yes agreed, but I also think the £13.50 is also exessive allthough they can charge that, they certainly cannot justify that.

If its state owned then it is a civil service too, working for us not a profit making venture.

iPaul:

Postcom tell me they do not regulate Parcel force which is pretty strange considering I don't have a choice but pay a "tax"

Postcom do regulate Parcelfore but this is the answer they give to divert any angry customers. They don't regulate the private courier part but they do regulate the standard postal mail. Phone them again and ask to speak to the director, complain about their lack of action regarding this matter.

This shows how corrupt the whole situation is when PostCom won't step in and regulate an illegal procedure.

'Parcelforce Worldwide and Parcelforce are trading names of Royal Mail Group plc' and Postcomm says 'It is our job to protect the universal service and make sure that postal operators, including Royal Mail, meet the needs of their customers throughout the UK. We are also responsible for introducing choice to a market that was a closed monopoly for 350 years.' http://www.psc.gov.uk/index.html

'Parcelforce charges the recipient of incoming international parcels a "handling fee" of £8 or £13.50 if it has paid customs duty on behalf of the recipient, even though the cost of delivery has already been fully paid by the sender.^[12] In 2003 Postwatch said it would investigate, stating "This smacks of profiteering. Customers should be confident when placing orders that the price is the price, with no hidden charges - which in this case appear to be exorbitant. We will be taking this up with Parcelforce immediately."^[12] As of 2009 this fee is still in place. The fee is regarded by some customers as a potentially illegal scam.^[13] Commenting on the legality aspect, Postwatch stated in 2008 "there appears to be a case for saying that a postal operator may be acting illegally if it retains an item in order to claim its clearance fee."^{[14] '}

^{Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcelforce}

(Postwatch has been replaced by Consumer Focus/Consumer Direct)

Postcomm replied to my query:

Thank you for your phone call and e-mail of today. First, we do not regulate Parcelforce as it operates outside Royal Mail's licensed area and in a fully competitive market.

I am not aware of what statute, if any, allows Parcelforce to levy this charge or what it it is meant to cover. I do not understand why Parcelforce appear unable to explain it.

I therefore suggest you take this up with the main carrier or the sender.

I've just been hit with the same "you must pay us the VAT & 'Parcelforce Clearence Fee' before we will release your parcel for delivery" letter. Having read through this thread and a few others on the internet, I decided to challenge the letter/principal.

I contacted the North Essex Depot (08700 844 550) and spoke to the front-line drone who told me that she didn't have the ability to split out the VAT from the clearence fee on her screen - in other words, in order to release the parcel for delivery, full payment (of both the VAT & fee) first need to be made. I asked to speak with the depot manager (Mr. Tony Flint) but when he eventually came on the line, he had absolutely no time for me. I politely informed him that it was illegal to withhold delivery of my parcel but all this got me was a rather gruff "Don't quote the law to me sir!". I told him that I would next be contacting the Police and the conversation was ended.

Armed with this 'experience' of dealing with Parcel Force depot staff, I called Consumer Direct (08454 04 05 06). They were extremely helpful. They recorded the complaint and are forwarding it onto the relevant regulatory body and issued me with a Consumer Direct reference number. The man I spoke to explained that it was indeed a criminal offence under sections 84-105 of the 2000 Postal Services Act to delay delivery of the parcel. It is apparently NOT illegal for them to charge me a fee but it IS illegal for them to withhold delivery of the parcel pending payment of that fee. We both agreed that I have no contract with Parcel Force for the delivery of the package (payment for this service has already been made in full by the sender). If they wish to invoice me after the fact for their fee, they are quite at liberty to do so - but if I were them, I wouldn't hold my breath on getting me to pay that invoice - again, Im under no congtractual obligation with them.

When I told the Consumer Direct agent about the story I was told by the front-line drone about not having the ability to accept payment for ONLY the VAT duty, he seemd quite surprised and thought this was a new tactic that Parcel Force might now be using to throw up road blocks for me (the custmer).

It is a clear criminal offence for Parcel Force to withhold delivery of the parcel and I was advised by Consumer Direct to contact the Police to report this offence. However, they also suggested that I first wait a couple of days to see what sort of response I would get from the regulatory body following them registering the complaint on my behalf. They also suggested I contact Parcel Force Worldwide Complaints department (0870 850 1150) to register the complaint directly with them too.

