I have sent the following email to the Post Office:

"My local Post Offices refuse to give me a receipt for receiving my
money so I can put it with my accounting records so I can correctly
prepare my tax return and have evidence of the payment if HMRC wish to
check.

They say that I can use the receipt of postage instead. I need the
receipt of postage kept with the letter to resolve any dispute with
the recipient.

Please explain why the Post Office refuses to provide receipts for
money received and wishes to inconvenience their customers."

Peter Saxton wrote:

I have sent the following email to the Post Office:

"My local Post Offices refuse to give me a receipt for receiving my
money so I can put it with my accounting records so I can correctly
prepare my tax return and have evidence of the payment if HMRC wish to
check.

They say that I can use the receipt of postage instead. I need the
receipt of postage kept with the letter to resolve any dispute with
the recipient.

Please explain why the Post Office refuses to provide receipts for
money received and wishes to inconvenience their customers."

If you intend to complain formally, you should use the correct
terminology. As written it makes you sound like a crackpot (which
I'm becoming decreasingly sure you are not).

There is no such thing as a "receipt of postage", I think you must be
referring to a "certificate of posting". Your terminology is particularly
confusing because "postage" is the fee they charge for conveying the item
of mail, so in a sense "postage" *means* money and therefore a "receipt
of postage", if it existed, would be precisely the document you require
for your accounting records.

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.

Actually, the old-style Certificate-of-Posting cards are still available
and are what would be used when you turn up with the appropriate postage
stamps already affixed to the letter (so you wouldn't need to buy any).
You fill in the card with the recipient's address and they date stamp it
for you.

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

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

Peter Saxton wrote:

I have sent the following email to the Post Office:

"My local Post Offices refuse to give me a receipt for receiving my
money so I can put it with my accounting records so I can correctly
prepare my tax return and have evidence of the payment if HMRC wish to
check.

They say that I can use the receipt of postage instead. I need the
receipt of postage kept with the letter to resolve any dispute with
the recipient.

Please explain why the Post Office refuses to provide receipts for
money received and wishes to inconvenience their customers."

If you intend to complain formally, you should use the correct
terminology. As written it makes you sound like a crackpot (which
I'm becoming decreasingly sure you are not).

It's not me that's going mad it's officialdom. The sooner the
Conservatives get in and stop paying people to do nothing useful -
whether at home/in classrooms/in hospitals/in police stations/or in
offices - the better. What would they all do you say? Work hard to
keep a job if they know it's the only thing that will keep them alive!

There is no such thing as a "receipt of postage", I think you must be
referring to a "certificate of posting". Your terminology is particularly
confusing because "postage" is the fee they charge for conveying the item
of mail, so in a sense "postage" *means* money and therefore a "receipt
of postage", if it existed, would be precisely the document you require
for your accounting records.

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.

Actually, the old-style Certificate-of-Posting cards are still available
and are what would be used when you turn up with the appropriate postage
stamps already affixed to the letter (so you wouldn't need to buy any).
You fill in the card with the recipient's address and they date stamp it
for you.

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

Of course I could photocopy the single document I have got. I could
arrange that with everybody I know and swap them around and reduce our
tax bills! I prefer the originals.

I'll check whether you can buy stamps for the full cost of recorded
delivery service.

I've just had one of those nice cards the Post Office puts through the
door saying you are not at home. They must know something I don't
know. I've been home all day.

I've talked to the manager of the Post Office. It appears it's my
wife's fault. She should have demanded to see a supervisor and they
would have instructed the counter "assistant" to print a receipt. I
suggested he should train and manage his staff better.

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 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.

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.

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".

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.

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. :-)

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.

Peter Saxton wrote:

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

Peter Saxton wrote:

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.

It may be efficient for random queries, but I'd think such queries
are so rare that there is little to be gained by striving for this
particular flavour of efficiency, particularly in the "modern world"
where there is likely to be a computerised system which can be searched
on supplier name, date, invoice numbers, etc, and which can then give
you the document sequence number under which to find the paper
document.

The reason I think it more important to sort by transaction number
is that in an audit every document will need to be viewed, and it's
surely more efficient to go through the document file in the same
order as the transactions appear in the accounts.

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.

That's not at all clear. Getting and filing two copies of some documents
in two places is also work which adds up. Most of the time this double
work is unnecessary: Out of all the recorded delivery letters you have
ever sent, how often have you had to dig out the proof of posting in
order to produce it? Not very, I'd say. And then it would not have
taken not very long to find it in the accounts file, almost certainly
much less than what you get if you add up all the time wasted filing
extra copies which never need to be consulted.

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.

But to claim this document is not a proof of payment would be incorrect.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:40:10 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Peter Saxton wrote:

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

Peter Saxton wrote:

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.

