clearnance fee by ParcelForce?

[Szymon von Ulezalka]

hi!
on 16 of Sept. i've bought some stuff from USA /clothing/. here is a
receipt (kind of)

Subtotal $70.85 USD
Postage and packing $11.39 USD
Total $82.24 USD
Payment $82.24 USD
Payment sent to x...@xxx.com
From amount £53.54 GBP
To amount $82.24 USD
Exchange rate: 1 GBP = 1.53604USD

today, i've received an invoice, which claims that i have to pay:
a) Import VAT- 10.02 pound
b) Clearance Fee (zero rated for VAT purposes) (its how it's printed
on invoice) 8.00

although i have, obviously, no problem paying the first one, but the
b. sound a bit strange for me.
could anyone explain me, what is a legality of that fee? after all,
i've already payed for "postage and packing"

can i request to get a parcel i've paid for without paying them that 8
pounds (of course, i'd pay 10.02 VAT)?

[David Postill]

In article
<fa9ff506-2eaa-4733...@i9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, on

http://www.parcelforce.com/help-information/frequently-asked-questions/customs#6

Why do I have to pay a handling fee to Parcelforce for my parcel that has
Customs Charges?

If we receive a parcel from overseas we will pay any Customs duties and
taxes on your behalf to UK Border Agency. However these will need to be
paid to us and also our Customs clearance fee which helps cover the cost
of additional handling, administration, money collection and clearance of
parcels.
--
David Postill
Dance your Life - Biodanza in Holland - <http://www.danceyourlife.eu>

[Roland Perry]

In message <s6t887hdfjn31h4je...@4ax.com>, at 14:45:10 on
Thu, 29 Sep 2011, David Postill <david....@gmail.com> remarked:

>| today, i've received an invoice, which claims that i have to pay:
>| a) Import VAT- 10.02 pound
>| b) Clearance Fee (zero rated for VAT purposes) (its how it's printed
>| on invoice) 8.00
>|
>| although i have, obviously, no problem paying the first one, but the
>| b. sound a bit strange for me.
>| could anyone explain me, what is a legality of that fee? after all,
>| i've already payed for "postage and packing"
>|
>| can i request to get a parcel i've paid for without paying them that 8
>| pounds (of course, i'd pay 10.02 VAT)?
>
>http://www.parcelforce.com/help-information/frequently-asked-questions/customs#6
>
>Why do I have to pay a handling fee to Parcelforce for my parcel that has
>Customs Charges?
>
>If we receive a parcel from overseas we will pay any Customs duties and
>taxes on your behalf to UK Border Agency. However these will need to be
>paid to us and also our Customs clearance fee which helps cover the cost
>of additional handling, administration, money collection and clearance of
>parcels.

Is the correct answer; although I can see why a handling fee of £8 to
administer the collection of £10 VAT might appear a bit steep!
--
Roland Perry

[Steve Firth]

David Postill <david....@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> Why do I have to pay a handling fee to Parcelforce for my parcel that has
> Customs Charges?
>
> If we receive a parcel from overseas we will pay any Customs duties and
> taxes on your behalf to UK Border Agency. However these will need to be
> paid to us and also our Customs clearance fee which helps cover the cost
> of additional handling, administration, money collection and clearance of
> parcels.

Yeah, try getting a VAT receipt for the VAT paid.

[Adam Funk]

On 2011-09-29, Roland Perry wrote:

>>http://www.parcelforce.com/help-information/frequently-asked-questions/customs#6
>>
>>Why do I have to pay a handling fee to Parcelforce for my parcel that has
>>Customs Charges?
>>
>>If we receive a parcel from overseas we will pay any Customs duties and
>>taxes on your behalf to UK Border Agency. However these will need to be
>>paid to us and also our Customs clearance fee which helps cover the cost
>>of additional handling, administration, money collection and clearance of
>>parcels.
>
> Is the correct answer; although I can see why a handling fee of £8 to
> administer the collection of £10 VAT might appear a bit steep!

This person says that if you stand up to them, they will give you your
parcel without the "clearance fee".


http://psych0naut.livejournal.com/36270.html?thread=109998

[Ian Jackson]

>http://www.parcelforce.com/help-information/frequently-asked-questions/customs#6
>
>Why do I have to pay a handling fee to Parcelforce for my parcel that has
>Customs Charges?
>
>If we receive a parcel from overseas we will pay any Customs duties and
>taxes on your behalf to UK Border Agency. However these will need to be
>paid to us and also our Customs clearance fee which helps cover the cost
>of additional handling, administration, money collection and clearance of
>parcels.