I just got off the phone with Parcel Force Worldwide Complains department with a complaint registration number (1-1022538824) and a promise for someone in the Managing Director's Office to contact me by phone within the hour. The person that picked up the phone (after 25 minutes in a queue), seemed a bit taken aback by my having quoted in detail exactly where and how Parcel Force were in breach of criminal law, but she did register the complaint and promised that I'd be called back. We'll see.

I'll update again here with how I get on.

- CDM

OK, so I got the call-back from a Vicky Turner from the office of the Managing Director - and within the hour as promised (a pleasant surprise I have to say). I explained again the situation and wanted to know why my parcel was being delayed contrary to criminal law. Ms. Turner claimed again that the full payment (including the fee) was due before the parcel would be released for delivery. I pointed out the relevant acts of law that Parcel Force was breaching and was told that she would have to contact her legal department first. I told her that I'd spoken to the North Essex Depot and that I was told by them that they did not have the capacity to take ONLY the VAT payment. She said "it would be difficult for them to do that."

Eventually, I got tired of the discussion and informed Ms. Turner that I had already spoken to Consumer Direct AND to the Police and I again quoted the relevant acts of law that they were breaching. She eventually told me that she would arrange for the parcel to be released for delivery IF I agreed to pay the £8 fee which she could arrange to be subsequently invoiced. I told her that I was not aware of any contract between us that would require me to pay any such payment. At this point she started said "Since it's clear you're not intending to pay this fee, I'm not going to release the parcel." I stuck to my guns and told her that the only issue on the table right now was the delay in the delivery of the parcel and that they were in continual breach of the law. I told her that the next phone call I would be making would be to the Police to press criminal charges against her directly (and the other people named above). She told me she didn't want to set the precident of allowing parcels to be delivered without collecting this fee but after I pressed her repeatedly on whether she intended to continue to break the law by withholding the parcel, she eventually said she'd spead to her legal department and call me back.

She called back 10 minutes later and told me she'd arranged for someone at the North Essex depot to call me to take collection of the VAT charge and that they would be subsequently invoicing me for the £8 fee.

I got a call from the North Essex depot shortly thereafter and they did, indeed, take payment from me for the VAT charge. I again explained to the woman that Parcel Force were breaching the law but she continually claimed that she could only do what her management told her to do - withhold parcels until all fees and charges were paid in full.

I suggested that the woman talk with her union, as her management was placing her and her fellow colleagues potentially in harms way by requesting that they break the law. She thanked me for this and told me I should expect to receive the parcel tomorrow.

I just have to figure out now what to do about the invoice for the £8 when it arrives. I don't believe I owe this money but they did tell me they would pursue it for payment. That will be the next step in this saga.

- CDM

OK, here's a new twist. I just got another call out of the blue from another woman (Lynn Gawthorpe) from the Managing Director's office at Parcel Force Worldwide. She is now telling me that I have been misinformed and that I always had the option of paying the VAT charge ONLY. I pointed out that the letter I received as well as all the previous people at Parcel Force that I have dealt with since receiving the letter have all told me that this was NOT the case. Lynn claims that they have informed me incorrectly and that she has taken steps to ensure that her staff are aware of the correct rules and procedures going forward.

We debated the wording of the letter that I received. From my point of view, it appears to be claiming that ALL charges must be paid in full before the parcel can be released for delivery (this was further re-inforced by everything that I was subsequently told by phone).

More impoortantly, she claims that despite what is stated in sections 85-105 of the Postal Services Act of 2000, Parcel Force does have the right to withhold parcels for delivery pending payment of the VAT charges as per Artical 15 of the Postal Packet Regulations of 1986.

We agreed to disagree on the size of the £8 fee and the fact that I would be liable for payment of this fee.

- CDM

Good news on the decision, I went through the same hoops to,

I was charged £13.50 which was vastly disproportionate to the item , (it was express which had cost just few dollars more to send).

I did get the item released but the resolution and the hoops I had to go through was unacceptable.

I also choose the express option to get the item quickly and then to have it delayed by 3 days due to waiting for the “letter” saying it was help and then phoning and paying and then a further day for re delivery that it completely wrong, and self defeating of the whole point of the express shipping, this would have been the usual procedure to wait the further 3 days.

The 13.50GBP is more then it had cost to actually ship. completely unjust imo .

Yes, they have now conceded that they can only withhold the parcel pending payment of the VAT fee. However, I was told that they put BOTH the fees on the letter because "the customer prefers it this way."

Apparently, although they have now agreed to release my parcel for delivery, now that I have paid the VAT charge, they will still invoice me for the £8 and according to Consumer Direct, they can do this and I have no recourse under current UK law to dispute it.

