On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:21:11 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Peter Saxton wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:52:20 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Your difficulty seems to arise from the fact that post offices now
generally issue combined or dual-purpose documents which, in addition
to being receipts for money, which is their main function, also happen
to act as certificates of posting.

I can understand where you're coming from, that it's neater to have
two documents (one for your accounting records and one for your
correspondence file), I don't see why you can't just use the original
receipt for your accounts, and make a copy of it for the correspondence
file. You could even dispense with copying it, and instead just write
a note on your carbon copy of the letter telling yourself where in your
accounting files the original document may be found, should it ever be
needed. If you keep accounting records in date order, even that may not
be necessary.

Filing accounting records in date order is madness.

It is more usual to keep them in the order of transaction numbers
allocated sequentially by your bookkeeping system when you make the
entries. Typically though, you would make the entries in such an
order that the order of numbers will be roughly in date order.

In the modern world documents are more usually filed in alphabetical
order of supplier. This is more efficient for most queries.

In any case it should be simple to search through your system and
look up all transactions in the "postage expenses" category, to
find a selection with dates in the vicinity of that of your letter.
Typically there will be so few that you can then go to the lever
arch file armed with those numbers to find your proof of posting
filed under one of them.

Much more work than having a receipt for payment and a receipt for the
letter.

Perhaps your mistake was to ask for a separate receipt. You should have
asked for a separate certificate of posting. :-)

It's a record that you have handed over a letter that is recorded
delivery. It says "IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU RETAIN THIS RECEIPT AS IT
IS YOUR PROOF OF POSTING".

Yes, that's exactly what it says, it says the same for unrecorded parcels.

Thanks for confirming what it says.

It didn't say that it's proof that you paid for it!

Yes of course it does, it contains the words "THIS RECEIPT", and "receipt"
*means* that it is an acknowledgement that they have received the money
which is detailed further up the document.

If you want to be pedantic, the word "receipt" means they acknowledge
having received *something*, not necessarily money, and I believe
you are interpreting this to mean it acknowledges having received the
letter. I believe this is a misinterpretation, and that the word "receipt"
should be taken to have the usual common meaning of proof of receipt
of payment, and the words "this receipt ... is your proof of posting" are
to be taken to mean "this proof of payment is also your proof of posting".

I want to be pedantic - or, more realistically, correct.

As it happens, the document also rather helpfully states at the bottom
"This is not a VAT receipt". But (as with petrol station receipts)
that doesn't mean it's not "a receipt", just that it's a receipt which
is unsuitable for VAT accounting.

Wow, I have spent the last 37 years wondering what that meant! (not
really)

The question arises whether the recorded delivery surcharge (above the
ordinary postage fee) is VATable (AIUI ordinary postage is not). If so,
and perhaps even if not, you could try asking them for a VAT receipt,
pointing out to them that it says this isn't one. :-)

The recorded delivery sucharge is classed as a "related service" and
is also exempt from VAT.