NO NO don't despair!

The problem is the government is a shareholder in Royal Mail.

However do not despair, there is an additional paragraph stating OFCOM can (and almost certainly will when they receive unprecedented levels of complaints) impose a limit to what the £8 or £13.50 handling fee can be (i.e. around 50% less I would estimate). Also what can really kill their business is if you get the sender to prepay UK customs or easier still write to you on the customs declaration label the following little known statement: "goods to be Customs cleared by the importer" . No royal mail handling charge will be payable and you will receive invoice for customs that you have to pay directly. Delays things slightly but no more than the way parcel force send you a letter normal post with website link to pay customs plus their handling fee and thus were previously breaking the postal services act. See http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1082224979&type=RESOURCES

See also extract from Parliament discussions:

Postal Services: Fees and Charges

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will request Royal Mail to review its handling fee for low-value goods imported from outside the EU. [56156]

Mr Davey: The handling fee is an operational matter for Royal Mail and Government, as shareholder, do not play a role in decisions on this.

My hon. Friend may be interested to note that the Government's Postal Services Bill will insert a new section into the Postal Services Act 2000 which, for the first time, will give the postal regulator the power to direct postal operators on the level of handling charges.

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20110517/writtenanswers/part012.html

Which is here:

34In section 104(3) (inviolability of mails)—

(a)omit paragraphs (a) and (b), and

(b)before paragraph (c) insert—

“(ba)a power conferred by section 104A,”.

35After section 104 insert—
“104APower to detain packets in respect of unpaid or underpaid postage

(1)A postal operator—

(a)may detain any postal packet in respect of which there has been no payment, or an underpayment, for postage, and

(b)may impose a surcharge in respect of that non-payment or underpayment.

(2)A postal operator may detain the packet until the correct postage and any surcharge have been paid.

(3)OFCOM may give a direction to a postal operator—

(a)limiting the amount of any surcharge, and

(b)limiting the length of time for which a postal packet may be detained under subsection (2) (and, if a direction is given under this paragraph, that subsection has effect subject to the direction).

(4)Where a direction is given to an operator limiting the amount of a surcharge, subsection (2) has effect in relation to the operator (in any case where the surcharge would otherwise exceed the amount specified in the direction) as if the surcharge were equal to the amount specified in the direction.

(5)Before giving a direction to a postal operator under this section, OFCOM must—

(a)inform the operator that they propose to give it a direction, and

(b)allow the operator an opportunity to make representations about the proposal.”

36In section 105 (application of customs and excise enactments to certain postal packets), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A)A postal operator may detain a postal packet to which this section applies until any duties and charges in respect of the packet that are recoverable by virtue of subsection (3) have been paid.”

From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/5/schedule/12/enacted

....So in essence, we have the govt. allowing this handling charge, albeit it at a lower level, to reduce "our" tax burden to Royal Mail.Similar to them allowing Rail Fares to rise, providing some of the 8% (i.e. 3%) is spent on infrastructure (i.e. the govt. saves money as it doesn't have to fund this and does a deal whereby yes mr private sector you can have increased profit provided we can get a small cut. They both obviously agree!!).

I recently contacted Post comm about the postal services act & here is a relevant section of the email i recieved;

Under existing postal legislation, the issue of whether or not a postal operator is entitled to retain a parcel on the basis that a handling fee has not been paid is not one that Postcomm has the power to resolve. It is a matter for the courts and can only be determined by the courts’ interpretation of the Postal Services Act. Postcomm's enforcement functions do not extend to directing Royal Mail or any other postal operator in any way in relation to this matter. For your information, the Postal Services Act is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills although, again, the correct interpretation of the Act remains a matter for the courts. The new Postal Services Act, which will come into force in October 2011, seeks to resolve this issue by clarifying that the operator has the right to withhold the package until the handling fee has been paid while at the same time enabling the postal regulator to determine the reasonableness of the handling charge levied,

Or in other words now the game is up they are changing the rules to suit themselves & so they can continue extorting money.

The problem is the government is a shareholder in Royal Mail.

However do not despair, there is an additional paragraph stating OFCOM can (and almost certainly will) impose a limit to what the £8 or £13.50 handling fee can be (i.e. around 50% less I would estimate).

Postal Services: Fees and Charges

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will request Royal Mail to review its handling fee for low-value goods imported from outside the EU. [56156]

Mr Davey: The handling fee is an operational matter for Royal Mail and Government, as shareholder, do not play a role in decisions on this.

My hon. Friend may be interested to note that the Government's Postal Services Bill will insert a new section into the Postal Services Act 2000 which, for the first time, will give the postal regulator the power to direct postal operators on the level of handling charges.