The OFT are apparently investigating this issue and it turns out that even the HMRC have queried as to why courier companies are holding up delivery of parcels and not clarifying the situation to their customers.

My own take is that the letter that I have received from Parcel Force is, in fact, extremely carefully and deliberately worded so as to give the impression that ALL fees are due before delivery can be made but without actually stating as much. I asked Parcel Force today if they plan to now re-word the 'standard letter' now that its clarity has been brought into focus (no pun intended) but we 'agreed to disagree' on whether the letter was unclear.

I'm now in the middle of writing to my MP (Mr. Mark Francois) - somewhat at the behest of Consumer Direct themselves, I might add, who seemed quite surprised to hear that Article 15 of the Postal Packets Regulations act of 1986 was now being used as justification for withholding delivery of parcels with VAT due.

- CDM

Courier companies in general do not do this - only Royal Mail Group (ParcelFarce and the PO) have the ransom note system. Other companies follow the correct procedure, and turn up at the door with your parcel, asking generally for payment then, or invoicing you later.

I have no problem with the fees at all, (though their clearance charges are excessive to say the least!) but I do strongly object to the delay, often amounting to 5 or 6 days after it could have been delivered.

Email BBC Watchdog about it too!

Here is the letter I just drafted to my local MP:

Hello,

It is somewhat at the behest of the government's own Consumer Direct advice service that I bring this matter to your attention. I have so far followed all the advice given to me and have lodged complaints with the appropriate authorities but I dare say that it will be in the hands of the politicians through which this matter will ultimately find resolution.

Summary: Parcel Force Worldwide is illegally withholding delivery of international parcels when HMRC determines that VAT is due.

Details: When Parcel Force Worldwide accept an overseas parcel for delivery to the UK, the parcel must first clear customs. If HMRC determines that duty is due on the parcel (not unusual), Parcel Force then send out a letter to the intended recipient requesting payment of this duty. On this letter, they also note a 'Parcelforce Clearance Fee' of either £8 or £13.50. Together with the VAT due, they claim that this total amount is payable BEFORE the parcel can be released for delivery.

The withholding of delivery of a parcel until the 'clearance fee' is paid is in direct contradiction to sections 84-105 of the Postal Services Act of 2000. It is a clear material breach of criminal law.

Having received one of these letters myself recently, I took Parcel Force to task on the illegal imposition of an unjust and disproportionate fee (I can get a parcel to the far flung corners of the earth for less than they charge to click a button to collect a payment on behalf of HMRC) which they appear to state MUST be paid BEFORE the parcel can be released for delivery. Parcel Force claim that they can withhold a parcel until the payment of the VAT is paid and they have cited Article 15 of the Postal Packets Regulations act of 1986 in support of this behaviour.

I have today spoken with a number of people at Parcel Force in order to get my parcel released for delivery. These include the front-line phone staff & the North Essex depot manager (Tony Flint) but also in the office of the Managing Director at Parcel Force Worldwide (Vicky Turner). At each encounter, I was told that I would have to pay BOTH the VAT AND Parcel Force's self-determined FEE before delivery of my parcel could be authorised. When I asked if I could pay the VAT amount only (that which is all that is required by law as it is my understanding), I was told that they do not have the capacity to take ONLY the VAT payment.

I was later contacted by another woman from the office of the Managing Director (Lynn Gawthorpe) and was told that I had, in fact, earlier been misinformed. Lynn now claimed that it is ONLY the VAT that must be paid before the parcel can be released for delivery. We agreed to disagree on the fact that the 'standard letter' that they send out is unclear. Although Ms. Gawthorpe claimed she would ensure that this was a misunderstanding and that she would inform her staff of the correct procedures going forward, I have found evidence that this has been an ongoing problem with Parcel Force going back several years. I feel it unlikely that they are going to change their ways.

According to Consumer Direct, this issue is already being looked at by the OFT. HMRC have apparently also queried why courier companies like Parcel Force have not clarified the situation adequately for the consumer.

I believe that Parcel Force are acting improperly, that they are flaunting the law and that they are hoodwinking consumers into paying unjust fees that are not necessarily required in order to get their parcels released for delivery. Each time a consumer gets one of these letters (thousands go out each day), they are misled into thinking that they must fork out for Parcel Force's 'clearance fee' in order to get their parcel released for delivery - again, this is against the law.

