Parcelforce clearance fee's (C&E duty etc)

[perplexity]

Again, only someone with no self worth would care what someone on a forum thinks of them. *Shrugs*

 

Absolutely.

 

There was once a time when I literally had "nothing to lose", so I know how it feels to have no self worth.

 

Nowadays, with enough to cover the cost of a legal action if need be, one is not so insecure so I know how it feels to have the worth as well.

 

I am also aware of just how easy it is to end up with nothing because of the waste of time it is to rant in vain against a system worth a billion times more more than the both of us put together on a good day.

 

Been there. Done it. Got a four drawer filing cabinet full of old papers that nobody wants to read to prove it.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Crapstone]

 

That's rich.

 

With "nothing to lose" you're depending, a parasite who lives on the back of the bully at the expense of the rest of us, not "standing up" for yourself at all.

 

 

How rude! You have no idea of this persons circumstances enough to make any judgement on them. And then trying to defend yourself with crocodile tears and tall tales is frankly pathetic. Just a 4 drawer cabinet? Christ your lucky........

 

You go for it Fenris. They screw up all the time and send threats for items sent as gifts to a receiver that has had no part in the contract other than being an address for shipping. That's even when all duty has already been paid.

[perplexity]

You go for it Fenris. They screw up all the time and send threats for items sent as gifts to a receiver that has had no part in the contract other than being an address for shipping. That's even when all duty has already been paid.

 

No part in what sort of contract?

 

Goods to be delivered because a price was paid are not therefore "sent by the sender to the consignee without payment of any kind" and in order to be exempted the sender must be a "private person". Nothing that would count as a consumer purchase is exempt and who it was who paid is irrelevant.

 

The often repeated myth that something to received as a gift is therefore exempt is nothing more than that, a myth. The notion of a "gift" does not so much as appear as a part of the appropriate Directive 2006/79/EC.

 

8)

[Fenris]

How rude! You have no idea of this persons circumstances enough to make any judgement on them. And then trying to defend yourself with crocodile tears and tall tales is frankly pathetic. Just a 4 drawer cabinet? Christ your lucky........

 

You go for it Fenris. They screw up all the time and send threats for items sent as gifts to a receiver that has had no part in the contract other than being an address for shipping. That's even when all duty has already been paid.

 

Thanks Crapstone (love the name!), it's nice to see not everyone who reads this thread is so rude and offensive.

 

Personally, I see no point in further repsonding to perplexity's posts; they have a view that does not match my own, but thinks everyone should agree with their view of what's right and wrong. Rather ironic considering the insulting and derogatory language used in defence of their argument (or, rather, lack thereof!). I expect a rebuttle... meh!

[perplexity]

Personally, I see no point in further repsonding to perplexity's posts; they have a view that does not match my own, but thinks everyone should agree with their view of what's right and wrong.

 

 

The convincing way to see no point would be to shut up.

 

The law, by the way, is not a view of mine. If you pause to think it though, there is a crucial difference.

 

[Crapstone]

No part in what sort of contract?

 

Goods to be delivered because a price was paid are not therefore "sent by the sender to the consignee without payment of any kind" and in order to be exempted the sender must be a "private person". Nothing that would count as a consumer purchase is exempt and who it was who paid is irrelevant.

 

The often repeated myth that something to received as a gift is therefore exempt is nothing more than that, a myth. The notion of a "gift" does not so much as appear as a part of the appropriate Directive 2006/79/EC.

 

8)

 

And you are again over thinking in situations that are nothing more than your imagination. I've happily gained refunds and dealt with the courts. Perhaps if you even took the time to read the posts in context you would consider that you are diving in at the deep end and drowning in the amount of **** you write. What on earth is wrong with being straight and friendly with people. Quote what you like but the law is ever changing and it takes people like me and the other good people on this site to go out and do those things. Win and then pass on the advice so others can benefit.

 

It's nothing personal but I can't see any good you ever have to offer for the purpose mentioned.

