Is Panamoz "back"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebel t3i said:
Or possibly their companies time whilst they surf the net
Click to expand...
How do you know where people are surfing the net from,out of interest?

Or is one making assumptions,perish the thought on TP.
 
digital said:
Standard Panamoz terms.

I'm at a loss to know why you (and a small group of others) think it necessary to make the same comments/ask the same questions almost every time someone makes reference to a purchase from a Hong Kong connected retailer.
Click to expand...

JohnN said:
I guess hes asking is was it marked up as toy parts or as the full list price.
.
Click to expand...

Exactly - because that's what we've been discussing here. The reason the question keeps getting asked is because no one - including panamoz who still haven't replied to my email - will give a straight answer.

Mind you I guess panamoz would be comparably cheaper than digital rev regardless of whether you declared the correct value for import tax / got caught not doing or not since they both follow similar import practices.

(although according to Horney's thread HMRC seem to be singling out DR imports for attention... I wonder if they will turn their attention to panamoz due course as well ? )
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
There was no chance or risk. I was covered under section 75.
Click to expand...

Its been said before but its still worth flagging up as some people still haven't quite cottoned on NO YOU WEREN'T :bang:

If the retailer uses a third party to process their credit card payment, such as world pay, paypal, google checkout etc then you are not covered under section 75 (Panamoz use Paypal to process card transactions according to their website)

The section 75 protections are a great consumer weapon , but to use them the credit card company must form a contract directly with the supplier.
 
Last edited:
lol, this thread will no longer open on my phone or tablet - must have a grumpy filter :D
 
Its been said before but its still worth flagging up as some people still haven't quite cottoned on NO YOU WEREN'T
Click to expand...

Yes I was, As a e-retailer I've had this discussion with both Paypal and Visa/mastercard etc.
If you pay via a Paypal account but fund the account with your credit card (ie you actually log into your paypal account), then you are not protected. If you pay via a card which uses Paypal as the payment gateway (you do not login to make a payment), you are protected.

All payments go through some kind of payment processor. Worldpay, PayPal, sagepay, secure trading, nochex are all examples of payment processors.

Even if used to fund your paypal account, you could claim unauthorised use as there is no 3D secure involved.
You could also use paypal to reverse the funds. Simples :)
 
Last edited:
Money saving expert disagree -

When you buy through third parties. Travel agents, PayPal, group buying sites, etc.

You're unlikely to be covered when payments are made to a company that isn't the one providing you with the product or service. In these cases, the credit card company usually says it didn't have a direct relationship with the supplier, so isn't equally liable.

If you stand your ground, it's possible to argue that the indirect relationship constitutes an arrangement to pay. The Court of Appeal decided this was acceptable in 2006, but it's unlikely to be an easy task.

The first main area is paying via an online processor such as PayPal, WorldPay or Google Checkout. Though these can have their own refund systems, they aren't as strong as the legal protection of Section 75.
Click to expand...


http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases
 
So are you now saying paying for your goods from a HK supplier you might as well use bank transfer and save 5% with panamoz as you have no CC protection any way ?
 
no - paying by BT is fundamentally stupid , you might as well send cash in the post. Using a credit card does offer some protection, you just don't have your sect 75 rights unless they process payment directly
 
I haven't read or heard of anyone who has had any problems with panamoz re any of their payment methods including BT
are you suggesting they aren't above board or purely that a BT payment has an element of risk, if it is the later I think 99.9% of us already know that we weren't born last week lol
 
I'm not suggesting anything about panamoz specifically - but paying by Bank Transfer to anyone is a fundamentally daft thing to do because you can't even prove a transaction has taken place. (you can prove the money left your account but not what for)

When that person is based outside of the UK it becomes an even more stupid proposition as you can't even pursue the matter in the UK courts.
 
big soft moose said:
I'm not suggesting anything about panamoz specifically - but paying by Bank Transfer to anyone is a fundamentally daft thing to do because you can't even prove a transaction has taken place. (you can prove the money left your account but not what for)

When that person is based outside of the UK it becomes an even more stupid proposition as you can't even pursue the matter in the UK courts.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense to me
If you pay a company by CC you only get a transaction amount it is the receipt that shows what you have purchased
Proof of payment is all that is required as far as I am aware which your bank statement would make a serious bit of evidence lol
 
Rebel t3i said:
That doesn't make sense to me
If you pay a company by CC you only get a transaction amount it is the receipt that shows what you have purchased
Proof of payment is all that is required as far as I am aware which your bank statement would make a serious bit of evidence lol
Click to expand...

You can only pay by credit card as a transaction so if its on a credit card its clear that a transaction took place.