This is a bit of an old chestut. I looked into this in some detail in
March 2007 and found that Parcelforce had been granted the power to
write their own laws (!) See my message below.

I don't know if anything has changed since.


From: Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Customs Clearance Fee - statutorily-authorised scam
Newsgroups: cam.misc
Message-ID: <T0D*wB...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: 21 Mar 2007 11:47:37 +0000 (GMT)

I've just received a parcel from the US, and I have been charged by
Parcelforce a `clearance fee' of L13.50. I think this is a ripoff
because it amounts to charging both the sender and recipient for the
service, of which customs processing is an indispensable part (as I
wrote in July 2002 in uk.legal, in
<71z*LA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> et seq).

After having done some digging, I can conclude that (1) yes, it is a
ripoff according even to the international agreement between postal
service providers and (2) the power of the post office to rip people
off has been enshrined in statute by Parliament.


My basic starting point was that AFAICT Parcelforce had an item of my
property which they ought to give to me. Obviously I owe them the VAT
they've had to pay (as importer on my behalf). But I shouldn't owe
them any `clearance fee' or `handling charge' or any such, since the
sender has already paid for the parcel to be shipped to me and that
the service of shipping it to me necessarily also involves dealing
with customs. And furthermore even if they do get to charge me
separately, L13.50 is far too much.

When I discussed this in uk.legal vague reference was made to some
postal treaty. A bit of digging reveals the relevant international
organisation: the Universal Postal Union.

At http://www.upu.int/acts/en/index.shtml the text of the treaties,
annexes, etc. can be found. The relevant parts are in Article 18.
These can be found at http://www.upu.int/acts/en/index.shtml, in the
PDF on pages 139-141:

J Art 18 ...
3. Postal administrations which are authorized to clear items
through the Customs on behalf of customers may charge customers
a customs clearance fee based on the actual costs.

Art RC146 ...
2. Parcels submitted to customs control in the country of
destination may be subjected to a guideline maximum charge of
3.27 SDR per parcel in accordance with article 18.2 of the
Convention.

(An SDR is a weirdo IMF pseudo-currency currently worth about US$1.50)

So according to the international agreement the charge should be based
on the actual costs and the guideline maximum is about UKL2.50 at
current exchange rates - or well under one fifth of Parcelforce's fee.


But what relevance has this to UK domestic law ? A bit of searching
for someone to complain to found this:
http://www.postwatch.co.uk/pdf/pressnews/070803CustomsClearanceCharityDonation.pdf

Here the `regulator' crow about how a technical error by Parcelforce
(failure to publish the new fees in the Gazettes) led to them being
done for illegally charging too much. Note that there is no
suggestion of there being any limit on Parcelforce's ability to set
whatever fee they like just by announcing it in the Gazettes.

This sounded strange to me but the reference to the Gazettes was
helpful as it gave me another lead. Searching
http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ for Parcelforce comes up with some
`Schemes' made under `section 89 of the Postal Services Act 2000'.

And nowadays we can find a copy of that act here:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1711264
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=1711141
(If that url breaks, go to www.statutelaw.gov.uk and type the Act
title and year into the search form).

89.
Schemes as to terms and conditions for provision of a universal postal
service.
(1) A universal service provider may make a scheme under this
section in relation to the services provided by him in
connection with the provision of a universal postal service or
any of those services.
(2) A scheme under this section is a scheme for determining any or
all of the following (so far as not otherwise agreed)
(a) the charges which are to be imposed in respect of the services
concerned,
(b) the other terms and conditions which are to be applicable to
the services concerned, and
...

There are no effective restrictions on the exercise of this power
other than the licensing regime, but the licensing body is not
permitted to take into account abuses of the `scheme' system.

So for example, Parcelforce could decide to charge L135 clearance fee
rather than L13.50. It could decide to charge the recipient for the
delivery of letters. It could indemnify itself against all of its
customers. etc.

The only risk it takes is bad publicity (and, one supposes, the
outside chance of repeal of this outrageous legislation).