 

With kind regards

[Crapstone]

Thanks Crapstone (love the name!), it's nice to see not everyone who reads this thread is so rude and offensive.

 

Personally, I see no point in further repsonding to perplexity's posts; they have a view that does not match my own, but thinks everyone should agree with their view of what's right and wrong. Rather ironic considering the insulting and derogatory language used in defence of their argument (or, rather, lack thereof!). I expect a rebuttle... meh!

 

On the contrary your reply is to me and for someone to be allowed to speak that way to any poster is clearly wrong whatever their views are. Left to Perplexity the law would never change or be challenged. No contract could ever be questioned and everything would be chiselled in stone to hang around your neck with a clear Directive from the EU. What a life that must be!

 

Truth is you can challenge..you can ask and you have every right to do that. If I'd gone through the things thrown at me and just accepted them I doubt I'd be posting now if I'd have gone by the letter of the law. And heaven forbid it would have been a certain persons take on it as judge and jury.

 

I never really feel the need to post any manic smiles in every post either...

[Crapstone]

No part in what sort of contract?

 

Goods to be delivered because a price was paid are not therefore "sent by the sender to the consignee without payment of any kind" and in order to be exempted the sender must be a "private person". Nothing that would count as a consumer purchase is exempt and who it was who paid is irrelevant.

 

The often repeated myth that something to received as a gift is therefore exempt is nothing more than that, a myth. The notion of a "gift" does not so much as appear as a part of the appropriate Directive 2006/79/EC.

 

8)

 

Has that puzzled you? It shouldn't do if you claim to be so clever. A gift..!

[perplexity]

Left to Perplexity the law would never change or be challenged. No contract could ever be questioned and everything would be chiselled in stone to hang around your neck with a clear Directive from the EU. What a life that must be!

 

That is right.

 

When I married I did not intend to divorce because it was not my idea of fun, to fall out with people for the sake of it.

 

The purpose of the law and the purpose of contract is to bind, to define the terms, to eliminate doubt, to foster trust, to put an end to an argument.

 

The purpose is not to create an opportunity to start an argument.

 

Amen.

 

Has that puzzled you? It shouldn't do if you claim to be so clever. A gift..!

 

A gift, by definition, is not a contract.

 

The transference of property in a thing by one person to another, voluntarily and without any valuable consideration.

[Oxford English Dictionary]

 

A contract, in law, is an exchange of considerations, a mutual agreement to the effect that something with a value is to pass from one to another in exchange for something of value in return, so is not a gift.

 

A promise to give, with nothing to be received in return, is not enforceable. A contract is.

 

8-)

[Fenris]

On the contrary your reply is to me and for someone to be allowed to speak that way to any poster is clearly wrong whatever their views are. Left to Perplexity the law would never change or be challenged. No contract could ever be questioned and everything would be chiselled in stone to hang around your neck with a clear Directive from the EU. What a life that must be!

 

Truth is you can challenge..you can ask and you have every right to do that. If I'd gone through the things thrown at me and just accepted them I doubt I'd be posting now if I'd have gone by the letter of the law. And heaven forbid it would have been a certain persons take on it as judge and jury.

 

I never really feel the need to post any manic smiles in every post either...

 

I'm with you all the way there Crapstone! It's people like you (and I, to some extent) that get off their backsides and fight against injustice that are making changes to this country and it's instituions. Imagine what would have happened if people hadn't cried out about the Govenment's plans to sell of the Forests? Or what would have happned if people hadn't fought Nocton Daries and their barbaric plans for a "mega dariy". Or any number of changes that people want to make to our country on a daily basis? We'd be in a very sorry state if it weren't for people standing up for what they believe is right!

