The Parcelforce clearance fee is not
illegal, the way they collect it is illegal according to section 104, 104, 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 AT 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

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!

---

For every positive action, there's an equal and opposite government plan.

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 

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!

---

For every positive action, there's an equal and opposite government plan.

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,
 

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!

---

For every positive action, there's an equal and opposite government plan.

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

 

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.

 

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 :-)

Update:

I received this from C & E yesterday:

From: Evans, Diane (Customs & International)
Sent: 21 September 2007 15:46
To:
Subject: Written enquiry regarding Postal services

Dear M

I have been asked to reply to your email below as I have Policy responsibility for the import of goods by post.

You
have asked about the delivery and collection of taxes payable on
imported postal packets.  I suspect the legislation you are seeking is
contained in the Postal Packet (Customs and Excise) Regulations 1986
(SI 1986:260), in particular Regulation 15 which provides for the
collection of duties and other taxes chargeable on goods imported in
postal packets.

Regulation 15(1) empowers the postal operator
(Royal Mail) to demand payment of any duty or other sum due to the
Commissioners of Revenue and Customs in respect of it, and pay any sum
received to the Commissioners.

Regulation 15(2) says if payment
is not made of any duty so demanded then the postal operator may, with
the agreement of the Commissioners, dispose of the goods as they see
fit.

Regulation 15(3) says if any amount demanded in accordance
with paragraph (1) , but not paid, is an amount other than duty, the
postal operator shall deliver the packet to customs and excise.

In
addition, Section 106 of the Postal Services Act  would also seem to
cover the situation.  Section 106(1) says a postal operator may detain
any postal packet if he suspects that it may contain 'relevant
goods'.  Section 106(2)(a) defines relevant goods as any goods
chargeable with any duty charged on imported goods which has not been
paid or secured.

Finally, you refer to the provision of an
invoice from Royal Mail;  The Charge Label, which is adhered to the
packet, is considered to be the invoice.

I hope this clarifies the situation.


Mrs Diane Evans
Customs & International
Control & Movement Team
7th Floor North
Portcullis House
Victoria Avenue
Southend-on-Sea
Essex SS2 6AL

                                          **********

I Replied:

Dear Diane,

Thank you for your email today, which I had not received.

I
note that the legislation you have supplied refers to 'demand payment
of any duty or other sum due to the Commissioners of Revenue and
Customs in respect of it', which indicates that the Parcelforce
clearance fee is not covered.

Would you please confirm that the
Parcelforce clearance fee is not a charge required to be paid to the
Commissioners of Revenue and Customs.

I was willing to pay the
Customs fee and had my money for the charge in hand when the police
arrived. Although I tried to pay the Customs charge, the parcel was
still held in lien for the Parcelforce clearance fee.

The police
phoned me last week to make a statement and want to take the matter
forward, I have delayed proceedings to gather more information. The
Postal Commission legal department are confused by the wording of
paragraphs 104 and 105 of the Postal Services Act 2000. They are
awaiting the return of the author of the Act from holiday, to clarify
the matter.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Kind regards,

M

                                             **********

C & E Replied:

Dear M

 
The charge made by Parcelforce Worldwide is not paid to HMRC.  It is
levied by them as a contribution towards the cost of presenting the parcel to
Customs, paying the duty and VAT on your behalf and collecting it from you.  It is entirely separate from the duty
and VAT charged by Revenue & Customs.
 
All companies that
act as couriers whether Royal Mail, Parcelforce or independent companies
such as UPS, DHL etc. will make a similar charge.
 

Regards


Mrs Diane
Evans
Customs & International
Control & Movement Team
7th Floor
North
Portcullis House
Victoria Avenue
Southend-on-Sea
Essex SS2
6AL
 
Tel: 01702 361989
Fax: 01702
361937

                                               **********

 
So............... according to section 15(1), 15(2) and 15(3) of the Postal Packet (Customs and Excise) Regulations 1986, the Parcelforce clearance fee is not payable to HM C & E and is therefore not covered in the act. According to these regulations, the packet can only be held in lien for duty payable, not for the clearance fees of a PLC.

 

I have just spoken to Sean O'Hara of the Postal Commission. He states
that as far as their lawyers know, at the moment, they (Parcelforce)
cannot hold any Royal Mail Packet in lien for their own fees.



The Postal Commission lawyers challenged Royal Mail legal two weeks ago
to show legislation that allows them to hold packets in lien for their
own fees. The Postal Commission have heard nothing back from them yet.

Hi geolabuk,

I am very interested in your recent escapades! I recently received a parcel from abroad. It was delivered to me by ParcelForce, and the following day I received an invoice for the VAT and "ParcelForce Clearance Fee", stating that my parcel would not be delivered until I paid up.

Was the fact I've already been delivered the parcel just a mistake at the depot, or as a result of your recent cage-rattling? I suspect the former, but you never know.

Anyway, I now have the parcel but have paid neither the VAT nor the "Clearance Fee". Like you, I am happy to pay the VAT (although they've charged me £16.25 VAT (there is no duty) on an item worth U.S.$100, so that's an argument to take up with customs!), but not the "Clearance Fee". I did not request that ParcelForce pay the VAT on my behalf; I see no reason why I should pay for unsolicited services.

You have stated why you think ParcelForce are not allowed under law to hold your delivery for ransom. However, what are your arguments, under law, for not paying the "Clearance Fee"?

My argument is based on 'common law' and my right to dispute charges made for payments made on my behalf.

This VAT payment could easily be made over the internet by anyone from home, a friend's computer, a work computer or from a library. I should have an option to pay the fee myself instead of paying £8 - £13.50 for someone else to press the button for me.

I believe, if enough people refused to pay the Parcelforce Clearance, they would not be able to take everyone to court and the system would have to be changed.

 This is the 21st Century, most people have paid for things directly over the net, Customs charges should be no exception. 

So, you think that if ParcelForce did take you to the small claims court, that you would lose?

If you have a finding against you at the small claims court, does that show on your credit record?

If they did start proceedings in small claims court - I would pay before it got to the stage of extra charges.

BUT - If everyone refused to pay initially, imagine the amount of agro it would cause and the extra admin involved.

By section 105 of the Postal Services Act they are allowed to make a charge, and I am allowed to dispute it. :-)