TONY HETHERINGTON: UPS Wrongly Charged Import Duties on an Antique Clock I Bought in Vienna
By Tony Hetherington, Financial Mail on Sunday
Updated: 10:56 BST, 1 October 2023
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday’s ace investigator, fighting readers’ corners, revealing the truth behind closed doors, and winning victories for those left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below.
R.N. writes: I bought an antique clock at auction in Vienna and arranged for packing and shipping using UPS. I had full clearance instructions in triplicate attached to the parcel, but through ignorance or arrogance, UPS made all three potential errors in calculating tax and duties.
Tony Hetherington replies: Don’t you just love it when the customer knows more than the people getting paid for providing a service?
I know I do. I once fired a firm of solicitors who demanded personal information, falsely claiming it was their legal duty under money-laundering regulations. It became clear that I knew more about those regulations than they did.
With you, UPS couldn’t have picked a worse customer to overcharge. The clock you bought was between 100 and 250 years old, so value added tax (VAT) should only be 5 percent. UPS tried to charge you 20 percent.
There is no import duty on antiques of this sort, but UPS added an import duty charge to your bill. And UPS based its VAT calculation on the whole amount of the invoice from the Vienna auction house. Instead, VAT should only be due on the ‘hammer price’ – the €1,400 (about £1,200) you bid – and not on the additional buyer’s premium and Austrian VAT.
The result of all this was that when the UPS driver appeared at your door, he demanded £321. The correct amount should have been £82, which would have included UPS’s clearance fee of £12. You refused to pay.
And why do I say that UPS picked the wrong customer to overcharge? Well, they could never have expected that you used to be a senior official at the European Commission, where your specialist field was customs duties and VAT. You were involved in drawing up all those rules that UPS got wrong and you got right. All UPS needed to do was follow the instructions you helpfully attached to the parcel.
When I asked UPS to comment, it told me: ‘The package was successfully delivered to the customer on the first attempt, and the invoice discrepancy has been resolved without additional cost to the customer.’
When you try to overcharge a customer by more than £200, it’s a bit rich to describe this as an ‘invoice discrepancy’! And to say that UPS sorted this out ‘without additional cost’ leaves me wondering how they could have demanded more in the first place.
When I relayed this to you, you had received your antique clock but told me that the delivery had been rescheduled five times. And you still had no correct bill and no proof of import or customs clearance.
So, I went back to UPS, which said: ‘Of course, there are cases where technical or clerical errors occur; we take care to resolve them for our customers.’ A few days later, UPS provided you with a corrected invoice and paperwork. And as a goodwill gesture, it canceled the £82 charge. About time.
Help…BT is Ruining Business
N.H. writes: My son and I run a small firm in St. Helens, Merseyside, and we are at our wits’ end because BT will not reinstate our phone line.
We have been without a telephone line for over four weeks. This is grinding our business to a halt.
Tony Hetherington replies: You informed me that BT came to your firm to repair the line, and then there was a discussion about renewing your contract.
BT sent a new router, and then your phone went dead. Using different phones, you called BT several times, speaking to someone in another country and going through the same security questions each time, but nobody solved the problem.
You are now close to the point where jobs are at stake. I contacted BT on your behalf. Three days later, it issued an apology, saying: ‘Due to an error in our records, the original order was routed to the incorrect exchange.’
An engineer came to your company on the same day and set up an interim telephone line. Your broadband is working, and your original number has now been reactivated as well.
We’re Watching You
Investors who put their savings into shares in medicinal cannabis company Orange River Capital may now have to count the cost of their decision as the business looks likely to disappear in a puff of smoke.
The company’s shares were marketed with the prospect of 15 percent annual dividends and 300 percent capital gains, but it has failed to file accounts that were legally due in May.
Officials at Companies House have begun proceedings to have it compulsorily struck off and dissolved. Investors say dividends due last January and in July have not been paid.
I warned in September last year that the share offering was riddled with false claims. It was promoted in marketing emails by London financial newspaper CityA.M., but the formal offer document named a director who had already quit and claimed backing from a firm of stockbrokers that had gone into liquidation.
And it advertised its ‘proven track record’ while at the same time its own filings showed it had not yet traded.
Worse perhaps, the man behind the share offering falsified his own track record. Lee Farbrace, 45, of Folkestone in Kent, listed five directorships on his CV, but left out his role as boss of EMI Wealth Limited.
An investor who put £130,000 into the business got back just £30,000. The company was compulsorily struck off and dissolved last October. Farbrace did not reply to repeated invitations to comment on complaints that his latest venture now owes money to investors.
If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY, or email [email protected]. Personal replies cannot be given due to the high volume of inquiries. Please send only copies of original documents, as they cannot be returned.
Share or comment on this article:
[Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them, we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.]
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