Bank Transfer on the other hand is specifically meant not to be a transaction - if you transfer me £500 for a camera , and I take the money and laugh in your face what are you going to do ? " Camera , I don't know anything about that he was just transferring me some money"

In the UK you could report it to the police as theft, you could take me to the small claims court , you could come round team handed to 'discuss' things

If i'm 3000 miles away in a different legal jurisdiction none of those options are open to you ( and yes that does apply to other payment ,methods too - another reason why personally i'll only buy from someone with a credible uk presence)
 
Last edited:
Still doesn't make any sense
Mr and Mrs Joe average don't take credit cards so I'd either have to pay you by bank transfer,cash, cheque or pay pal
What point are you trying to make
If I was to pay you by BT £500 I would have my own reference on the transaction which will show up on your statements and mine
Business is mainly done on trust
 
Last edited:
Rebel t3i said:
Still doesn't make any sense
Mr and Mrs Joe average don't take credit cards so I'd either have to pay you by bank transfer,cash, cheque or pay pal
What point are you trying to make
Click to expand...

I'm simply answering your question , you asked was I saying that I recommended paying by BT because CC doesn't confer a Sect 75 protection.. my answer is no I wouldn't recommend that because making a BT to someone thousands of miles away in another country is imo insanely risky.

As regards Mr and Mrs Joe Average - you could pay me by paypal - which offers buyer protection , or you could pay me by cash and take the goods at the same time.

Or you could just decide to trust me and pay by BT content in the knowledge that if I did rip you off i'm in the UK and subject to UK sanction like moneyclaim
 
Pete, I would think most people understand the point, but some would rather pretend they don't and try and make a confused joke out of it.
 
big soft moose said:
Money saving expert disagree -

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that's rubbish. Worldpay is one of the popular merchant services, just like sagepay, secure trading and various others. They are purely the payment processor.

Very few companies process the transactions directly due to the costs involved and stringent requirements for PCI compliance.

PayPal can work in two different way. You can login to your account and fund that account either by bank account or credit card. In this case I agree that you are not protected, but you are also able to pay with a credit card without having an account or without logging into your account.. In this case you are not funding an account to make a payment, PayPal are acting as the payment processor. Next time you are presented with a PayPal login screen when making a payment, just click the link that says, I do not have an account.

PayPal also offer paypal pro which is a merchant service and does not mention paypal at all on the merchants website. The funds may be deposited into the merchants paypal account, but the customer would have no idea the payment was processed via PayPal.

Don't believe everything you read on consumer rights websites, they very often fail to mention the small print.
 
Last edited:
I'd best not do any more buying or selling in the classifieds anymore as anyone who does must take some insane risks apparently. Most people using the classifieds seem to make or take payment by BT or Paypal so if they're taking insane risks it follows that they're all insane (as no sane person would take insane risks). Mods, you better can the classifed section quick.

In all the transactions I've made with Panamoz, including 2 paid by BT, and a warranty return I've had fantastic service from them. The transactions I can check were labelled and valued correctly and were all delivered quickly and very reliably by UPS.

Maybe the 'Memoranda Of Understanding' deal between the UK and Hong Kong has something to do with people not having to pay any 'VAT or Hidden Charges' when they're buying goods off Panamoz. So unless the people complaining about duty all the time know for definite that Panamoz has no agreement in place maybe they should stop filling threads with unhelpful answers.
 
I love a bit of nostalgia, couldn't beat the Muppet show for laughs and now we know what happened to the cast after the show stopped.
 
modchild said:
Maybe the 'Memoranda Of Understanding' deal between the UK and Hong Kong has something to do with people not having to pay any 'VAT or Hidden Charges' when they're buying goods off Panamoz.
Click to expand...
That's got to be the most laughable think I've read on TP in a long time. There is no such agreement.

I think Panamoz are flirting with the tax laws but are *maybe* on the side of legality, just. The stuff on their web site about no VAT or import duty is crap of course. But if they *always* declare the nature and value of goods correctly to customs, and if they *always* reimburse customers for any customs charges, then I think they could be legal. (And that would make them just about the only "grey market" supplier who is legal - most of the rest are "black market", plain and simple.)

The acid test comes when you buy from Panamoz, customs don't charge you VAT, but you declare it and pay it anyway (as you are legally obliged to do). Will Panamoz refund your VAT then?
 
Well i did look for a popcorn smiley but their isn't one, so i will just have to have one of these :beer: i will be back later after a couple more :D
 
Double post
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Customs didnt charge me VAT when i bought my 70-200mm from Panamoz, but then again it was shipped from within the UK.
Click to expand...