I mean, WTF?!

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[steve robinson]

Szymon von Ulezalka wrote:

> hi!
> on 16 of Sept. i've bought some stuff from USA clothing. here is a

No , its a fee for handling the goods and paperwork for your freindly
customs ossifer

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Is the correct answer; although I can see why a handling fee of £8
> to administer the collection of £10 VAT might appear a bit steep!

The last thing I received from the USA I was charged £8 handling fee
to adminsister collection of £4.02 VAT. That's close to the limit -
anything over £18 value attracts the VAT and therefore the £8 charge.

I was not terribly impressed, but there seemed to be no alternative
since I wanted the product and it's not sold in the EU.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Peter Crosland]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+zOGuuKT...@perry.co.uk...

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

AFAIK it is a standard amount for doing the work which is independent of the
value up to the level where what is known as formal customs entry is
required. Last time I checked this was �1,000. The work involved is the same
regardless of the value being �20 or �200. Obviously for lower value items
the �8.00 does appear disproportionate but is little different from the
charges made other international carriers such as FEDEX or UPS. The problem
seems to be that people buy from abroad without doing their homework
properly to find out what charges they will have to pay. Hence an apparent
bargain turns out to be more expensive than buying in the UK whereupon the
recipient looks to blame someone other than himself.

Peter Crosland

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnj89qu...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 23:20:03
on Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:

>The last thing I received from the USA I was charged £8 handling fee
>to adminsister collection of £4.02 VAT. That's close to the limit -
>anything over £18 value attracts the VAT and therefore the £8 charge.

Aren't they about to lower the £18 limit to reduce VAT avoidance by
retailers dispatching [mainly DVDs I think] from the Channel Islands?
--
Roland Perry

[Graham Murray]

David Postill <david....@gmail.com> writes:

> If we receive a parcel from overseas we will pay any Customs duties and
> taxes on your behalf to UK Border Agency. However these will need to be
> paid to us and also our Customs clearance fee which helps cover the cost
> of additional handling, administration, money collection and clearance of
> parcels.

That there is a cost to the carrier in paying the tax/duty to HMRC and
collecting the money from the recipient is obvious, but does carrier not
have to present the package to customs for clearance irrespective of
whether HMRC actually charge any tax and/or duty? So should that not be
paid for as part and parcel (pun intended) of the charge (to the sender)
of delivering internationally?

[Nightjar]

I don't know how parcel services do it, but using an import agent, you
do have the option as to whether the sender or the recipient pays the
clearance fees. It doesn't usually make any difference to the overall
cost though.

Colin Bignell

[Adam Funk]

The limits for what you can bring in (by mail or in person) are
absurdly low and ought to be automatically adjusted for inflation.

[Roland Perry]

In message <a2jol8x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 12:50:14 on Mon, 3
Oct 2011, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>> Aren't they about to lower the £18 limit to reduce VAT avoidance by
>> retailers dispatching [mainly DVDs I think] from the Channel Islands?
>
>The limits for what you can bring in (by mail or in person) are
>absurdly low and ought to be automatically adjusted for inflation.

The limits in person might need inflation-proofing, but the limits by
mail are causing a huge distortion in the marketplace.
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

The problem is the peculiar situation of the Channel Islands and the
way that some businesses based in GB are taking advantage of it; I
don't know how many people who buy this way really know how and why
the gross prices are 20% lower.

The limit for genuine personal imports ought to be much higher than it
is now.

[Roland Perry]

In message <h1gpl8x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:10:04 on Mon, 3

Oct 2011, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>The problem is the peculiar situation of the Channel Islands and the
>way that some businesses based in GB are taking advantage of it; I
>don't know how many people who buy this way really know how and why
>the gross prices are 20% lower.
>
>The limit for genuine personal imports ought to be much higher than it
>is now.

You can only get round that by saying that things from the Channel
Islands are not really imports. Of course, that would affect all the
other (non-DVD) things they export.
--
Roland Perry

[John Briggs]

It is totally anomalous to allow the Channel Islands to be outside the
European Union.
--
John Briggs

[Roland Perry]

In message <HTpiq.777$A36...@newsfe16.ams2>, at 22:35:02 on Mon, 3 Oct
2011, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:

>It is totally anomalous to allow the Channel Islands to be outside the
>European Union.

