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

[buzby]

Chris,

 

Try this; http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageTravel_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000014&propertyType=document

[cactuskid]

thanks. I have been there already. It is just another reference to the regulations but the regulations themself are still missing. In fact, paragraph 7 of that page is a good example of why I dont like this scenario. It is headed 'opening of postal packets' and gives the impression that PF can open parcels routinely in their occupation as agents for HMRC but that is not the case in reality. They have conveniently missed out the fact that section 106 of Postal Services Act 2000 states very clearly that PF can only open packets if they suspect contraban contents which is then to be forwarded to Her Majesters croons. When a regulation dated 1986 disapears and then is contradicted by a new law written in 2000, both PF and the tax man are playing on words in their documentation regarding the regulations - smell the fish!

 

If I am wrong about this challenge then so be it. But I will come out of the court room with the law in my hand one way or another so this issue can be put to rest. It will not be rested until I get a copy of the Postal Packet Regulations 1986 at least and have its validity against the Postal Services Act 2000 confirmed. Does anyone know what act accompanied the Postal Packet Regulations 1986 i.e. what act were the regulations written for at least ?

 

Chris

[buzby]

It will have been printed by the HMSO, so perhaps their search engine can pull it up.

[silverbreak]

Don't pretend to understand the argument but surely the 2000 Act is largely a reenactment of the 1986 Act but was needed because of Royal Mail's change of legal status. There is nothing in the new Act which modifies/amends/deletes the right of the Royal Mail, PF or any other Universal carrier in charging a clearance charge for acting as HMRC's agent.

[dragonkeeper]

But I will come out of the court room with the law in my hand one way or another so this issue can be put to rest

 

Does anyone know what act accompanied the Postal Packet Regulations 1986 i.e. what act were the regulations written for at least ?

 

Chris

 

 

 

Would you not be better asking that question to someone in the Court room rather than asking the people who you are trying to inform.

 

If Cag a member posts the answer then you would not need to post (slightly defeats your objective)

 

 

 

 

dk

[cactuskid]

Would you not be better asking that question to someone in the Court room rather than asking the people who you are trying to inform.

 

If Cag a member posts the answer then you would not need to post (slightly defeats your objective)

 

 

 

 

dk

 

who am I trying to inform of what exactly? Am i on trial here?

 

Chris

[cactuskid]

At long last, here is the Postal Packets (Customs and Excise) Regulations 1986

http://www.leons-world.com/files/Postal-Packets-Regulations-1986.pdf

Chris

[h59elmer]

Anybody in business whether self employed to vat registered are unpaid tax collectors, be it income tax or VAT. Why do Parcel Force feel they need to charge for this privalige. If your local fuel station decided to charge £13.50 for every litre or tank full of fuel you purchased, you would soon boycote the place. May be all business should charge for tax collecting, then the whole country would be out in force against it. Your £1 pencil would £14.50, sounds great. Being British we would protest for a couple of days and accecpt it. One big problem the government would gain from the VAT on £13.50. And then you have to charge your self another £13.50 for collecting the VAT on the first, and so on. May be I should not have posted this, some MP might have an idea and make it a legal requirement.

[buzby]

Have you overlooked that the petrol station is already acting as an unpaid tax collector? Barely 11p in each litre of fuel is the cost of the product and profit margin, the rest is duty and VAT. What is even more unfair is that the duty hikes the price, THEN VAT is added, not on the price of the fuel itsel, but the cost od this plust the duty, so it is a tax on a fax.

 

Clever, eh?

 

Your MP will we well aware of this, as it is no mystery.

[cactuskid]

good point!

 

It was very hard work getting a hold of the Postal Packets Regulations that I posted. It is a million miles from the version PF and HMRC quote when they are defending themselves. My hearing against PF is on the 20th Oct but there was a problem getting a hearing payment to them on time so not sure what is happening.

 

According to a nice lady from the HMRC legal department that helped me get the regulations, they are currently revising the regulations and it should be avilable by early next year.

 

Chris

[buzby]

I don't believe them Chris, because HMRC cannot redraft anything, it then has to go to Parliament. They cannot the law on-the-hoof if it contradicts the Act under which it was created. It would have to be a new bill, or an amendment to an existing one. It usually takes years for this to happen!

[cactuskid]

Now we have the PP Regulations 1986 the argument against paying the VAT and fee's is a very simple one.

 

Regulation 11 is the most interesting....

 

11

The proper officer of the [postal operator]1 is hereby authorised to perform in relation to any postal packet or the goods which it contains such of the duties required by virtue of the customs and excise Acts to be performed by the importer or exporter of goods as the Commissioners may require.