 

Cactuskid has already proven that RM can be challanged on this particular issue. He won and got some money back, so it's not impossible. This is something perplexity and his/her friends have failed to acknowledge! If RM are willing to settle out of Court and are not prepaired to stand in front of a Judge to defend this parctice of disproprtionate charges, then that sends a clear signal that they can't fully justify them. It's got nothing to do with RM saving on costs; they're a multi-million pound company with resources coming out of their backside! They can more than afford to defend a claim if they choose to. But they're just like the big cedit card companies; they know there's no basis in law for what they're doing and they know any Court in the land would find in the Claimant's favour so they back down at the last minute. If RM truely believed their charges were in line with the current law they would fight to the death to be proven right. Cactuskid showed us otherwise.

 

That is right.

 

When I married I did not intend to divorce because it was not my idea of fun, to fall out with people for the sake of it.

 

The purpose of the law and the purpose of contract is to bind, to define the terms, to eliminate doubt, to foster trust, to put an end to an argument.

 

The purpose is not to create an opportunity to start an argument.

 

Amen.

 

 

 

A gift, by definition, is not a contract.

 

[Oxford English Dictionary]

 

A contract, in law, is an exchange of considerations, a mutual agreement to the effect that something with a value is to pass from one to another in exchange for something of value in return, so is not a gift.

 

A promise to give, with nothing to be received in return, is not enforceable. A contract is.

 

8-)

 

Amen? Ah, now I see what's going on here! Suddenly everything makes sense! This is not 2000 years ago. There's no bloke with a couple of stones with "Thou shalt not..." engraved on them. This is the 21st century! You have every right to your own religious views, but don't try and impose them on everyone you encounter in life.

 

As to your definition of gift, I don't know what copy of the OED you're looking in (Wikipedia's perhaps?) but here's the definition from the CED:

 

gift noun ( PRESENT )

 

Definition

•

[C] a present or something which is given

a birthday/wedding gift

The guests all arrived bearing (= bringing) gifts.

 

And here's one from the Free Online Dictionary:

 

 

gift (gft)

n.

1. Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation.

2. The act, right, or power of giving.

3. A talent, endowment, aptitude, or inclination.

tr.v. gift·ed, gift·ing, gifts

1. To present something as a gift to.

2. To endow with.

 

gift [gɪft]

n

1. something given; a present

2. a special aptitude, ability, or power; talent

3. the power or right to give or bestow (esp in the phrases in the gift of, in (someone's) gift)

4. the act or process of giving

look a gift-horse in the mouth (usually negative) to find fault with a free gift or chance benefit

vb (tr)

1. to present (something) as a gift to (a person)

2. (often foll by with) to present (someone) with a gift

3. Rare to endow with; bestow

 

One does not give a "gift" in return for something else! So when one marks a parcel as a gift it should be treated as such and one should not then have to pay Royal Fail for the privilege of traipsing from your home to the delivery (see the word "delivery" here! Not "collection"!) office to pick it up! If a friend in the UK sends me a birthday gift I don't have to pay for it. If my uncle in NY sends me a birthday gift and it costs more than £40 I have to pay VAT/Import Duty and RM's fee for it! How is that then a gift?

 

Incidentally, I recently found out that we in the UK have the lowest limit for imported goods anywhere in the world. Someone I know from India who buys the same Action Figures as I do each month is allowed a limit of around £67/$99 for commercial goods and, as far as I'm aware, there's no limit for gifts. This is not an issue with RM, I know, but it goes a long way to show how much we in this country are shafted.

[perplexity]

The Law is not a religious view, nor an opinion of mine.

 

The Law is what prevails, whether or not you think it should.

 

The Royal Mail is of course prepared to stand in front of a Judge to defend the practice, prepared by the law. There is a basis in law for what they are doing, the definition of "non commercial" provided by the EU Directive 2006/79/EC

 

The convincing way to disbelieve it would be to call their bluff to see what happens. Go on, I dare you. See who would care if you do. If you get so far as a Judge who agrees that your cause is worthwhile you would get the costs as well, so I can only imagine that you don't because you are not prepared to, that is not your honest expectation.

