still at its not fair,illegal blah blah blah

Xaphania

custardy wrote: »

Don't need one
6 years,13pages and we are still at its not fair,illegal blah blah blah

That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard, if you had a true answer to the questions I have raised - you would have given it. Instead ... like the people who say Nessie exists simply because it's impossible to prove otherwise ... you bleat about the length of this DISCUSSION and ignore the repeated cases of posters who have forced PF/RM to separate their handling fee from the customs charge due and release the mail that they are holding illegally.