Like I said earlier in this thread, this regulation allows PF to perform acts on behalf of the importer regarding their duties to HMRC. That is great until you read the VAT Act 1994...

3 Taxable persons and registration

(1) A person is a taxable person for the purposes of this Act while he is, or is required to be, registered under this Act

I am not registered or required to be registered so what duties do PF need to perform on my behalf? If PF were VAT registered and selling me the parcel then that is a different story, but they are neither selling or liable for VAT themselves.

 

Chris

[cactuskid]

I don't believe them Chris, because HMRC cannot redraft anything, it then has to go to Parliament. They cannot the law on-the-hoof if it contradicts the Act under which it was created. It would have to be a new bill, or an amendment to an existing one. It usually takes years for this to happen!

 

Quote from Customs Policy, Procedures & Facilitation Team (Excise, Customs, Stamps & Money) when I asked them for the 1986 regulations

"Unfortunately OPSI does not go back before 1987 . We are rewriting the 1986 regulations and intend to have the revised version by the end of this year. This will be on the OPSI database."

I know what you are saying either way, it does take time. It is a very odd statement

Chris

[buzby]

You are confusing different things. Following your logic, because you are not registered for VAT, you should not have to pay it...yes?

 

But VAT is applied to goods and services across the board regardless of your tax status. IF you are registered, them you may be able to reclaim the VAT element, but only if normally reclaimable.

[cactuskid]

yes VAT is applied to services and goods but only paid by a person that is registered for VAT. A non VAT registered person never pays VAT, they just pay an inflated price to cover the VAT registered persons liability. There is no VAT registered person in the chain when importing goods for personal use

 

Chris

[buzby]

Yes there is. When goods are imported, duty at the appropriate rate AND VAT are applied to reach the final price. ALL goods available for sale must have VAT applied unles they are oif export (not import). You've got this the wrong way round!

[wheelergeezer]

Not quite. You didn't mention VAT exempt goods.

[buzby]

And you didn't mention prohibited goods, which many of those exempt items are prohibited from abroad for reasons of quarantine or safety. Itvstill doesntvchange the fact that everyone pays VAT where it applies.

[notastudent]

Hi I have read these posts with interest, I am expecting a delivery of goods from America that I ordered but they are sending it in 2 packages much to my dismay as one item was not in stock. Now I feel a bit more hopeful that I won't have to pay the clearance fee twice or at all if I challenge them (Parcelforce).

 

What I want to know is can you only challenge it in the depot itself or over the phone as well? I ask because the depot is so far away that it is uneconomical for me to pick up the parcel even if the charges were waivered.

[cactuskid]

Prepare to be charged twice then be presented with a brick wall to argue with about the issue

 

Chris

[buzby]

Alternatively, because the items have been split the limits may not be crossed and both will sail through and be delivered without charge, which a combined parcel would not. Just keep your fingers crossed.

[cactuskid]

I am in court against parcelfarce next week so definately need the fingers crossed

[buzby]

I am in court against parcelfarce next week so definately need the fingers crossed

 

I'm assuming this is the Small Claim Track? Good luck, but watch out if they succeed how quickly they'll seek costs. (Nailing the myth that you have to be a vexatious pursuer!).

[Fenris]

OK, I'm going to ask because all the previous pages seem to be finer points of law being debated. I've got a package that's come from the USA and according to USPS's website it's stated as "Attempted delivery" which, after a bit of Googling, brought me to the relaisation that it's stuck in Nowich at Parcel Farce's delivery hub. Now, I live a 90 mile round trip from Norwich so I can't really just pop to the delivery office and quote sections of the Postal Services Act at them. Is there any point in my phoning them and trying to get my package to me before the weekend (and getting that damnable fee waived) or do I have to wait for their blasted card and pay the monumental fee? I've no problem paying the VAT, I just think a fee of £13.50 is a bit OTT and even worse if I have to take a day and a half tank of petrol to go collect it from the other side of the county!

 

Cheers!

Fen.

[buzby]

Practicalities aside, USPS always use RM and Parcelforce for deliveries from the US. The good news is they usually alwys under-declare or let through without charge when borderline. If your parcel is over the limit and there's no argument, then unless you pay the importation dues, vat and their clearance fees they will not delver it. Nor to they accept cash on the doorstep, so the only option is to pay up by whatever method(s) are available and they they'll schedule delivery to your door at no extra cost. Your negotiation prowess would need to be exrercised at the depot, and with no guarantee of success still run the risk of making the journey and still not getting the item. You only have 28 days before it is returned to sender.