I didn't even realise this, so if they ship from the UK what is all the fuss about here ? i thought the holier than thou brigade were talking about shipments from HK.
 
TG. said:
I didn't even realise this, so if they ship from the UK what is all the fuss about here ? i thought the holier than thou brigade were talking about shipments from HK.
Click to expand...

Then they would be in trouble for not paying the correct import fees. Watch out for their wording though, they may get around it by stating that they are an agent for the importer (the purchaser) therefore moving the blame over to the buyer again. They are sneaky in that the words they use try and make it all seem legit.
 
menthel said:
they may get around it by stating that they are an agent for the importer (the purchaser) therefore moving the blame over to the buyer again.
Click to expand...

But they are still paying should the buyer get charged yes ?
 
StewartR said:
That's got to be the most laughable think I've read on TP in a long time. There is no such agreement.

I think Panamoz are flirting with the tax laws but are *maybe* on the side of legality, just. The stuff on their web site about no VAT or import duty is crap of course. But if they *always* declare the nature and value of goods correctly to customs, and if they *always* reimburse customers for any customs charges, then I think they could be legal. (And that would make them just about the only "grey market" supplier who is legal - most of the rest are "black market", plain and simple.)
Click to expand...

More than a few people have confirmed here that Panamoz parcels have arrived labelled as 'toy samples' with a minimal value declared. So I think the "*maybe*" aspect would fall apart pretty quickly under investigation.

I've bought from many different companies abroad and the type and value of the goods has always been correctly declared. If there was a completely legit way around it I'm sure some of the bigger reputable companies would have picked up on it by now.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
More than a few people have confirmed here that Panamoz parcels have arrived labelled as 'toy samples' with a minimal value declared. So I think the "*maybe*" aspect would fall apart pretty quickly under investigation.

I've bought from many different companies abroad and the type and value of the goods has always been correctly declared. If there was a completely legit way around it I'm sure some of the bigger reputable companies would have picked up on it by now.
Click to expand...
Like amazon :LOL::LOL:
 
Rebel t3i said:
Like amazon :LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...

Last time I checked how Amazon pay their taxes has no effect on the individual deliveries to customers (and is legal), unlike a incorrectly declared package which is actually the responsibility of the importer (i.e. you).
 
ukaskew said:
More than a few people have confirmed here that Panamoz parcels have arrived labelled as 'toy samples' with a minimal value declared. So I think the "*maybe*" aspect would fall apart pretty quickly under investigation.

I've bought from many different companies abroad and the type and value of the goods has always been correctly declared. If there was a completely legit way around it I'm sure some of the bigger reputable companies would have picked up on it by now.
Click to expand...
But those people, who by the way have saved 30% on UK high street prices are hardly likely to tell the old bill they were party to a VAT racket now are they
 
ukaskew said:
Last time I checked how Amazon pay their taxes has no effect on the individual deliveries to customers (and is legal), unlike a incorrectly declared package which is actually the responsibility of the importer (i.e. you).
Click to expand...

I've also never heard anyone accuse Amazon of tax evasion :shrug:.
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Tax avoidance however hopefully you have heard of?
Click to expand...

Tax avoidance seems to be prevalent amongst big companies, yes, definitely.

Not sure how it is relevant to the people trying to justify tax evasion though.
 
some have suggested that it is morally wrong for MR Average to order from a HK company and possibly avoiding paying HMRC
But is it morally right for multi million pound corporations to out maneuver HMRC and avoid paying
Mr average has already paid income tax on his hard earned before he paid the HK company
 
Dave1 said:
Tax avoidance seems to be prevalent amongst big companies, yes, definitely.

Not sure how it is relevant to the people trying to justify tax evasion though.
Click to expand...

All about not paying taxes, just depends on what laws are in force at the time as to what word you use.
 
Rebel t3i said:
some have suggested that it is morally wrong for MR Average to order from a HK company and possibly avoiding paying HMRC
But is it morally right for multi million pound corporations to out maneuver HMRC and avoid paying
Mr average has already paid income tax on his hard earned before he paid the HK company
Click to expand...

Nothing about morals, it's the legality of it. It's fairly simple.
 
menthel said:
Nothing about morals, it's the legality of it. It's fairly simple.
Click to expand...

Morals were bought into this debate early on
they were also used against the likes of Jimmy Carr by our very own non elected Priminister
 
Rebel t3i said:
Morals were bought into this debate early on
they were also used against the likes of Jimmy Carr by our very own non elected Priminister
Click to expand...

No debate. If you don't pay the tax you owe on anything from a company like panamoz you have broken the law. Your choice but that is an irrefutable fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top