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

[notastudent]

Hi Fen, I got notification of my parcel yesterday, I phoned the depot as its too far for me to drive also and disputed the parcelforce clearance charge. They put me through to head office who reluctantly said I could pay just my duty, vat etc BUT they will be sending me a seperate invoice for the parcelforce clearance fee. I said 'fine' as I have no intention of paying it. Today my parcel was delivered. Success i'd say!!

[buzby]

You might. But then, for the rest of us who pay our way - I hope they take you to court and obtain judgement. Whilst the rest of us who import respoinsibly, if you don;t like their charges you find another method of doing so that charges the fee you like. As PF is the cheapest of the lot (short of your own agent) as a method of avoiding a fee, RM would be irresponsible in allowing a situation like this to develop.

[cactuskid]

Update:

 

1 week away from the court date I have received an out of court settlement offer (full claim amount). The letter is from Royal Mail themselves, not parcelforce which is suprising and simply states that they admit no wrongdoing but basically cant be bothered to take it to court. I will post the letter later once scanned.

 

But although I will be accepting the offer there is a catch to this because I then become head on with HMRC over the VAT payment which is being refunded. Just because PF are refunding the charge it does not mean I am out of the woods i.e. HMRC will now be sending me a letter which is fine by me because it is my relationship with HMRC over imports that is the issue.

In my response to Royal Mail I shall be asking them if the VAT for that import is unpaid as a result of my acceptance of their offer or are they just paying me off so to speak.

 

Chris

[cactuskid]

It looks like nobody is watching this thread anymore. Details available by PM

 

Chris

[Fenris]

Hi Fen, I got notification of my parcel yesterday, I phoned the depot as its too far for me to drive also and disputed the parcelforce clearance charge. They put me through to head office who reluctantly said I could pay just my duty, vat etc BUT they will be sending me a seperate invoice for the parcelforce clearance fee. I said 'fine' as I have no intention of paying it. Today my parcel was delivered. Success i'd say!!

 

Wow, that was impressive! I eneded up just paying it. Meant items I bought from TRU America (can't get ANY of the items I ordered in the UK) cost me almost three times as much as they should have. AND customs overcharged me. Have sent them a letter but still awaiting a response three weeks on.

 

Thought I'd check back in on this thread as I've got another £8 handling fee to pay. I'm seriously thinking of taking RM to court for all these fees as it's tantamount to extortion! I'd like to see more of cactuskid's story!

[cactuskid]

I posted this in another thread but will post it here too. Like I said before, the extortion is being enacted by HMRC and PF are simply being rewarded the processing fee for their part in the [problem]. VAT is a way of extracting money from you via the manufacturer who has commercial liabilities so can be taxed. You as a personal buyer are not VAT registered so have no tax duties to perform. You have never paid VAT and will never pay VAT unless you are VAT registered. The VAT you pay at a shop is not your VAT, it is the shop keepers VAT that you are forced to pay by the price being inflated. That is very important to understand.

 

PF or HMRC cannot charge you VAT personally because there would then be no VAT reciept or invoice. You can not be issued a VAT receipt or invoice because you are not commercially liable so are out of that game. So you have not won anything until you realise that being charged VAT for your delivery is like paying road tax for a push bike! You are not liable!

 

 

Royal Mail sent a very hefty pile of defense paperwork to the court in response to my initial claim so that stuff about the cost of attending is crap. They did not even need to attend court.

 

Chris

[buzby]

Please, take them to court.

 

Perhaps then you'll see you've no right to have customs clearance services supplied at no cost, whilst the rest of us pay.

[perplexity]

This is lamentably stupid:

 

... Like I said before, the extortion is being enacted by HMRC and PF are simply being rewarded the processing fee for their part in the [problem].

 

 

PF are not "simply being rewarded."

 

PF are obliged to cover the considerable cost of the process, to provide the facility for HMRC to inspect the mail.

 

The idea is that HMCR collect the duty. The idea is not for HMRC to have to spend the taxes we already paid in order to have to do so.