It may be efficient for random queries, but I'd think such queries
are so rare that there is little to be gained by striving for this
particular flavour of efficiency, particularly in the "modern world"
where there is likely to be a computerised system which can be searched
on supplier name, date, invoice numbers, etc, and which can then give
you the document sequence number under which to find the paper
document.

The reason I think it more important to sort by transaction number
is that in an audit every document will need to be viewed, and it's
surely more efficient to go through the document file in the same
order as the transactions appear in the accounts.

I think you've been influenced by the current trend to not deal with a
problem quickly because it's too much effort. If somebody phones me
with a question I deal with it in a few seconds. When I deal with any
organisation it takes them weeks to come up with an answer and it's
still wrong.

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.

That's not at all clear. Getting and filing two copies of some documents
in two places is also work which adds up. Most of the time this double
work is unnecessary: Out of all the recorded delivery letters you have
ever sent, how often have you had to dig out the proof of posting in
order to produce it? Not very, I'd say. And then it would not have
taken not very long to find it in the accounts file, almost certainly
much less than what you get if you add up all the time wasted filing
extra copies which never need to be consulted.

Most of my dealings are with Companies House and HMRC so over 50% of
the time I have to refer to the proofs of posting. These organisations
are in a chaotic state due to the desire to keep their snouts in the
trough rather than have a clue what they are supposed to be doing.

Your statement seems to be made without any analysis of the time spent
putting two documents in two different places as opposed to putting
one document is one place and then going from one file and finding the
relevant document in another file.

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.

But to claim this document is not a proof of payment would be incorrect.

So if you bought stamps separately (and obtained a receipt for payment
of those stamps at that time) and then handed the stamps over would
this document showing the receipt of the letter for the £1.14 priced
service show a different price for the service? I think not. Then you
would actually have two receipts (you say of payment) which totally
more than £1.14 - one for the stamps and one for the proof of delivery
service.

Peter Saxton wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:40:10 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:
Peter Saxton wrote:

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

That's not at all clear. Getting and filing two copies of some documents
in two places is also work which adds up. Most of the time this double
work is unnecessary: Out of all the recorded delivery letters you have
ever sent, how often have you had to dig out the proof of posting in
order to produce it? Not very, I'd say. And then it would not have
taken not very long to find it in the accounts file, almost certainly
much less than what you get if you add up all the time wasted filing
extra copies which never need to be consulted.

Most of my dealings are with Companies House and HMRC so over 50% of
the time I have to refer to the proofs of posting. These organisations
are in a chaotic state due to the desire to keep their snouts in the
trough rather than have a clue what they are supposed to be doing.

Fair enough. I concede that if the expected referral rate is much higher
than insignificant, then the only sensible thing is to duplicate the
document so that you have one copy in the letter file and one in the
receipts file.

I merely felt that if the referral rate were low, the time saved by not
duplicating them (accumulated over a largish number of occurrences)
might exceed the extra time spent finding them when needed.

Your statement seems to be made without any analysis of the time spent
putting two documents in two different places as opposed to putting
one document is one place and then going from one file and finding the
relevant document in another file.

No it wasn't, I did think it through properly. You have one document
and put it in the file where all the receipts are kept for accounting
purposes, having made the entry for that transaction in the computer.
Of course you write the computer system transaction number on each
filed receipt, and keep them in that order in the file.

Having found the letter in the letter file, you know the date. You
look up on the computer what postage receipts there are near that
date. This takes only a few seconds to give you the transaction number
(or a small selection of them) under which the receipt may be found
in the receipts file. This is a little contorted, but not much for
a task only needed a couple of times a year.

If you need to do it more often, say a couple of times a month, there
is still a time saving possible if it takes longer to duplicate the
document and attach one copy to your copy of the letter than simply to
write the transaction number on the copy letter. Then when you need to
find the document you can bypass the computer lookup and go straight
to the right place in the receipts file.

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

But to claim this document is not a proof of payment would be incorrect.

So if you bought stamps separately (and obtained a receipt for payment
of those stamps at that time) and then handed the stamps over would
this document showing the receipt of the letter for the £1.14 priced
service show a different price for the service? I think not. Then you
would actually have two receipts (you say of payment) which totally
more than £1.14 - one for the stamps and one for the proof of delivery
service.

Indeed you would, but this last paragraph of yours does not address what
I wrote immediately above it, so I don't know what point you're trying to
make. Clearly the proof of payment for the £1.14 service would still be
part of a dual-purpose document acting also as proof of posting, which
you would still need to duplicate yourself, so there is no advantage to
paying the bare postage element separately.

