Customs Clearance Charges charged after delivery - DHL

Aylesbury_Duck

Selector wrote: »

Yeah, yeah, you little bunch of insular gangsters. Chatting stuff, bluff and nonsense among yourselves.
You, blatantly, have nothing to offer.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now; a reasonable and thinking person would be excused for thinking a number of contributors to these forums are on the payroll of others.
You've said, Jack. And substantiated even less.
Thank you for your non-contribution.

What other forums do you think other people are employed by? And why?

powerful_Rogue

Selector wrote: »

Yeah, yeah, you little bunch of insular gangsters. Chatting stuff, bluff and nonsense among yourselves.
You, blatantly, have nothing to offer.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now; a reasonable and thinking person would be excused for thinking a number of contributors to these forums are on the payroll of others.
You've said, Jack. And substantiated even less.
Thank you for your non-contribution.

Don't worry, we're used to people not getting the facts they want on here.


PS - Thanks for the afternoon chuckle :rotfl:Now back to your village.

Selector

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Interesting.... So if i bought a takeaway for £15 could the delivery driver send me a delivery charge invoice for £45 a month later?

Its the sender that's the customer not the receiver.... I'd tell them to come and pick the packet up and return it.

I positively 'love' you for your sense of reason, Mr_Singleton.
Apparently, according to most on this thread, if I imported a 50p widget from China and get charged £1000 in duty because it may contain a proprietary chemical, and some third party private company pays that £1000 to HM Customs, I suddenly owe £1000 for a 50p widget.... with no right of refusal!
Stuff, tosh and nonsense is what's being written here.
Collecting taxes on behalf of HM Government is one thing. Paying taxes to HM Government on behalf of another and then obligating that other to repay you is complete and utter tosh, nonsense and has no basis in law.
Parliament makes and changes law through statutes and judges and magistrates change common law through rulings and precedence.
The very notion that a private company can make up UK law is....... I can't put it into words for fear or being barred from this forum.

powerful_Rogue

Selector wrote: »

I positively 'love' you for your sense of reason, Mr_Singleton.
Apparently, according to most on this thread, if I imported a 50p widget from China and get charged £1000 in duty because it may contain a proprietary chemical, and some third party private company pays that £1000 to HM Customs, I suddenly owe £1000 for a 50p widget.
Stuff, tosh and nonsense is what's being written here.
Collecting taxes on behalf of HM Government is one thing. Paying taxes to HM Government on behalf of another and then obligating that other to repay you is complete and utter tosh, nonsense and has no basis in law.
Parliament makes and changes law through statutes and judges and magistrates change common law through rulings and precedence.
The very notion that a private company can make up UK law is....... I can't put it into words for fear or being barred from this forum.

I was going to reply in detail, but you clearly haven't read what has already been written explaining things.
I think you summed up what you're saying better then I could.

Stuff, tosh and nonsense is what's being written here.

Selector

custardy wrote: »

So which couriers have you used before.
The only one I know that doesnt invoice after delivery is Parcelforce.
However its moot.
You are the same as the hundreds before you whining after the fact you didnt know,didnt have a contract yada yada.
Imagine if HMRC were to deal with the clearance themselves. Oh the uproar.

Useless. Completely and utterly useless. You offer absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge, experience or advice.

Aylesbury_Duck

Selector wrote: »

Useless. Completely and utterly useless. You offer absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge, experience or advice.

You still arguing with people when you're sure you're right and they're wrong? It's a bit odd.

custardy

Selector wrote: »

Useless. Completely and utterly useless. You offer absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge, experience or advice.

I have taken you critique onboard and will work to improve it for my forum employer PDR.
Feedback appreciated.

visidigi

Selector wrote: »

Useless. Completely and utterly useless. You offer absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge, experience or advice.

I do, and because I have specific industry knowledge of this (yes, I am one of the people who you asked to reply if you had specific knowledge and experience), but yet you ignore both posts I have made.

I do begin to question why you come on a forum if you've already decided what the right answer is (despite your completely lack of industry involvement in the subject matter). After-all you've been offered solutions but yet again they are ignored.

Oh well!

Selector

davidmcn wrote: »

In my legal opinion, yes. Feel free to ignore the pro bono advice if you like, though I'm not sure why you asked.

Your legal opinion as a court judge with knowledge in this area? Perhaps as a specialist tax lawyer? In which case you'll easily be able to point to the law that makes this ridiculous process legal? No? Didn't think so.
At the moment, the length, breadth and depth of replies telling me I must pay amount to, "because you must". No citations in law. Nadda! Just. "because".
I have no reason to thank anybody for such vacuous "legal opinion". Unsubstantiated legal advice is useless whether it's free or charged for.

scorsagian

I am surprised this lot have not had a go at you for accepting the package! They be telling us we should know not to to accept it. !