It would be a huge burden on them to be individual members of the EU,
and I doubt they'd be happy at becoming the 84th/85th/86th counties of
the UK to do it under our wing. Even less being lumped together to form
one 84th county!
--
Roland Perry

[Nightjar]

What would you do about it? Invade and occupy the place?

Colin Bignell

[RobertL]

On Oct 3, 10:35 pm, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 21:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>

> > In message <h1gpl8xndm....@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:10:04 on Mon, 3
> > Oct 2011, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

> >> The problem is the peculiar situation of the Channel Islands and the
> >> way that some businesses based in GB are taking advantage of it; I
> >> don't know how many people who buy this way really know how and why
> >> the gross prices are 20% lower.
>
> >> The limit for genuine personal imports ought to be much higher than it
> >> is now.
>
> > You can only get round that by saying that things from the Channel
> > Islands are not really imports. Of course, that would affect all the
> > other (non-DVD) things they export.
>
> It is totally anomalous to allow the Channel Islands to be outside the
> European Union.

It's anomalous to allow Norway to be outside the EU as well.

Robert

[Adam Funk]

Exactly; it's also totally anomalous to allow GB-based businesses to
run these order-filling operations in the Channel Islands just to
avoid VAT.

[John Briggs]

As we are responsible for defence (see separate thread), that is hardly
necessary. They can simply be annexed to the United Kingdom by Act of
Parliament.

(The Isle of Man ought to be part of the United Kingdom anyway.
Presumably it escaped because no-one could decide if it was part of
England or part of Scotland. The Lordship or Under-kingship is
irrelevant - the Duke of Waewick was made 'King of the Isle of Wight'!)
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Why is it worse than, say, the Isle of Wight - or Skye?
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

In fact, the Channel Island are regarded as inside the European Union
for some purposes, but not others - it's a mess.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Maybe, but Norway does actually exist - which is more than can be said
for these pseudo-microstates.
--
John Briggs

[Roland Perry]

In message <b2Diq.20767$uP1...@newsfe19.ams2>, at 13:35:02 on Tue, 4

Oct 2011, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>> It is totally anomalous to allow the Channel Islands to be outside the
>>> European Union.
>>
>> It would be a huge burden on them to be individual members of the EU,
>> and I doubt they'd be happy at becoming the 84th/85th/86th counties of
>> the UK to do it under our wing. Even less being lumped together to form
>> one 84th county!
>
>Why is it worse than, say, the Isle of Wight - or Skye?

Because currently they are self-governing.
--
Roland Perry

[John Briggs]

ITYM "they are not represented in Parliament". The idea that fewer than
100,000 people (in the the case of Jersey) can be "self-governing" is
ludicrous. They are just a district council - albeit a unitary authority.
--
John Briggs

[Nightjar]

On 04/10/2011 13:30, John Briggs wrote:
> On 04/10/2011 08:05, Nightjar wrote:
>> On 03/10/2011 22:35, John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2011 21:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <h1gpl8x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:10:04 on Mon, 3
>>>> Oct 2011, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>>>> The problem is the peculiar situation of the Channel Islands and the
>>>>> way that some businesses based in GB are taking advantage of it; I
>>>>> don't know how many people who buy this way really know how and why
>>>>> the gross prices are 20% lower.
>>>>>
>>>>> The limit for genuine personal imports ought to be much higher than it
>>>>> is now.
>>>>
>>>> You can only get round that by saying that things from the Channel
>>>> Islands are not really imports. Of course, that would affect all the
>>>> other (non-DVD) things they export.
>>>
>>> It is totally anomalous to allow the Channel Islands to be outside the
>>> European Union.
>>
>> What would you do about it? Invade and occupy the place?
>
> As we are responsible for defence (see separate thread), that is hardly
> necessary. They can simply be annexed to the United Kingdom by Act of
> Parliament.

The Attorney-General of Jersey argues that this right has fallen into
desuetude.

Colin Bignell

[John Briggs]

As the British government (and Parliament) do not accept his view, it is
irrelevant :-)
--
John Briggs

[Roland Perry]

In message <VDFiq.686$Mi3...@newsfe18.ams2>, at 16:35:02 on Tue, 4 Oct

2011, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:

>>> Why is it worse than, say, the Isle of Wight - or Skye?
>>
>> Because currently they are self-governing.
>
>ITYM "they are not represented in Parliament". The idea that fewer than
>100,000 people (in the the case of Jersey) can be "self-governing" is
>ludicrous. They are just a district council - albeit a unitary
>authority.

