TONY HETHERINGTON: Goodnight Vienna for UPS over its import errors!
TONY HETHERINGTON: UPS wrongly charged me import duties on an antique clock I bought in Vienna
Tony Hetherington is the skilled investigator for Financial Mail on Sunday, dedicated to advocating for readers, uncovering hidden truths, and achieving justice for those who have suffered financial losses. Please see the information below to get in touch with him.
R.N. writes: I purchased a vintage clock through an auction in Vienna and made arrangements for packaging and delivery with UPS.
I had full clearance instructions in triplicate attached to the parcel, but through ignorance or arrogance UPS made all of the three potential errors in calculating tax and duties.
Tony Hetherington replies: Don’t yIsn’t it great when the customer has more knowledge than the professionals who are being paid to offer a service?
I know I do – I once sacked a firm of solicitors who demanded all sorts of personal information from me, falsely claiming it was their legal duty under money-laundering regulations, right up to the point that it became clear I knew more about those regulations than they did.
UPS committed all three possible errors when calculating tax and duties.
With you, UPS could hardly have picked on a worse customer to shower with demands that were simply wrong. The clock you bought was between 100 and 250 years old, so value added tax (VAT) should only be due at 5 per cent. UPS tried to charge you 20 per cent.
There is no import duty on antiques of this sort, but UPS slapped an import duty charge on your bill. And UPS based its VAT calculation on the whole amount of the invoice from the Vienna auction house. Instead, the 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.
When the UPS driver arrived at your doorstep, he requested a payment of £321 instead of the correct amount of £82, which already accounted for UPS’s clearance fee of £12. However, you declined to make the payment.
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 inquired with UPS for a comment, they responded: ‘The customer received the package successfully on the first try, and any issues with the invoice have been resolved at no extra charge 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 possibly have demanded more when they were demanding too much in the first place.
When I informed you about it, you had already received the antique clock. However, you mentioned that the delivery had been rescheduled five times. Additionally, you had not received the accurate bill yet, nor any evidence of import or customs clearance.
I returned to UPS, and they acknowledged that mistakes can happen and assured me that they would rectify any errors for their customers. After a few days, UPS provided me with a corrected invoice and paperwork. Additionally, they waived the £82 charge as a goodwill gesture. Finally, this issue has been resolved.
I need assistance as BT is negatively impacting our business.
N.H. writes:My son and I are the owners of a small business located in St Helens, Merseyside. We are currently facing a frustrating situation as BT refuses to restore our telephone connection.
Our business has come to a standstill due to the lack of a telephone line for more than four weeks.
N.H.’s small company has been lacking a telephone connection for more than four weeks.
Tony Hetherington replies: You mentioned that BT visited your company to fix the line, and subsequently, there was a conversation regarding the renewal of your contract.
BT sent a new router, and then your phone went dead. Using different phones, you called BT a number of times, speaking to someone in another country and going through the same security questions each time, but nobody solved the problem.
I have reached a critical point where your employment is in jeopardy. I have taken the initiative to reach out to BT on your behalf.
After three days, an apology was issued, explaining that the original order was mistakenly sent to the wrong exchange due to an error in their records.
On the same day, an engineer arrived at your company and installed a temporary telephone line. Your internet connection is functioning, and your original phone number has been reactivated.
We’re watching you
Investors who invested their savings in shares of Orange River Capital, a medicinal cannabis company, may now face the consequences of their decision as the business seems to be on the verge of disappearing.
The company’s stocks were advertised with the promise of a 15% yearly dividend and a 300% increase in capital, but it has not fulfilled its obligation to submit legally required financial statements by the May deadline.
Bad taste: Cannabis company Orange River Capital looks likely to disappear in a puff of smoke
Companies House officials have initiated the process of forcibly removing and dissolving the company. Investors claim that they have not received the dividends that were supposed to be paid in January and July.
In September of last year, I cautioned that the share offering contained misleading statements. The promotion of this offering was done through marketing emails by CityA.M., a financial newspaper based in London. However, the official offer document mentioned a director who had already resigned and falsely claimed support from a stockbroking firm that had gone bankrupt.
It promoted its ‘established history of success’ despite its own documents indicating that it had not engaged in any trading yet.
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.
The business received an investment of £130,000 from an investor, but only returned £30,000. The company was forcibly closed and dissolved in October. Despite multiple invitations, Farbrace did not respond to address the complaints about his current venture owing money to investors.
If you think you have been a victim of financial misconduct, you can contact Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email [email protected]. Due to the large number of inquiries, personal responses cannot be provided. Please send only copies of the original documents as they cannot be returned.
