Dear Mr Mills

Re: Freedom of Information Request

I am writing in response to your request for information which was submitted online on 16^th September 2009. We have considered your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You raised a number of questions in relation to the Parcelforce Clearance Fee and the Postal Services Act 2000. Parcelforce has considered each of your questions below

1.) When a parcel is held at a depot, and its subsequent delivery is subject to payment of "Parcelforce Clearance Fee", do you consider this act to be "intentional" or is it an act committed unwillfully on your part?

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Parcelforce is obliged to provide a copy of recorded information that it holds (subject to certain exemptions), but there is no requirement to provide advice or opinions. Although you have asked for Parcelforce's opinion, we have interpreted your enquiry as a request for a copy of any information held by Parcelforce where these questions have been considered.

Parcelforce has obtained legal advice on the Postal Services Act 2000 (from which you quote) and does hold information relevant to your question. However, Parcelforce considers this to be exempt from disclosure under the Act, as it is subject to legal professional privilege (which is exempt from disclosure under S.42 of the Act). We have set out further information on this exemption later.

2) When a parcel is held at a depot, and its subsequent delivery is subject to payment of "Parcelforce Clearance Fee", what happens to the parcel if the customer refuses to pay "Parcelforce Clearance Fee"?

We enclose a copy of the Parcelforce guidance to depots which addresses this question. You will see that we have redacted one part of the guidance, which contains the name of a Parcelforce employee. This amounts to personal data, S.40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) provides that personal data is exempt from disclosure where, its disclosure would breach one of the principles in the Data Protection Act 1998. In this case, Parcelforce considers that disclosure would be unfair to the individual in question, who had no expectation that this information would be released into the public domain and to do so would be an unwarranted intrusion into his/her private life. Further, Parcelforce considers that there is no legitimate public interest in the disclosure of this information.

3) When a parcel is held at a depot, and its subsequent delivery is subject to payment of "Parcelforce Clearance Fee", if the customer asked you to release the parcel without payment and you refused, would this be in violation of the law as described in "Section 104(2) a" of the Postal Services Act 2000 (c .26)?

As with question 1, we have interpreted your enquiry as a request for a copy of any information held by Parcelforce where these questions have been considered. Again, as with question 1, Parcelforce does hold information that considers the Postal Services Act, however, it considers this to be exempt as the information is subject to legal professional privilege.

Parcelforce is, however, happy to explain that its practice of charging a customs clearance fee is provided for by the Universal Postal Union (“U.P.U.”) The U.P.U. was set up by the United Nations to facilitate the smooth transition of mail around the globe. HM Government is a signatory to the U.P.U. and Parcelforce is tasked with fulfilling the government's obligations.  The U.P.U. Parcel Post Manual at Section J of Article 18 provides that postal administrations shall be authorised to clear items through customs on behalf of customers and may charge customers a customs clearance fee.

4) When the rules for holding international parcels subject to payment of "Parcelforce Clearance Fee" were established. Was a lawyer or other legal advisor consulted regarding "Section 104 (2) a" of the Postal Services Act 2000 (c .26)? And if so, what was the outcome of this consultation.

We have searched our records and the information you requested is not held by Parcelforce.

In the case of Questions 2 & 3, Parcelforce considers the information you have requested to be exempt on the basis of legal professional privilege. In each of these cases, as required by the Freedom of Information Act, Parcelforce has also considered whether the public interest in upholding this exemption outweighs the public interest in releasing the information. In this case, Parcelforce is aware of the public interest and debate in relation to customs clearance fees. However, it considers that there is a very strong interest in upholding the exemption for legal professional privilege, as it is in the public interest that public authorities, such as Parcelforce, can obtain legal advice in confidence and are not dissuaded from seeking advice when appropriate due to the risk of disclosure. In all the circumstances of the case, Parcelforce considers that the public interest in upholding the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

We hope that this letter and the enclosure meet your requirements. However, if for any reason you are not satisfied with this response, you do have the right to request a review. If you wish to do so please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to the Head of Information Compliance, Royal Mail Group, Company Secretary's Office, 100 Victoria Embankment, LONDON, EC4Y 0HQ. An internal panel will then review the decision, and you will be advised of the outcome.

If, having requested an internal review by Royal Mail, you are still not satisfied with our response you also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Cont…

15 October 2009