It goes a lot further than that.
--
Roland Perry

[D.M. Procida]

John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> ITYM "they are not represented in Parliament". The idea that fewer than
> 100,000 people (in the the case of Jersey) can be "self-governing" is
> ludicrous.

It's unusual, but not historically very unusual. Most of the ancient
Greek city-states had rather fewer citizens, for example.

Daniele

[Roland Perry]

In message <1k8nnn5.1jcp9on165lplfN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co.uk>, at 08:10:04 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, D.M. Procida <real-not-
anti-spa...@apple-juice.co.uk> remarked:

>> ITYM "they are not represented in Parliament". The idea that fewer than
>> 100,000 people (in the the case of Jersey) can be "self-governing" is
>> ludicrous.
>
>It's unusual, but not historically very unusual. Most of the ancient
>Greek city-states had rather fewer citizens, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

has thirty five at 100k or below.

There's some interesting background to small states and the EU here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstates_and_the_European_Union and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_E
uropean_Union>

Alderney and Sark have separate legal systems and legislatures, and are
less closely tied to Guernsey than Wikipedia claims.
--
Roland Perry

[Nightjar]

If the States of Jersey refuse to accept such legislation, we come back
to invading and occupying the island to enforce it.

Colin Bignell

[John Briggs]

That is just not necessary - these are purely domestic matters, not
international.
--
John Briggs

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>>>>>> It is totally anomalous to allow the Channel Islands to be
>>>>>> outside the European Union.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you do about it? Invade and occupy the place?
>>>>
>>>> As we are responsible for defence (see separate thread), that
>>>> is hardly necessary. They can simply be annexed to the United
>>>> Kingdom by Act of Parliament.
>>>
>>> The Attorney-General of Jersey argues that this right has
>>> fallen into desuetude.
>>
>> As the British government (and Parliament) do not accept his
>> view, it is irrelevant :-)
>
> If the States of Jersey refuse to accept such legislation, we
> come back to invading and occupying the island to enforce it.

So they will have to be invaded with an army that will protect them
from being invaded?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Alistair Gunn]

John Briggs twisted the electrons to say:

> ITYM "they are not represented in Parliament". The idea that fewer than
> 100,000 people (in the the case of Jersey) can be "self-governing" is
> ludicrous. They are just a district council - albeit a unitary authority.

But do you think the people of Pitcairn want to be part of the EU? :-)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[John Briggs]

On 08/10/2011 18:05, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> John Briggs twisted the electrons to say:
>> ITYM "they are not represented in Parliament". The idea that fewer than
>> 100,000 people (in the the case of Jersey) can be "self-governing" is
>> ludicrous. They are just a district council - albeit a unitary authority.
>
> But do you think the people of Pitcairn want to be part of the EU? :-)

French overseas territories are. But the Isle of Man and the Channel
Islands are not "overseas territories."
--
John Briggs

[S]

On Oct 4, 11:30 am, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2011-10-03, John Briggs wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 03/10/2011 21:25, Roland Perry wrote:

> >> In message <h1gpl8xndm....@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:10:04 on Mon, 3
> >> Oct 2011, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

> >>> The problem is the peculiar situation of the Channel Islands and the
> >>> way that some businesses based in GB are taking advantage of it; I
> >>> don't know how many people who buy this way really know how and why
> >>> the gross prices are 20% lower.
>
> >>> The limit for genuine personal imports ought to be much higher than it
> >>> is now.
>
> >> You can only get round that by saying that things from the Channel
> >> Islands are not really imports. Of course, that would affect all the
> >> other (non-DVD) things they export.
>
> > It is totally anomalous to allow the Channel Islands to be outside the
> > European Union.
>
> Exactly; it's also totally anomalous to allow GB-based businesses to
> run these order-filling operations in the Channel Islands just to
> avoid VAT

Some are in Switzerland, but they could be in the Faroes or in
Andorra, anywhere outside the EU. The ridiculous thing is that CDs and
DVDs are transported to Switzerland by lorry just to be mailed back to
the UK and this is still more profitable than mailing them directly
from the UK.