When an inspector from Morriston Police phoned Parcelforce HQ, they
gave the answer that they (Parcelforce) work as agents on behalf of
H.M. Customs. Now, this is a police inspector they have told this to -
so it must be true, eh?



I spoke to the legal department of H.M Customs yesterday (Friday) and
the nice lady there said that as far as she knew, Parcelforce acted as
agents for the public, delivering mail. She did not know of any
agreement or law that excluded them from section 104 of the Postal
Services Act and she knew of no 'agency' agreement with them that would
allow Royal Mail to hold our parcels in lien.



To make sure, she has passed it on to her policy department and they will be getting back to me Monday or Tuesday.



It's looking bad for Parcelforce :-)

For info:

The first thing I did was read the law regarding importing goods, and Customs
and Excise Law.

Items can be bonded but I don't think that applies to items under 'Royal
Mail'. Our mail is treated the same as a packet from the Crown.

The bit about Royal Mail being agents of HM C&E may be true and it is
the pat answer they give when questioned, even the police got that answer, but
it is not stopping them from carrying the prosecution forward. 

If I find that section 104 and 105 of the Postal Services Act are not
enforceable due to the Royal Mail being an agent of HM C&E, then I will apologise
to them.

I have studied this for over three weeks and I think your opening comments
were a tad derogatory and aggressive considering the work I have put into this. You may have started your post - 'This is very interesting but do you realise that....'.

It may be a good idea not to sign yourself SHARK!, which appears to be part
of the post you have written.

 

I thought the SHARK! at the end of your posts was aimed at me :-) I didn't realise it was your signature. Sorry.

 

EXCUSE ME - INSULTS? I have insulted no-one, I merely pointed out that you MAY be making the mistake of apportioning blame to the wrong area.

We are volunteers here, not paid to receive this sort of unnecessary criticism.

You can sort this out for yourself now. I don't take kindly to abusive people, and yes, I do know what I am talking about as I have been doing this sort of thing for 25 years.

SHARK!

Thank you for you information  and insults, I have been through to Lynn Gawthorpe of Parcelforce asking for the relevant section in the schemes or the law that point to what you are saying, unfortunately she did not give me any information.

I have now written to H.M. Customs to clarify the position:

enquiries.ESTN AT HMRC.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have been reading sections 83, 84, 104 and 105 of the Postal Services Act 2000.

These sections refer to the delaying of mail and the Inviolability of mail.


It seems, from the act, that after HM Customs have charged for VAT on a packet mailed from abroad, Royal Mail should then deliver the packet to
its recipient's address with an invoice. That money can then only be
obtained by civil action (section 105).

There is no mention in
the Act (as far as I can see) of Royal Mail being able to bond the
package as an agent of H.M Customs, in lieu of payment of VAT and their
own clearance fees. In fact, section 104 2d states that no packet can
be held in lien as if it were a packet from the Crown.

Royal mail are stating that they can hold the
packet to ransom for payment of fees, I have asked them for the relevant sections in law covering this, but they do not answer.

Would you please clarify this matter and point me to the legislation relating to it.

Kind regards,
 

The relevant section of law is found in the Customs and Excise area under IMPORTING GOODS. It is not a law that Parcelforce has any control over other than acting as international agent or handing agent. You are making the mistake that it is Parcelforce who is wihtholding delivery when it is HM Customs and Excise who will not release until Duty is fully paid.

SHARK!

I agree there is an agreement for Parcelforce to collect a charge (Section 105), would you please advise me of the sections in the law with regard to Parcelforce acting as a bonding agent where they can delay the mail on behalf of H.M. Customs to collect fees.

Thanks 

Oh dear another rant based on sand I fear,

No, it is NOT illegal for Parcelforce or any other deliverer to withold delivery pending full payment regardless of the words you claim. If they are acting on behalf of HM Customs and Excise this indicates a product or products being imported and at the time of requesting the clearance, they would be held in a bonded warehouse which falls outside mainland jurisdiction. If taxes or payments are due, these must be cleared BEFORE they leave the bonded warehouse, therefore it is not Parcelforce who is holidng your delivery, it is HM Customs and Excise and you need to take the matter up with them.

This is a blanket agreement between all couriers and deliverers and the UK Government and it cannot be broken unless you can prove that there was no "reasonable reason" for the package to have been inspected. Given that this is impossible to prove, I'm afraid you are not only in the wrong, you are also on a hiding to nothing.

SHARK!

The Parcelforce clearance fee is not illegal, the way they collect it is illegal according to section 104, 105, 83 and 84 of the Postal Services Act 2000:

It states there must be no intentional delay of your postal packet. HM C&E can obviously delay it to check contents and apply duty but after that the mail must be delivered promptly.

Parcelforce are breaking criminal law in sections 83 and 84 which state:

Interfering with the mail: postal operators

(1) A person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator commits an offence if, contrary to his duty and without reasonable excuse, he—

(a) intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or

(b) intentionally opens a mail-bag.

They are also breaking criminal law under section 104 which states:

Inviolability of mails

(2) Anything to which this subsection applies shall have the same immunity from—

(a) examination, or seizure or detention, under a relevant power conferred by virtue of this Act or any other enactment,

(b) seizure under distress or in execution,

(c) in Scotland, any diligence, and

(d) retention by virtue of a lien,

Subsection 2d above states that it is against the law to hold you packet by virtue of lien, this means holding it to ransom for payment of a fee, This is the important bit, Parcelforce will not deliver your parcel without payment of the HM C&E VAT and their Clearance fee. They are breaking the law, they must deliver your parcel without delay and invoice you for the fees.

This is covered in section 105 of the act. They can charge a fee but it can only be obtained by civil action, this means if you don’t pay either of the fees - VAT or the clearance fee, Parcelforce can only take you to small claims court.

Note: Parcelforce have paid the HM C&E VAT on your behalf, you no longer owe VAT to HM C&E and as such, you are not breaking the law by refusing to pay Parcelforce which is just a PLC with fat cats at the top.

My anger at the clearance fee started three weeks ago August 2007. I telephoned everywhere and initially got nowhere, so I read the Postal Services Act. I refused to pay for my parcel and spoke to Lynn Gawthorpe at Parcelforce HQ 01908 687000. I quoted the relevant sections of the act and I was allowed to pick up my parcel without any payment.

I have now made a complaint to the Police, if you speak to them at Morriston Police Station, Swansea 01792 456999 (ask for Morriston) you will add weight to the criminal prosecution of the Directors of Parcelforce.

I have also made a complaint through the Postal Commission (regulators of the act) and you can add to this by speaking to Sean O’Hara on 020 75932100 or emailing him on sean.ohara@psc.gov.uk with your information and parcel details.

DO NOT PAY FOR YOUR PARCEL UNTIL IT IS DELIVERED

IF YOU DISPUTE THE CHARGES IT IS YOUR RIGHT NOT TO PAY IMMEDIATELY