 

-----

 

The UK does not have have the lowest limit for imported goods anywhere in the world, if only because the limit is determined by the EU Directive, so is the same throughout the European Union, 45 Euros, or the exchange equivalent.

 

The limit for a gift in India is 2000 Rupees (equivalent to 32 Euros) according to the customer guide, published here:

 

http://www.indiapost.gov.in/Pdf/Customs/Client_Guide_en.pdf

 

There is no limit in India for "non-commercial goods", but their definition is not the same.

 

The limit for a gift that is recommend by the World Customs Organization and the Universal Postal Union is 25 USD, which is a good deal more stringent than in Europe.

Edited February 27, 2011 by perplexity

[Crapstone]

The Law is not a religious view, nor an opinion of mine.

 

The Law is what prevails, whether or not you think it should.

 

The Royal Mail is of course prepared to stand in front of a Judge to defend the practice, prepared by the law. There is a basis in law for what they are doing, the definition of "non commercial" provided by the EU Directive 2006/79/EC

 

The convincing way to disbelieve it would be to call their bluff to see what happens. Go on, I dare you. See who would care if you do. If you get so far as a Judge who agrees that your cause is worthwhile you would get the costs as well, so I can only imagine that you don't because you are not prepared to, that is not your honest expectation.

 

-----

 

The UK does not have have the lowest limit for imported goods anywhere in the world, if only because the limit is determined by the EU Directive, so is the same throughout the European Union, 45 Euros, or the exchange equivalent.

 

The limit for a gift in India is 2000 Rupees (equivalent to 32 Euros) according to the customer guide, published here:

 

http://www.indiapost.gov.in/Pdf/Customs/Client_Guide_en.pdf

 

There is no limit in India for "non-commercial goods", but their definition is not the same.

 

The limit for a gift that is recommend by the World Customs Organization and the Universal Postal Union is 25 USD, which is a good deal more stringent than in Europe.

 

I did and they backed down before any court case. They paid compensation, wrote off the amount and sent flowers along with a full apology. If THEY were that sure they would stick to their guns and would have defended their corner. They didn't. AMEN.

[Crapstone]

Just as a thought..Do you know that a market exists for copying franking marks? Hence no postage to pay at all as it's charged to the company whose mark is copied? I raised this a few years ago on how much companies and even the government were losing. I tested it when I found the flaw. Were they bothered?

 

I copied a mark and sent it to myself and then made the owners aware of the possible misuse. What did they do? Nothing. And that indeed was a council.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Crapstone

[perplexity]

I did and they backed down before any court case. They paid compensation, wrote off the amount and sent flowers along with a full apology. If THEY were that sure they would stick to their guns and would have defended their corner. They didn't. AMEN.

 

 

Don't be so silly.

 

If you are on about the same thing, the exemption from taxes of imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries, they obviously did stick to their guns.

 

You made no change to this country and it's institutions because the practice is the same as ever.

 

[chrissybear]

I had an interesting experience recently.

 

I have had success in getting parcels from ParcelFarce before by turning up at their office and telling them I am happy to pay the VAT and Customs but not the clearance fee. I may have been made to wait while they have a fag and a coffee, but I have eventually got it. An invoice has always followed which I have ignored and nothing else was ever done.

 

However, the bully boys are upping the ante.

 

The last parcel I went to collect, I went through the usual process and, this time, a "heavy" is fetched. A tall bloke with an attitude. He does not give his full name, just his first name "for security reasons" (BS) but insists there is absolutely no way I can have my parcel as he is now following revised internal rules from PF about the clearance charge. He then removed the parcel from my view and ensured it was not reachable through the service desk.

 

In other words, they are now trying to bully people out of their money and holding parcels to ransom in order to frighten people into paying!! I wish I had videoed this exchange and may well do next time!