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20110517/writtenanswers/part012.html

34In section 104(3) (inviolability of mails)—

(a)omit paragraphs (a) and (b), and

(b)before paragraph (c) insert—

“(ba)a power conferred by section 104A,”.

35After section 104 insert—
“104APower to detain packets in respect of unpaid or underpaid postage

(1)A postal operator—

(a)may detain any postal packet in respect of which there has been no payment, or an underpayment, for postage, and

(b)may impose a surcharge in respect of that non-payment or underpayment.

(2)A postal operator may detain the packet until the correct postage and any surcharge have been paid.

(3)OFCOM may give a direction to a postal operator—

(a)limiting the amount of any surcharge, and

(b)limiting the length of time for which a postal packet may be detained under subsection (2) (and, if a direction is given under this paragraph, that subsection has effect subject to the direction).

(4)Where a direction is given to an operator limiting the amount of a surcharge, subsection (2) has effect in relation to the operator (in any case where the surcharge would otherwise exceed the amount specified in the direction) as if the surcharge were equal to the amount specified in the direction.

(5)Before giving a direction to a postal operator under this section, OFCOM must—

(a)inform the operator that they propose to give it a direction, and

(b)allow the operator an opportunity to make representations about the proposal.”

36In section 105 (application of customs and excise enactments to certain postal packets), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A)A postal operator may detain a postal packet to which this section applies until any duties and charges in respect of the packet that are recoverable by virtue of subsection (3) have been paid.”

From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/5/schedule/12/enacted

....So in essence, we have the govt. allowing this handling charge, albeit it at a lower level, to reduce "our" tax burden to Royal Mail.Similar to them allowing Rail Fares to rise, providing some of the 8% (i.e. 3%) is spent on infrastructure (i.e. the govt. saves money as it doesn't have to fund this and does a deal whereby yes mr private sector you can have increased profit provided we can get a small cut. They both obviously agree!!).

The problem is the government is a shareholder in Royal Mail.

However do not despair, there is an additional paragraph stating OFCOM can (and almost certainly will) impose a limit to what the £8 or £13.50 handling fee can be (i.e. around 50% less I would estimate).

Postal Services: Fees and Charges

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will request Royal Mail to review its handling fee for low-value goods imported from outside the EU. [56156]

Mr Davey: The handling fee is an operational matter for Royal Mail and Government, as shareholder, do not play a role in decisions on this.

My hon. Friend may be interested to note that the Government's Postal Services Bill will insert a new section into the Postal Services Act 2000 which, for the first time, will give the postal regulator the power to direct postal operators on the level of handling charges.

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20110517/writtenanswers/part012.html

34In section 104(3) (inviolability of mails)—

(a)omit paragraphs (a) and (b), and

(b)before paragraph (c) insert—

“(ba)a power conferred by section 104A,”.

35After section 104 insert—
“104APower to detain packets in respect of unpaid or underpaid postage

(1)A postal operator—

(a)may detain any postal packet in respect of which there has been no payment, or an underpayment, for postage, and

(b)may impose a surcharge in respect of that non-payment or underpayment.

(2)A postal operator may detain the packet until the correct postage and any surcharge have been paid.

(3)OFCOM may give a direction to a postal operator—

(a)limiting the amount of any surcharge, and

(b)limiting the length of time for which a postal packet may be detained under subsection (2) (and, if a direction is given under this paragraph, that subsection has effect subject to the direction).

(4)Where a direction is given to an operator limiting the amount of a surcharge, subsection (2) has effect in relation to the operator (in any case where the surcharge would otherwise exceed the amount specified in the direction) as if the surcharge were equal to the amount specified in the direction.

(5)Before giving a direction to a postal operator under this section, OFCOM must—

(a)inform the operator that they propose to give it a direction, and

(b)allow the operator an opportunity to make representations about the proposal.”

36In section 105 (application of customs and excise enactments to certain postal packets), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A)A postal operator may detain a postal packet to which this section applies until any duties and charges in respect of the packet that are recoverable by virtue of subsection (3) have been paid.”

From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/5/schedule/12/enacted

....So in essence, we have the govt. allowing this handling charge, albeit it at a lower level, to reduce "our" tax burden to Royal Mail.Similar to them allowing Rail Fares to rise, providing some of the 8% (i.e. 3%) is spent on infrastructure (i.e. the govt. saves money as it doesn't have to fund this and does a deal whereby yes mr private sector you can have increased profit provided we can get a small cut. They both obviously agree!!).

Seems whilst you guys were sleeping, the Royal Mail snuck in the ammendment to plug their pension fund.

To be honest I doubted they would do this as this means enough people have been challenging based on this thread so shows what we know already, which is we were correct. So they leave themselves open to retrospective challening however they will say no loss incurred and you "agreed" to the £8 charge. I suspect you would still win though.

