Recorded delivery - or not?

[PlentyOfFreeTime]

I've been selling the odd thing on ebay for several years and rarely use recorded delivery.

Earlier this month I posted an item non-recorded mail to a winning bidder who's informed me that it has not been received.

Post office say that they will not investigate until 15 working days since posting (seems a long time for a parcel to linger undelivered).

Looking at the Royal Mail compensation form, in order to make a claim for loss in the post I would have to provide the original receipt showing what I actually paid for the item which is, by now, many years ago. I doubt anyone would have receipts for every small item they've bought over the years. I would also have had to have posted the item recorded delivery as otherwise there is no proof of posting - all the Post Office gave me is a receipt.

So, is it worth sending items by recorded delivery?

What do you usually do? I think I may have been a bit trusting by not using recorded delivery.

I always use it - sorry. Unlessthe item really is very small and I trust the person.

Not so much about the comp but about being able to prove to paypal that you have sent it iyswim.

I don't know if it's changed, but you used to be able to verify the value by printing off a load of pages from a catalogue - like a similar item at auction, for antique stuff, or an identification/valuation from a book, etc.

I did this once with a doll. It was fine.

I could use a catalogue or ebay listings to show the value (after all the value is what the bidder has just paid for it) but what Royal Mail want is a sort of proof of ownership i.e. the receipt, bank statement etc showing what you actually paid for it - and you have to send the original documents, not a photocopy.

I just cannot be arsed to claim which is probably what the Royal Mail compensation scheme is designed to do.

I don't think you need to provide the original purchase cost if it's sold second hand. If you take the example of an antique, for instance, if it was purchased 20 years ago for £20, but you've sold it for £100, it's actual value is £100, and to only refund the purchase cost would be unfair.

Similarly, if you bought a dress for £100 and sold it 2 years later for £20, it would be unreasonable to ask RM for £100.

Does that make sense?

In the past I have just enclosed a copy of the sales invoice from Ebay.

You will need proof of postage, so probably the receipt that the Post Office gave you - so long as it shows the recipient's address. And you will only be covered for £20 if not sent recorded.

Yes, your explanation makes sense to me.

Trouble is that the receipt doesn't show the recipient's address.

Has taught me a lesson.

To qualify for seller protection you need proof of delivery, otherwise buyer will always win a case.

Try MyHermes or Collect+ - MyHermes only £3.30 if they collect, and you don't need to pay extra for the signature, it still tracks and shows as delivered online.

When I claimed off of RM in the past I only had to show proof of Ebay sale, but thanks for the info. I guess they had to change their procedure. You could/can go to the page "view order details" and print that off.

I only pay for recorded if the item costs £10 or more.
It's very very strange but things worth under £10 never go missing!
Has to be worth at least £25 to go missing.
Just like stuff sent to me never goes missing. Regardless of value.
Wow, what strange results, eh? cynic who me?