I ordered an obsolete part for an old computer off eBay. The seller was in America and the part was Buy it Now for $20 (£12). I picked up the parcel today and was charged VAT of £3.65 and £8 RM handling fee (total £11.65). These charges get applied to all goods imported valued at over £18. I couldn't understand why I'd been charged, but when I saw the seller's Customs Declaration sticker, he'd stated the item value was '$40' (appx £24). I have no idea why he did this. What should I do? I am mad at being unfairly and unnecessarily charged. I can print the eBay transaction and send it to RM proving it isn't worth more then £12, and try and claim it back. Or should I contact the seller and ask him to pay the charge for writing a false amount on the declaration?

MarshmallowMan, although Buzby is technically correct, I think if you play it as 'we were never told' (including lack of labelling) and point out how many other suppliers want your business, there's a strong chance you could get them to overlook that bill as a gesture of goodwill. Do you have storage heaters in the house? If no I'd think it'd be even more fair for you to assume you were on standard electricity. How is your water heated, and how old's the house? In my mate's case the whole place was converted to a gas boiler system years before he moved in, the previous occupier was elderly and probably didn't understand what Economy 7 was so didn't realise to switch back. When you say they recommended you pay £15 a month, how did they come to that sum, did they ask lifestyle questions, and did they say £15 or you? I think this could be important in winning your argument. I can try and dig out the letter we used so you can use it as a guide, if you wanted to pursue it.

Thanks for the info guys. Have written to the ICO but I think you've got the answer Buzby. I also wrote to the Gambling Comission too, who regulate competitions, but they said "Prize competitions and free draws are free of statutory regulatory control under the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act). Such competitions and draws can therefore be organised commercially for private benefit and profit."

Can free-to-enter competitions (the kind of you see in newspapers and on product packaging) force participants to allow their details to be used for marketing purposes? ISTR about 5 years ago some picky new laws coming in declaring promotions companies should give participants the option to 'opt in' to marketing, rather than force them to tick a box in order to 'opt out'. I ask because I was about to enter Snappy Snaps' new competition on their homepage (Snappy Snaps Home Page) where you answer a question and give your details, but it will only let you submit and enter if you agree to your details being given to third parties. There isn't even a choice to opt out! Are they officially allowed to do this?

...

Well it's a moral dilema as there's a school on my road. However, the road is actually a cul-de-sac. It's also a nightmare to turn round in and so very few cars do actually drive up it, let alone speed. None of us were consulted or even advised. I don't know if there's any rules about placement based on past accidents (like speed camera placement requires) but I've not known of any accident in the years I've lived there. IMO the bumps here are totally unnecessary, and probably a result of some council dept's leftover funds which must be spent by the end of the financial year. But... back on topic... are the signs enforceable?

Yeah, I've moved my car anyway. My question id the validity/legality of the request. We see signs every day ordering us to do stuff, but just coz they look official doesn't mean they are.... Supermarket 'PCNs' for example.

We're having speed bumps put in our street, and signs have been put up asking for vehicles to make way for the works. They say: SPEED BUMP CONSTRUCTION WORKS NO PARKING 8am - 8pm [Hand written date] Offending vehicles will be removed I'm just curious if (I assume the council put them up) have the power to remove vehicles in this case, just by putting a sign up? There's cones along the street too, but they don't say 'Police' on them or anything.

Yeah, used PayPal but didn't really want to go through that channel as it seemed (I thought) a pretty clear cut case for RM to compensate (PayPal aren't exactly famous for their customer satisfaction so was trying to avoid). I see what you're getting at about value Hightail, but using that argument isn't a CD 'just a bit of plastic' and a DaVinci is 'just a canvas with some oil paint on it'? RM are also obliged in this situation to at the very least send a book of 1st class stamps (their own rules) and there's no mention of that in the letter. I wonder if this is just some office boy being lazy?

More Royal Mail joy for me.... I bought two concert tickets off eBay for £25 (for both), they were sent using Recorded Signed For but never turned up. The tracking number shows them as still not delivered. (This was over a month ago) I sent a lost items form to Royal Mail along with the sellers' proof of posting, the tracking number and print out of the eBay listing. I received a letter back saying 'we cannot offer compensation for loss of items such as tickets sent by Recorded Delivery, in future we suggest you use Special Delivery that covers any losses'. Why would they say they can't compensate for tickets? In their terms and conditions I note it says they won't pay for items that have 'no intrinsic value' - do tickets for a concert have no intrinsic value? Any suggestions on what to do? I think I've read on here you can't use legal action against Royal Mail coz they are Government owned. :-/

Much as I'm not sure it's enough to warrant it a police matter (I wasn't being defrauded), I really don't think the postie was 'doing me a favour' by faking my acceptance of the package. I sometimes use the Signed For service with additional insurance for valuable items (hundreds, sometimes £1000, etc) and to think some lazy employee might just sign it themselves and stuff it through a door is irritating - what am I paying for, exactly, and who is there left to trust??? Grrr.....