 

[cactuskid]

I thought this was a consumer help forum? Is it now run by the tax man?

 

Chris

[perplexity]

And this is worse:

 

So you have not won anything until you realise that being charged VAT for your delivery is like paying road tax for a push bike! You are not liable!

 

The VAT on the import of goods is like the VAT you pay when your bike or anything else is purchased from a shop in your high street.

 

The Council Directive 2006/79/EC defines the exception, "non commercial" goods being those that

 

(a) are of an occasional nature;

 

(b) contain only goods intended for the personal or family use of the consignees, the nature and quantity of which do not indicate that they are being imported for any commercial purpose;

 

© contain goods with a total value not exceeding EUR 45;

 

(d) are sent by the sender to the consignee without payment of any kind.

[cactuskid]

that is great detective work but you missed the part in the VAT act that states 'a person is liable to pay VAT if they are VAT registered'. There is nothing cryptic in that quote, it means a person is liable to pay only if they are VAT registered.

 

If you wish to put a number plate on your bike and pay road tax then go for it lol

 

Dont forget, I got a refund. You did not. Case closed!

 

Chris

[perplexity]

We already knew that it costs a fortune to accommodate the mentally incapacitated.

 

In the mean time, what about this is so hard to get?

 

2.2 Do I have to pay import duties and/or import VAT on goods sent to me?

 

Most goods arriving in the UK from outside the EU are liable to any or all of the following taxes:

 

* customs duty

* excise duty

* import VAT

 

and must be paid whether:

 

* you purchase the goods or receive them as a gift

* the goods are new or used (including antiques)

* the goods are for your private use or for re-sale.

 

 

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

 

[cactuskid]

You copied that from HMRC website, it is not written law.

 

Duties are to be paid, that is true. But you seem to not notice the wording in that paste where it does not identify what you pay VAT on and what you pay duty on seperately. Hence you are not very clever and deserve to pay most of your hard earned money to those that are more inteligent. I think they call that natural selection?

 

Chris

[Fenris]

Can I just point out that, personally, I have no problems with paying the VAT charge. I just think that Royal Fail are taking the mick when it comes to their £8 charge for doing sod all. NONE the parcels I've had come from American recently that have gone via customs have been opened or inspected. Hell, Royal Fail don't even deliver the parcel, I have to drive into town to pick it up! I pay shipping from door to door not from door to customs to RM for them to hold it to ransom at their depot!

 

And Chris is right, when did this website turn into a place to flame people? I had this last year from some tosser when I asked for help with some another consumer problem. No-one's forcing you to post in these forums; if you can't be polite and helpful why bother posting? I'm not saying that to stire things up I genuinely don't understand.

 

At the end of the day, there are many many peopl who're unhappy with this "charge" and if people like buzby are happy to pay it, tha's up to them. Me? I find it extortionate and if I can get even 10% of it back it'd be a result.

[perplexity]

....But you seem to not notice the wording in that paste where it does not identify what you pay VAT on and what you pay duty on seperately.

 

No kidding?

 

The VAT and the duty are not at all so separate:

 

... the Community legislation for the time being having effect in relation to Community customs duties charged on goods entering the territory of the Community,

 

shall apply (so far as relevant) in relation to any VAT chargeable on the importation of goods from places outside the member States as they apply in relation to any such duty of customs or excise or, as the case may be, Community customs duties.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/23/section/16

 

i.e.

 

Scope of VAT on acquisitions from member States.

 

(1) VAT shall be charged on any acquisition from another member State of any goods where—

 

(a) the acquisition is a taxable acquisition and takes place in the United Kingdom;

 

(b) the acquisition is otherwise than in pursuance of a taxable supply; and

 

© the person who makes the acquisition is a taxable person or the goods are subject to a duty of excise or consist in a new means of transport.

 

(2) An acquisition of goods from another member State is a taxable acquisition if—

 

(a) it falls within subsection (3) below or the goods consist in a new means of transport; and

 

(b) it is not an exempt acquisition.

