You need to put the www at the beginning and dot co dot uk at the end of consumeractiongroup in the address field of your browser. It's on a different website but it is relevant to this thread. The mods won't even allow me to put a tinyurl link to it. If you still cannot get there email me XXXXX and I will send you the link.

Note - email address removed. Please ensure you read the moneysupermarket.com Community Standards and Terms of Service before posting. Thanks

Oh, I got to the site OK - but there doesn't seem to be a facility to search teh site. What topic is it in, and I can browse for it?

I am now having my posts deleted too.Bert - read 104 (3) (c) you will then see that Royal Mail can hold a parcel in lien for Duty to be paid.

Yes, they could - IF THEY HADN'T ALREADY PAID IT! You haven't grasped what's happening - they have already paid the duty. I promise, I'm right on this - you are missing the fact that they pay the duty for you and Customs release it. The situation you are describing doesn't exist!

What you are missing is that Customs charges ARE paid, just as with every other courier. They (PF and the PO) have paid them. (Hence their ripoff fee!) At that point your debt to HMRC is discharged, and you owe the money to PF/PO. That's a civil debt that does not have the same status afforded to duty and VAT due to HMRC. And the legislation is specific: Postal Services Act 2000, section 104 (2) para (d). says that a postal packet shall have immunity from "retention by virtue of a lien".

Jim

105 (3) Duties (whether of customs or excise) charged on imported goods or other charges payable in respect of postal packets to which this section applies (whether payable to a postal operator or to a foreign administration) may be recovered by the postal operator concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him.

I will explain - I have already checked this. There is a charter for Royal Mail to pay HMRC on our behalf. Section 105 states that they can collect it only by civil means. Now, we know they can hold the parcel in lien for the Duty (104 (3) (c), but not for the handling charge.

Why argue? Why confuse people?

Guys, I've raised both points in my county court claim against Royal Mail. The international postal regulations say the handling charge (which can not delay delivery) must be reasonable - I have thus also asked them to justify the £8.00 and £13.50 fees. The problem is they will try and settle out of court as they know their position isn't by far tenable enough to defend and as it's a small claim will relate to my case only but it could open the floodgates and I have a lawyer just waiting to test the new Scottish class actions. They tried to get my first claim struck out but that obviously failed.

Cracked Chap:

105 (3) Duties (whether of customs or excise) charged on imported goods or other charges payable in respect of postal packets to which this section applies (whether payable to a postal operator or to a foreign administration) may be recovered by the postal operator concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him.

I will explain - I have already checked this. There is a charter for Royal Mail to pay HMRC on our behalf. Section 105 states that they can collect it only by civil means. Now, we know they can hold the parcel in lien for the Duty (104 (3) (c), but not for the handling charge.

Why argue? Why confuse people?

Because you are wrong. And I have verified that MY interpretation is correct with two lawyers and the police (who took a long time to research it and agree.) You are doing the confusing, not me! They could hold it in lien for the duty, but they have already paid it on your behalf.

Yes they can hold it for the Duty - that is what we are saying, they cannot hold it for the handling charge which can only be obtained in case of dispute by civil means.

P.S. I put my references, names and contact details in my post on moneysupermaket.com. May we have your sources?

Cracked Chap:Yes they can hold it for the Duty - that is what we are saying, they cannot hold it for the handling charge which can only be obtained in case of dispute by civil means.

No, the COULD hold it - if they hadn't already paid it on your behalf. And you must be talking about the Royal we there! :-)

Cracked Chap:

P.S. I put my references, names and contact details in my post on moneysupermaket.com. May we have your sources?

Sources for.....?

Please suply the sources of your information regarding the Royal Mail or Parcel Force (as a Universal Postal Service) being able to hold the item for the HANDLING FEE, not the Duty. I am sure Royal Mail would love to hear it, as they could not supply it to PostComm's legal department in 2007.

Cracked Chap:

Please suply the sources of your information regarding the Royal Mail or Parcel Force (as a Universal Postal Service) being able to hold the item for the HANDLING FEE, not the Duty. I am sure Royal Mail would love to hear it, as they could not supply it to PostComm's legal department in 2007.

Sorry, but I think you've cracked, old chap! :-)

They can't hold it for any lien, not the handling fee, not the duty, not the VAT. I've never suggested otherwise!

They COULD hold it for the Duty and VAT, IF they hadn't already paid it on your behalf.

Plainly you - alone it appears - think otherwise, which is fine; we are all entitled to our opinion, and I have mine, you have yours, so how about we agree to differ on this, instead of you going off half *** and suggesting that I said they could hold it for the handling fee, when I did nothing of the kind, eh?

Cheers,

Jim

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

(d) retention by virtue of a lien,

(d) retention by virtue of a lien,(3) In subsection (2) “relevant power” means any power other than— a power conferred by an enactment relating to customs or excise in its application, by virtue of section 105 or any regulations made under that section, to goods contained in postal packets,

105 (3) Duties (whether of customs or excise) charged on imported goods or other charges payable in respect of postal packets to which this section applies (whether payable to a postal operator or to a foreign administration) may be recovered by the postal operator concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him.

You are reading section 105 as if they have paid the Duty and therefore cannot hold the parcel in lien but:

106. Power to detain postal packets containing contraband.—

(1) A postal operator may— (a) detain any postal packet if he suspects that it may contain relevant goods,

(2) In this section “relevant goods” means—

(a) any goods chargeable with any duty charged on imported goods (whether a customs or an excise duty) which has not been paid or secured, or(a) any goods chargeable with any duty charged on imported goods (whether a customs or an excise duty) which has not been paid or secured,

The Royal Mail has a charter to pay the Duty on our behalf and collect it from us. As there is Duty payable on the item, they are allowed to hold the parcel in lien.You continue to state things but show no evidence - please show your sources or evidence with your statements. Put up or shut up

Please, you are starting to get really silly now - let's agree to differ. There's no point in your posting all this here (I have it on my PC already, for a start!), and I see no point in your abusive "Put up or shut up" stuff.

My "sources" (who do you think you are, Deep Throat?) are the same as yours - the act itself. the key part, which you cannot seem to take in, is right at the end of your post "which has not been paid". What you are missing is that IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID - by the Royal Mail. They then have to recover it from you, but as it is a debt to them, it is no longer Duty or VAT - that has been paid, remember, but a civil debt, and they cannot hold it for such a lien.

As I said, you are perfectly entitled to disagree, but getting stupid and abusive serves no point in here. My interpretation differs, and the police here - after extensive deliberation - agreed with mine, as did the two lawyers whom I consulted.

Or am I not allowed to hold a different opinion to you?

Cheers,

Jim