They still need to prove the charge reflects actual costs, which is very subjective. £13.50 is almost certainly too high though a bit like £20 bank charges being reduced to £12.

There are ways round this.

That makes a bit of a mess of it, though, and still challengeable, I suspect. That bolt on is obviously intended to address the point we are all aware of, but unless they have also repealed Section 104 (2) which says:

" (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,

as it would have if it were the property of the Crown."

And of course the relevant part of that is (d) - so which is the law that prevails, 104 (2) (d), or their new 105 (4a)? Seems pretty ill thought through, and still doubtful to me.....

I wouldn't be surprised if someone high up involved in this has been monitoring this thread.

Just a hunch ;-)

Thanks for the heads up Gushie :-)

If you go to point 36 on this page: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/5/schedule/12/enacted
it says:

In section 105 (application of customs and excise enactments to certain postal packets), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A)A postal operator may detain a postal packet to which this section applies until any duties and charges in respect of the packet that are recoverable by virtue of subsection (3) have been paid.”

This amends the 2000 act, of which Section 105 is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/105

I would ask to see these new "regulations" before buying that line. Unless it's a revision of the Postal Services Act, then it don't mean diddlysquat.

I have a package which has been stuck in customs for almost a week, and it was released this morning with charges. When I phoned the head office number to request a separate invoice for the clearance fee, I was told due to their new regulations from 18th June they were no longer invoicing separately.

£13.50 is such a rip off charge for "handling" and it was more than the VAT charge itself. Really don't understand why they are still allowed to charge such ridiculous fees for doing next to nothing.

PF is the only company who handles incoming parcels sent via EMS, so they have monopoly in this area and it seems they can do/charge whatever they want.

I have just talked to the Parcelforce Managing Director's Office as I always do when I receive a notice with Clearance Fee included. It's been a well-established trouble-free procedure for months: I call MDO and request separate invoicing on Clearance Fee, they get in touch with the local Parcelforce Depot on my behalf and as a result I would pay VAT only and get away with Clearance Fee.

Same happened today and they agree to take payment separately BUT lady on the other side has informed me that some changes will be introduced in about two-week time and I won't be able to request separate invoicing from that moment on due to some "legal changes" being made. She failed to explain whether it relates to amendment made to the Postal Services Act or some other legal instrument entered into power.

Therefore, I would like to ask if anyone is aware of any forthcoming changes in the legal position which would deprive us to demand payment of clearance fee separately from VAT and Customs Duty?

Thank you very much for your time.

They held another of my parcels to ransom over the £8. This time it was Royal Mail not Parcel Force.

I found out that Mandy Talbot their top lawyer has now left the business. I paid online the amount minus the customs fee to force them into a corner. The customer services said I could pay write in and they would refund. I refused. Interestingly the delivery office manager and area manager refused to give written or verbal statements and CS said arrogantly this was "because they didn't have to". I think if the Police were called they certainly would have to! I gave the delivery office manager 24 hours to check with their legal department whom I also contacted. They said they would release and bill seperately for the charge but haven't as yet. I asked them to release immediately they said it would be treated as normal schedule but came first thing Monday with a post it saying an internal email had told them to deliver Mon (I had told them Wed).

Their new inexperienced lawyer Emily Springford who answered now seems to be basing arguments around the main legal principle that "no loss is incurred" by delay of the parcel so they don't have a case to answer. A pretty poor cop out! She refuses to answer all questions about the Postal Services Act as I again re-iterate: they know exactly what they are doing. This makes life easy for us pay everything apart from £8 and kick up a fuss and they will release. If the parcel goes back to sender after 3 weeks I think you then have a decent claim for loss and inconvenience. Call their bluff. Then take them to small claims it will cost them the £8 plus the £25, arrange for them to settle in such a way as they pay you £25 and cancel the £8 fictional "debt". In my case it was contact lens for which I was running low and I did incur a loss so will be billing them the cost of a cheap pair of glasses. A disgusting company and I hope their pension deficit forever haunts them. Why £1 handling on underpaid items and £8 on customs?! An expensive injunction against them will follow next time as I am sick of this nonsense & hassle. They are acting illegally.

"In this instance, the Delivery Office will now release the parcel to the addressee, and raise an invoice for the handling fee."

"The item will be re-delivered in accordance with the Delivery Office's normal schedule.

The handling charge is not fictional. Royal Mail has a statutory right to collect the handling charge from the recipient of the item, under s.15 of the Successor Postal Services Company Overseas Letter Post Scheme 2001. Therefore, an invoice will be raised as previously stated. Further, it does not appear that you or the addressee have suffered any loss, as the handling charge is still payable, whether it is paid on collection or invoiced following delivery. Any application for an injunction would have no prospect of success."