 

(3) An acquisition of goods from another member State falls within this subsection if—

 

(a) the goods are acquired in the course or furtherance of—

 

(i) any business carried on by any person; or

 

(ii) any activities carried on otherwise than by way of business by any body corporate or by any club, association, organisation or other unincorporated body;

 

(b) it is the person who carries on that business or, as the case may be, those activities who acquires the goods; and

 

© the supplier—

 

(i) is taxable in another member State at the time of the transaction in pursuance of which the goods are acquired; and

 

(ii) in participating in that transaction, acts in the course or furtherance of a business carried on by him.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/23/section/10

 

N.B.

 

"...a taxable person or the goods are subject to a duty of excise, "

 

Edited November 4, 2010 by perplexity

[postggj]

I ask the question

i know the answer so dont bite my head off

 

whhat is the situation then if you pay vat/ business tax etc at point of sale in a non eu country, HAVE THE GOODS POSTED TO A EU COUNTRY and then get hit again for vat in any eu member state

[Fenris]

I ask the question

i know the answer so dont bite my head off

 

whhat is the situation then if you pay vat/ business tax etc at point of sale in a non eu country, HAVE THE GOODS POSTED TO A EU COUNTRY and then get hit again for vat in any eu member state

 

I believe it's a matter of "tough luck" as this has happened to me. The big parcel I got from TRU USA I had to pay sales tax on and THEN I had to pay VAT over here. Personally, I think it should be one or the other, not both, but that's the Inland Revinue for you!

[postggj]

Bingo

 

got it in one

[buzby]

Items that I've bought and imported from Canada were sent (exported) and were tax free up to the point the tax was assessed in the EU. It is up to the seller to keep the price keen and export at the lowest cost. The majority of Scottish Whisky is bonded (Tax free) and shipped accordingly, unless destined for the EU. Once it arrives in foreign climes, local customs charge the tax at the rate imposed by that administration.

 

That fact that only business users 'pay VAT' is a nonsensical statement. Everybody pays VAT.

[cantonkid1955]

I work in admin for Parcelforce Worldwide and I would like to clarify the position on Parcelforce clearance fees.

The Parcelforce clearance fee is a payment made to us,,for us paying Revenue and Customs the VAT and Import duty that has to be payed on items entering the UK from abroad.in effect,,Parcelforce Worldwide,as in other couriers,are lending you the money to release your parcel from the clutches of HM revenue and Customs, so we can deliver it to the recipient.

I hope this clears up the confusion and puts this issue to bed,once and for all.

[woad]

Except that it doesn't.

 

1. IF the amount charged by ParcelForce (PF) was simply the import duty, then fair enough. The duty has to be paid. However, the amount PF charge is more than the duty, and includes a 'charging element' for providing this service.

 

I never asked PF to provide this service, PF abrogated the 'right' to provide this service in negotiation with HMIR. AIUI PF also charge Inland Revenue for providing the service... As I never asked PF to provide me this service, then there is no enforceable contract between PF and myself and they can only act as agents for HMIR to collect the duty (and I wonder if this is permitted under statute, especially the centuries old stuff that still exists today). Now, as I understand it, HMIR cannot levy a charge for the collection of taxation or duty owed except in specific circumstances, even then they are late payment penalties and not a charge for the collection. Since when can HMIR abdicate the responsibility for collection of duties and the imposition of charge for doing so?

 

As for providing credit (lending money).. if you are an employee of ParcelForce, you should strongly consider editing that comment out. Does ParcelForce have a credit licence, is it regulated by the SFA, where is the original signed copy of the credit agreement that the customer signed, does it comply with all relevant statutory legislation? Be aware, it is possible to trace who you are, and use your post against you in, or your employer, in court: as more than one motorist, bragging about his 'speeding' exploits on an Internet forum, has found out to his cost. Assuming you do work for PF, then we both know just how 'ruthless' Royal Mail are when it comes to protecting their reputation... ;-)

 

As we both know, RM are not lending anybody any money at all.