I received a 'Signed for' delivery the other day whilst I was out at work, however the package was just posted straight through my letterbox. But today on the packaging I noticed one of the barcode stickers was missing (they usually take one and stick it next to the signature when it gets signed for). I entered the tracking number into Royal Mail's site and it brought up a scan of the Proof of Delivery - which has my name hand-written on it (I assume by the postman). It's quite obviously not my signature as my writing is quite spikey and this one is very rounded. It was an eBay item, for which I paid for a 'Signed For' delivery - so at the very least Royal Mail have swindled me out of 70p! Not sure what to do, how serious it is, or if I should bother following it up.

thanks che, by 'unilaterally' do you mean they can't just alter it because it suits them? (not come up against that word too often). regarding your points, a. the unofficial reason is because of continued mass lateness (this has been said as much via email). a more official line is that some employees from another department have already been moved to the earlier start time (possibly for the same reason), and I think newer employees may have the earlier time on their contracts, so this move would then bring everyone into line. I'm not sure this is a legitimate business reason though? b. so far we've been threatened twice over 6 weeks via email that it might happen if lateness continues. is this consultation? how long should consultation take, and shouldn't it be face to face? c. from when i started. 5+ years! d. looking into this e. not sure what you mean??

Anyone able to help on this, please? It has been threatened once again, I wanna know where I legally stand before I wade in!

I work for a company who has up to now been fairly relaxed and (unofficially) flexible about start end times - if you get in 5-10 mins late, you work just work an extra 5-10 mins at the end (as long as it's not too often). My contract, however, does give a specific start and end time to the working day. Recently some employees have been repeatedly getting in later and later and taking the proverbial somewhat, leading to the suggestion (threat ) by management that if it continues our start time to the day will be brought forward. My question is whether they just can do this on a whim, or do they need to follow some procedure? Would I need to sign a new contract? Can they force me to do that? It wouldn't mean a change to the amount of hours we do, just the time we have to start/finish.

Being a family member and with no written contract you will need to prove to the judge that this was indeed a loan and not a gift (which with no written contract, your sister could potentially lie and claim she thought it was). Hopefully your text message is the vital piece of evidence here, if her wording mentions 'lending', 'lent', 'borrowed' or suchlike. If the text just says 'I'm not paying you the money back' this does not necessarily imply it was a loan. Keep it anyway! Maybe you could give us more precise wording? Hopefully the payments you've received so far will be enough to prove it was a loan. I was close to two very similar cases involving family myself (only without the texts, just the initial verbal agreements). One was lost because it couldn't be proved it wasn't a gift, and one was won. I got the feeling at the end of the day it really did depend on who the judge was on the day. :-/

BINGO! Got the desired refund in the end, though they still claim they didn't owe it - see highlighted bit in the response below: So ok, I did sign a rental agreement when picking up the car, I just naively assumed it would have the same T&Cs as the website. Oh well, another lesson learned, and thankfully one I didn't have to pay for in the end.

Bumping - any comments please??? Wanna get this sent off by end of today.

Have knocked up this reply - I tried putting in a few other points as suggested, but felt it just clouded my main issue of getting a refund. I don't wanna give them the opportunity to ignore me again and go off on other tangents. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated: Comments????? Is the 'legally bound' too strong?

Grumble grumble.... well I've got a reply from Avis UK about the Winterisation Fee, but with no reference to my request for refund. Here it is, any thoughts on next steps? It's obvious they haven't read my letter properly as they refer to 'colleagues in the Reservation Department' - who I never even dealt with as I booked it all online! Also, while they say they can't display costs for all extras (why???!) they admit the information about the fee is missing from site - therefore should I continue with the argument that I didn't agree to it, and respond with a LBA?

That's what I was thinking, it's disproportionate. The letter came form their Austrian office, however I used avis.co.uk to book the car - so not sure where that leaves me?

Just received a letter from Avis (not a reply to the above) saying they have had to pass on my details to the Austrian authorities for a traffic offence, and as stated in Avis's terms & conditions this involves a €12 Administration Fee which they have taken already from my credit card. Can I claim this fee back from Avis? Surely such costs are covered as part of their general running costs, they must get hundreds of these every day. There was a thread here recently about this, where the hire car company had also automatically paid the fine, denying the driver the right to claim not guilty/appeal - can't find it though - anyone remember it?

Ok, will make that change... was just getting carried away I suppose. I'll keep back the Hertz line for if they don't give the refund, I can then say I'll go to them in the future.

Bit late... but I've drafted up this letter. Does it sound too weak/strong? Comments please!

If they made him pay it back in full you're laughing, but if the court made him pay a set amount each month he could still dick you around like he is doing now, and you'd have to keep corresponding with the court explaining what was happening to get them to re-enforce it, etc... In my experience it wouldn't necessarily make it any easier. Ok, it just might make him take the matter more seriously, but given all you've explained about him so far it don't sound like he would. I'm not saying don't go ahead with the court stuff coz I think you probably should, I'm just saying don't expect it to be a magic wand.