"The basis of Royal Mail's right to charge a handling fee is set out in my earlier email. As I have explained Royal Mail's position I do not consider that it would be productive to continue this exchange of correspondence."

"As you are not alleging that you have suffered any loss, I'm afraid I do not intend to continue this discussion, which is academic in the absence of a cause of action or a loss. Please note that further emails in this vein will not receive a reply unless you can provide evidence of any actionable detriment being suffered."

A very useful post. I just used the information about the postal services act and parceforce released my parcel straight away.

Well, I haven't posted for some weeks but I thought I'd post you an update with regards to my situation (please see my quoted entry below if you would like to know further details)...

I met the MP of my local area yesterday evening and he is going to look into this at some point. I raised the issue about receiving this bill from Parcelforce and explained that I'd never received one like it before. The Xmas parcel my mother sent me had been paid for - for both the contents and the cost of shipping. She paid for it to have it delivered direct to my address. I was expecting delivery of the parcel, and not delivery of a bill to have the parcel redelivered from the Parcelforce warehouse, having paid for its release from Customs.

I gave my MP the bill and receipt to prove that I'd paid for the bill. Will wait and see what eventuates. If I can get compensation for the charge, then fine as my partner and I are both on low income. If my MP can raise these charges in Parliament and give much-needed exposure about this issue, then that may be useful to other people posting on this forum. I did mention to him that this forum was trying to raise the issue of these ransom charges, but I got the impression that he wouldn't have time to check this out.

Will keep you all posted when I receive an update.

Mr Bear.

Mr Bear:Hi Simon, thanks for replying to my posting. I appreciate your time.

The invoice I received appears to have the proper address of the local Parcelforce depot.

The wording shown on the invoice that relates to the charges are 'VAT' (£16.31) and 'Clearance Fee' (£8.00).

My parcel has not arrived and the invoice states that I have 20 days ('after the date of the letter') to pay before it is returned to the sender. This would cost them much more money to do this if they follow this procedure.

Interestingly, I have found on the HMRC website some information relating to the customs process. Here is the link:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/customs/post/customs-procedures.htm

On this webpage, there is a section related to my situation which outlines the official process:

-----------------------------------

Goods from outside the EU - what happens before delivery:

If the value of the goods is £2,000 or less Customs officers work out the amount of any tax and/or duty
payable by the information shown on the CN22 or CN23 [declaration form]. The parcel
is then passed to Royal Mail/Parcelforce who pay any tax and/or
duty on behalf of the recipient.

-----------------------------------

So it seems that the carrier (in this case Parcelforce) is responsible for paying the tax and/or duty. Now, whether they have the legal right to recoup this cost by demanding it from the consumer (in my case somebody who had nothing to do with the purchase of this parcel in the first place, nor the gifts contained), I find it strange that I am responsible for these charges. The way they just pick the odd individual to pay a tax, while the rest get their parcels through, seems strange to me. The volume of goods that get shipped to the UK on a day-by-day basis is phenomenal - no numbers of staff would be able to do a thorough check on all parcels entering the UK. It would be impossible. So I find this demand for VAT, after some spot checking, a bit strange and by chance - discriminatory.

If I decided to go into a shop and queue up at the till to purchase a bag of marshmallows, I wouldn't be expecting the man at the till to point at me and say 'Hey, you can pay VAT on your purchase, but the guy behind you and in front wont have to!'

So, I think anybody who is picked out this way would want to start asking questions about why they are being singled out to pay this tax based purely on a short straw!

The HMRC site, indicates that a person is responsible for these charges if they have made a purchase (either through the post, online, mail order, etc.) but I had not been involved in a purchase at all. This parcel is being sent to me as a gift for Xmas by a relative who lives outside the EEC, so unless she has filled the declaration form incorrectly (which then drew the attention of customs), I am not sure why VAT is charged to me for a gift - particularly as the contents had a tax on them (GST) when they were originally bought by my relative before having them shipped to the UK. She also paid for the shipping charge - which one would expect that the carrier would deliver within an acceptable timeframe.

Although I feel that I will have to pay these charges, I have been reading this thread and find the information and perspectives very interesting, which made me feel encouraged to put forward my own related position.

The Postal Packets 1986 is irrelevant because Royal Mail and Parcel Farce (and all other delivery companies) have a contract to prepay customs charges and then recoup them from the receiver. So it all becomes a civil debt.

Fedex and DHL will deliver and then invoice. Royal Mail and Parcel Farce prefer to act illegally.

God I would love to have a copy of that second email :-)

I think there is a way to see members emails if you are signed in and search their profiles

sign in and click on my name and my contact details should show up. If you could forward that email to me I'd much appreciate it :-)