 

I work in admin for Parcelforce Worldwide and I would like to clarify the position on Parcelforce clearance fees.

The Parcelforce clearance fee is a payment made to us,,for us paying Revenue and Customs the VAT and Import duty that has to be payed on items entering the UK from abroad.in effect,,Parcelforce Worldwide,as in other couriers,are lending you the money to release your parcel from the clutches of HM revenue and Customs, so we can deliver it to the recipient.

I hope this clears up the confusion and puts this issue to bed,once and for all.

[buzby]

Sorry, you reach the same conclusion canton kid, but your reasoning is flawed.

 

PF don't 'loan' any money on behalf of the consumer to C&E. It is PF who assess the cost of the duty, based on C&Es tariffs. The amount is declared and the customer is advised to pay this amoun at the PF office. PF make no return to the C&E in respect of ANY parcel, unless the customer has flashed the cash - for the obvious reason some folk will not pay, and the item will be returned.

 

The issue for those who complain is they feel these clearance services (originally provided for free by C&E) are now a service provided and charged for by PF. They still want it for free, but PF who provide the service want paid for the work. As PF charge the least of all the couriers, it is the most cost effective solution - but they are unhappy with this.

 

As this will not change, they need to realise if the use a service (like customs clearance) the have no option but to pay, or spread the cost a cross all users of the service - which is hardly fair for those of us who buy VAT inclusive from the EU and need no clearance.

[woad]

@buzby - it is unclear to whom you were replying to. However, I will take "issue" with one point that you raise.

 

"The issue for those who complain is they feel these clearance services (originally provided for free by C&E) are now a service provided and charged for by PF. They still want it for free, but PF who provide the service want paid for the work. As PF charge the least of all the couriers, it is the most cost effective solution - but they are unhappy with this."

 

There is a small, but vital, difference in the service provided originally by C&E, and that by PF. The service provided "free" by C&E was never free, and indeed was subsided not just by people who receive imported goods, but by the taxpayer as a whole, as is Govt as a whole. The cost of collecting revenue on imported goods was part of the HMCE operating costs. As C&E has never been self-funding, the funding came from general taxation. However, in-so-far as the parcel recipient was concerned, it was 'free'. HMCE provided the 'service' to the end-receiver. HMCE do not, for example, 'charge' for the collection of tax through PAYE, NI deductions, or Corporate taxation.

 

However, the service PF provide is NOT to the end-recipient, but to HMCE itself. AIUI, they charge HMCE a fee for providing this service. However, they also charge the recipient a fee for this "service", even though they are not providing a service to the recipient.

 

If any private sector (or other 51% state-owned company) wish to provide services to HMG, they submit a tender which details how much they will charge HMG. In this instance, PF appear to have pulled of the stunt of charging twice for the same service, with the tacit consent of the Govt at the time. I would suggest that it did not have sufficient parliamentary debate. And left unchallenged sets a worrying precedent; re my earlier comment that the Revenue doesn't charge for collecting taxes, ie provides the "service" for "free" (it doesn't, like all Govt depts the Revenue is funded through taxation).

 

Customs clearance is not a service, no more than taxation is a 'service'. It is a revenue raising exercise. I have no issue paying any revenue due on any goods I import from abroad. I resent having to pay someone for a "service" I haven't asked for, and which isn't being provided to /me/

 

Sorry, you reach the same conclusion canton kid, but your reasoning is flawed.

 

PF don't 'loan' any money on behalf of the consumer to C&E. It is PF who assess the cost of the duty, based on C&Es tariffs. The amount is declared and the customer is advised to pay this amoun at the PF office. PF make no return to the C&E in respect of ANY parcel, unless the customer has flashed the cash - for the obvious reason some folk will not pay, and the item will be returned.

 

The issue for those who complain is they feel these clearance services (originally provided for free by C&E) are now a service provided and charged for by PF. They still want it for free, but PF who provide the service want paid for the work. As PF charge the least of all the couriers, it is the most cost effective solution - but they are unhappy with this.