 

I did not take this lying down, so asked to speak to his line manager (none available of course!) so I asked for the next line of management up and insisted he gave me a contact detail (he didn't seem keen) - This escalated it to their "MDs Office" on 01908 687249. By the nature of the message on the phone it is obvious they are expecting calls on this number and it is doubtful whether it is anything but a small call centre in Milton Keynes. I digress....

 

A call to a lady on this number, and again I explain that it is illegal for PF to hold onto my parcel and hold it to ransom, she calls the nameless PF man in the office and "authorises" my parcel's release, with the promise of another invoice in the future.

 

It is absolutely appalling that PF are now employing heavy-handed tactics to get their £8 or whatever ransom charge. The sooner someone with more legal knowledge than I tackles this farcical situation, the better.

 

As for the future, well, if I could avoid using them I would, but I would seem to have no say over who deals with my parcel once it enters the UK.

Edited July 18, 2011 by chrissybear

[barracad]

As for the future, well, if I could avoid using them I would, but I would seem to have no say over who deals with my parcel once it enters the UK.

 

Unfortunately, none of the other carriers are charities either so as with Parcelforce, they will all expect to be paid for the work they do, or they will soon go bust. It's hardly 'heavy handed' to ask you to pay for a service they are providing!

[perplexity]

It's hardly 'heavy handed' to ask you to pay for a service they are providing!

 

 

Nor is it just the work.

 

Whoever imports is obliged to facilitate an inspection of the goods, — the building, the transport, the running cost and whatever else it takes to accommodate customs and immigration, the same as an airport is obliged to provide, when you travel with your luggage.

 

The shame is then the reluctance to act against the spoiled brats who turn up here to brag about the way they cheat.

[moel]

I've just (well i still am) on the phone

 

and I've just been informed that the clearance fee isn't charged by RM, but by customs...and i need to get in touch with them...true or bs?

[Fenris]

BS. The £8/£13 "handling fee" is charged by Royal Fail/Parcelfarce. Everything else is Customs and Excise.

[perplexity]

HM Customs and Excise inspection is not a free service.

 

The Royal Mail has to cover the practical cost, the same as an airport has to cover the cost of the customs and immigration control.

[moel]

Rightyho...off to small claims it is and a letter to the chairman of RM.

[Fenris]

I managed to get a refund of just under £50 directly from Royal Fail for these fees. I did threaten them with Court action for the rest, but haven't done it yet due to my poor health. Might have a go now I'm feeling better and see if I can get the other sixty-odd quid back! *Queue all the RM fanboys saying I'm a horrid person for taking money off the Director who earns more in a week than I ever did in a year!*

 

Good luck with your claim mate, let us know how you get on.

[Darryl74]

Ok, I'm really peeved off as I paid to a US Company £65.72 for items, which £25.26 was payment for Express Mail International (3-7 days). Now 10 days later I recieve a letter from ParcelForce for payment of £25.79, £13.50 of which is clearance fees. I've lived over in Australia before and I have had letters from Customs before to pay the import fees, but never had a courier handle the payment then expect administration fees. I'm tempted to go in tomorrow and refuse payment of the clearance fee.

[Fenris]

Trust me mate, it won't get you anywhere. I argued with the goit in the King's Lynn sorting office until I was livid! I quoted the law and even showed him a copy of an e-mail from their own customer service staff stating if a customer refuses to pay the charge but will pay the VAT they're to release the parcel and invoice for the charge later. He wouldn't have any of it! Had no choice but to pay the extortionate fee in order to get my stuff.

 

It's not helping that the limit is being reduced from £18 to £15 now. Makes it almost impossible for me to buy my figures next year as the charge for those looks to be going up to $25 per figure, which means instead of the £18 each they have been, they'll end up being over £30! Rip-off Britain again. Yet a chap I know in South Africa said he doesn't get charged VAT etc. unless it's over the SA equivalent of £100!

[how_many_cowboys]

I'm trying to challenge the fees also, I have had paperwork from them in their defence, any legal big wigs on the forum? I have scanned the letters into imageshack but I can't post links,anyone willing to post them for me?