Worse still, as things currently stand, the consumer has absolutely no recourse whatever under existing law to challenge the fee that the courier companies impose. It is akin, in my opinion, to the bank charges for bounced checks and overdrafts. An individual charge of £8 or £13.50 per parcel is enormously disproportionate to the actual costs involved. As the recipient of the parcel, I have not entered into any contract with the courier (the door-to-door costs of delivery have already been paid for by the sender) and should not have to be forced to pay this fee.

Hoping that you will be able to take this matter and progress it further with the interests of me (the consumer) in mind, I remain.

Yours sincerely,

We'll see where, if anywhere, this leads.

- CDM

I got a reply from Postcomm after I complained specifically about the delay, and not the charges themselves. For a bit of background, I work for a Japanese company that ships stuff overseas, and the UK is a regular destination. Parcels under £50 (including shipping) usually get through with no customs charges, and over they usually don't, although there are exceptions on both sides (e.g. one parcel to the tune of £170 went through unnoticed, and some that are just over the £18 limit have been taxed). If I didn't know any better I would assume they're using the £50 value as a rule of thumb, as parcels under this consistently get through scot free.

Anyway back to the issue at hand, parcels that are not taxed are delivered in 2-3 days from when they are shipped, as one would expect from an express services (EMS), if they are taxed, however, it is not until the 5th day at the earliest that PF even acknowledges that the parcel is in their custody after customs, and once you add on another 2 days for the recipient to receive the ransom note the delivery stands at 7 days AT BEST.

The useful EMS tracking makes it crystal clear that the delay in customs is rarely above 2 days, so PF are usually in a position to deliver on the 4th or 5th day if the parcel is taxed, but of course they insist on being paid first because we are all a bunch of theiving ***. This is not an "Express service", so not only is the ransom illegal, but they are abusing their monopolistic position, knowing full well that most people have no alternative.

Anyway, here's the answer

Thank you for your email.

By way of background, Postcomm was created by Parliament in November 2000 to maintain the universal service provision - the arrangement where letters and parcels are collected and delivered each working day to any part of the UK for the same price - and generally to promote customer interests, where appropriate by promoting competition in postal services. Postcomm does not deal with individual complaints.

Customs charges are not regulated by Postcomm. Postcomm has set a price control on Royal Mail which covers many of Royal Mail's postal products, but these administration fees do not form part of that control.

The issue of whether or not Royal Mail or any other 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 2000 ("PSA"). Postcomm's enforcement functions do not extend to directing Royal Mail in any way in relation to this matter. For your information, the PSA is the responsibility of the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform although, again, the correct interpretation of the PSA remains a matter for the courts.

Parcelforce, although a division of Royal Mail Group, operates outside the area of postal services regulated by Postcomm. Courier services (over £1) and parcel services (over 350g) are exempt from the requirement for a licence and are fully open to competition.

If you wish to complain to Parcelforce you can contact:

• 08708 501150
• 08708 608 0969 (for Welsh speaking customers)
• 08000 855 854 (textphone for customers with impaired hearing)

You can also use Parcelforce’s online complaints form at http://www.parcelforce.com/portal/pw/jump2?catId=26100672&mediaId=26100673

For independent advice or guidance, you can contact Consumer Direct. Consumer Direct is a government service providing practical and impartial consumer advice. Consumer Direct can let you know how to progress a complaint if you are dissatisfied with a company's response. You can contact Consumer Direct:

• by telephone: 08454 04 05 06
• via its website: www.consumerdirect.gov.uk


Regards

Yes, standard boiler plate text - same reply they always give. It's the delay that is illegal under criminal law, and that's the bit I have complained about.

Interestingly, I have a (non-urgent) one due here today, after - according to Parcel Farce's website - it spent ONE WEEK in Customs, "awaiting charges". I now watch them and when I see "released with charges" I ring the depot and pay it by credit card, so it's not held in the depot, but delivered the day it arrives with them. The actual ransom note will get here tomorrow at the earliest, too late to ring and pay so that it would be delivered tomorrow, so earliest delivery would be Thursday under the ransom note system. If Iwaited for the ransom note, and it was sent out to me on a Wednesday, it would arrive on a Friday, making the earliest possible delivery the following Monday - i.e. a 5-day delay which is a clear criminal offence under the PSA. They sack their own employees and prosecute them if they delay delivery (two taken to court by the Royal Mail, separately, in this area alone over the last year), but escape prosecution themselves for forcing their own employees to commit the same offence daily, hundreds, or more likely thousands of times. One law for them, one law for the rest of us.