Ideally you'd want to pay for the whole thing (including the £1.14 service)
with pre-bought stamps. I don't know if this is possible but I see no
reason in principle why it shouldn't be. You would then be given a proof of
posting (which you misleadingly refer to as "receipt of the letter") which
shows no amount, because it would not be a receipt, it would just be a proof
of posting.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:31:27 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

Peter Saxton wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:40:10 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:
Peter Saxton wrote:

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

That's not at all clear. Getting and filing two copies of some documents
in two places is also work which adds up. Most of the time this double
work is unnecessary: Out of all the recorded delivery letters you have
ever sent, how often have you had to dig out the proof of posting in
order to produce it? Not very, I'd say. And then it would not have
taken not very long to find it in the accounts file, almost certainly
much less than what you get if you add up all the time wasted filing
extra copies which never need to be consulted.

Most of my dealings are with Companies House and HMRC so over 50% of
the time I have to refer to the proofs of posting. These organisations
are in a chaotic state due to the desire to keep their snouts in the
trough rather than have a clue what they are supposed to be doing.

Fair enough. I concede that if the expected referral rate is much higher
than insignificant, then the only sensible thing is to duplicate the
document so that you have one copy in the letter file and one in the
receipts file.

Even better - get the Post Office to do the sensible thing.

There's been stories about Postmasters (?) being accused of diverting
money with counter accusations of the required software getting the
numbers wrong. I wonder whether my problem is related?

I merely felt that if the referral rate were low, the time saved by not
duplicating them (accumulated over a largish number of occurrences)
might exceed the extra time spent finding them when needed.

Your statement seems to be made without any analysis of the time spent
putting two documents in two different places as opposed to putting
one document is one place and then going from one file and finding the
relevant document in another file.

No it wasn't, I did think it through properly. You have one document
and put it in the file where all the receipts are kept for accounting
purposes, having made the entry for that transaction in the computer.
Of course you write the computer system transaction number on each
filed receipt, and keep them in that order in the file.

Having found the letter in the letter file, you know the date. You
look up on the computer what postage receipts there are near that
date. This takes only a few seconds to give you the transaction number
(or a small selection of them) under which the receipt may be found
in the receipts file. This is a little contorted, but not much for
a task only needed a couple of times a year.

I don't keep my accounts in that detail. What I do is keep a drawer
for every month's documents. At the end of the month I make piles by
types of expenditure. Some larger invoices I enter on a spreadsheet
separately and but smaller receipts (proof of payment, if you prefer)
are grouped by type of expenditure and whether VAT is charged. I may
have 20 receipts for postage so I total them up, enter the month, type
of expenditure and total on a petty cash voucher and staple them
together. I then enter the details as one line on my spreadsheet.

If you need to do it more often, say a couple of times a month, there
is still a time saving possible if it takes longer to duplicate the
document and attach one copy to your copy of the letter than simply to
write the transaction number on the copy letter. Then when you need to
find the document you can bypass the computer lookup and go straight
to the right place in the receipts file.

As you can see, going from one file to another and finding documents
is much more effort than simply putting one receipt in an accounts
file and pinning one to the letter.

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

But to claim this document is not a proof of payment would be incorrect.

So if you bought stamps separately (and obtained a receipt for payment
of those stamps at that time) and then handed the stamps over would
this document showing the receipt of the letter for the £1.14 priced
service show a different price for the service? I think not. Then you
would actually have two receipts (you say of payment) which totally
more than £1.14 - one for the stamps and one for the proof of delivery
service.

Indeed you would, but this last paragraph of yours does not address what
I wrote immediately above it, so I don't know what point you're trying to
make. Clearly the proof of payment for the £1.14 service would still be
part of a dual-purpose document acting also as proof of posting, which
you would still need to duplicate yourself, so there is no advantage to
paying the bare postage element separately.

Ideally you'd want to pay for the whole thing (including the £1.14 service)
with pre-bought stamps. I don't know if this is possible but I see no
reason in principle why it shouldn't be. You would then be given a proof of
posting (which you misleadingly refer to as "receipt of the letter") which
shows no amount, because it would not be a receipt, it would just be a proof
of posting.

I'll see what I can do about stamps. The problem is getting the right
collection of stamps given the regular price increases.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:09:31 +0000, Peter Saxton
wrote:

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

Peter Saxton wrote:

I have sent the following email to the Post Office:

"My local Post Offices refuse to give me a receipt for receiving my
money so I can put it with my accounting records so I can correctly
prepare my tax return and have evidence of the payment if HMRC wish to
check.

They say that I can use the receipt of postage instead. I need the
receipt of postage kept with the letter to resolve any dispute with
the recipient.

Please explain why the Post Office refuses to provide receipts for
money received and wishes to inconvenience their customers."

If you intend to complain formally, you should use the correct
terminology. As written it makes you sound like a crackpot (which
I'm becoming decreasingly sure you are not).

It's not me that's going mad it's officialdom. The sooner the
Conservatives get in and stop paying people to do nothing useful -



Things were going quite well in the thread until that.

I think I will call it a day.

Thanks for your contribution.