 

As this will not change, they need to realise if the use a service (like customs clearance) the have no option but to pay, or spread the cost a cross all users of the service - which is hardly fair for those of us who buy VAT inclusive from the EU and need no clearance.

[buzby]

Canton kid was the person named in the first line of the message, so I don't think I could have been clearer.

 

As to the points you raised, I'm broadly in agreement with your interpretation, but the success of the argument depends on where in the timeframe your experiences commence. In the PF example you give, you are mistaken that they had to bid or pay for any rights of collection of duty. Previously all parcels were handled by The PO, and customs staff manned the office where parcels where duty applied were processed. This changed when C&E were told to shed staff, and the present solution was developed. It was hardly innovative, as the private companies had been operating this model for years.

 

the fact you claim the are charging twice is hardly new either - I do not believe this is true in RMs case as I can find no revenue stream for this function, but even if there was, it is STILL cheaper than the competition, so that argument would fail. If the discounted collection rate exists, because of the two payments, it's a win win for the importer. I used an import agent for my many importations out with the EU and I still could not beat RMs pricing (but I could not make all m suppliers route shipments to be handled by RM).

 

Make a call to a mobile, and 2 payments are made, the first to the originating network, and another to the receiving network for competing the call. These are is rolled in to the tariff or charge made for the call but because users only see the single per minute charge, they're not aware it takes place. BUT when a call is NOT passed to a receiving network ( and is handled wholly within the same network) WHY is no discount given?

 

Nothing new there then!

 

So, the service IS provided to the recipient. If they refused o declined to, he goods would be released only from a bonded warehouse once an import agent completed the forms and paid the duty.

[woad]

The PF example I give is accurate - unless you are suggesting that Royal Mail are paying HMCE for the privilege of collecting revenue! They are not. HMCE are paying Royal Mail to collect any taxes owed.

 

That RM may not declare the service (contract) as a revenue stream in its own right is irrelevant. I don't believe that they are doing it as a "favour" to HMCE, nor solely on the assumption that they can recoup costs wholly from the adressee. I am aware of the original staffing model, and the whole point was a reduction in the headline headcount (as opposed to the departmental operating cost), again another ill-thought through cost-cutting PFI exercise from the previous administration.

 

I fail to see how PF being cheaper than means the argument 'fails'. I - and you - have already funded the revenue collection system - and every other Govt dept - through our taxes. Outsourcing some or all of that function to a 'private' company who also has the remit to charge the end-user in addition to the outsourcing contract fee means we are paying for it tiwce. (arguably three times, but thats splitting hairs).

 

The mobile phone analogy doesn't really hold up, except that the operators have worked out a cost-per-minute business model. Factored into that CPM is the cost of wholly on-net (calls betwen two numbers on the same network) calling, and the cost of off-net (between two different carriers) calling. Oh, and the entire business cost of the business (capex, R&D, salaries, deferred payments, transit and peering, cost of access, opex, etc). On top of that, there are different call plans, with different pricing structures. Some will show only one price per-minute, based on an averaged mixture of on- and off-net calls. Other CPs will have different tarrifs for on-net (say 5p/min) and off-net (12p/min) calls. RM/PF effectively mirror this with their pricing structure; they quote for inland (on-net) and international (off-net) mail delivery. They dont quote one price to send a given package anywhere. Heck, neither do UK Mail quote you a price for sending a package from Point A to Point B (where B has UK Mail local delivery 'postmen'), and Point A and Point C (where letters addressed to C are entered into the RM postal system for delivery, and hence why you recieve mail franked "UK Mail" being delivered by the RM postman) All in all, a bit of a red herring.

 

Anyway, I'm endeavouring to find out more details of the contract under which RM provides the HMCE services.

 

My original point still stands. I have no issue paying taxes due on imported goods. I resent paying anyone a 'service fee' for doing so for me, unless I asked them to do so. If I *choose* to use an import agent to handle the 'headaches' for me, thats my decision and I pay the fees. If I choose to do it all myself, then thats my decision. In this case, I have not asked RM to do so. And that is wrong.