I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The original 
invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly I 
might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed as 
per contract.

I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.

Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice, 
and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or 
should I do this another way.  I am about to take him to court so feel I 
must get this bit of admin correct.

Hope I've explained this well enough.  Many thanks in advance.

"Fredxx"  wrote in message 
news:hbmfe9$3q3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The original 
>invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly I 
>might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed as 
>per contract.
>
> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
>
> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice, 
> and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or 
> should I do this another way.  I am about to take him to court so feel I 
> must get this bit of admin correct.
>
> Hope I've explained this well enough.  Many thanks in advance.
>

How weird.  I don't know which approach would strengthen your hand in court, 
but it sounds like your client is simply delaying, so you don't want to 
re-start the clock on the original debt.  So I would just invoice the 
balance.  By all means put the original date on this new invoice, though I 
doubt it will speed up payment of the second tranche.

Might also be worth sending him a note confirming that you will be charging 
interest (ref. "late payment of commercial debts").

HTH but others here may have better suggestions.

-- 
Martin

"Martin"  wrote in message 
news:3BzDm.34111$GY2.3462@newsfe11.ams2...
>
> "Fredxx"  wrote in message 
> news:hbmfe9$3q3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The original 
>>invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly 
>>I might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed 
>>as per contract.
>>
>> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
>>
>> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice, 
>> and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or 
>> should I do this another way.  I am about to take him to court so feel I 
>> must get this bit of admin correct.
>>
>> Hope I've explained this well enough.  Many thanks in advance.
>>
>
> How weird.  I don't know which approach would strengthen your hand in 
> court, but it sounds like your client is simply delaying, so you don't 
> want to re-start the clock on the original debt.  So I would just invoice 
> the balance.  By all means put the original date on this new invoice, 
> though I doubt it will speed up payment of the second tranche.
>
> Might also be worth sending him a note confirming that you will be 
> charging interest (ref. "late payment of commercial debts").
>
> HTH but others here may have better suggestions.
>

I have already stated I am charging him for compensation and interest.  The 
date should in any case be the supply date, and to be honest any argument 
over the exact mounts of interest is secondary.  I have already been 
generous in charging interest from a later date than I could have.

It was more the error itself, in the first invoice I gave a breakdown of 
costs, whereas it was agreed a different total to this breakdown.  The 
contract documentation confirms this total.  Essentially sloppy admin 
through inaccurate reading on my part.

The intent was not to strengthen my hand, more to get the amounts in line 
with contractual agreed amounts.

Fredxx wrote:

> I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The original
> invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly
> I might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed
> as per contract.
> 
> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
> 
> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
> and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
> should I do this another way.

If the customer was right that your invoice charged him an incorrect amount
I'm not sure why you describe him as foolish to point this out.  It would
seem eminently sensible, and refreshingly honest if you undercharged him.

What would be foolish, though, and I suppose this must be what you mean,
is to use this as an excuse to deem the entire invoice invalid and to
delay settling it (especially when the amount in error is small compared
to the whole).

What he should have done is either pay the amount he believes you should
have charged, and get you to fix the paperwork later by means of a receipted
supplementary invoice for the difference, or else pay the amount invoiced
and get you to send an unreceipted supplementary invoice for the difference.

Alternatively he should have pointed out the mistake early on, giving you
the opportunity to correct the paperwork straight away.

I do *not* think you should now send a corrected replacement invoice
together with credit note cancelling the entire original invoice, because
this would probably give him another month or two to pay up before you
could sue.  It might also invalidate your entitlement to late payment
charges if you cancel the original invoice.  I think you should simply
send a supplementary invoice for the difference, or possibly a credit
note for the incorrectly billed items together with an invoice for the
correct ones:

Suppose your original invoice was for £200 labour plus materials of
5 widgets at £4.90 each, which should have been £5.10 each.  Then either
send a credit note for £24.50 and an invoice for £25.50 or an invoice
for £1 (containing detail of minus 5 at £4.90 plus 5 at £5.10).  I'm not
up on dating conventions, but I would date these documents today, not
backdate them to the date of the original invoice.  Of course they should
still contain a reference to the original date of supply.  In either case
I would send an accompanying "Statement" (certainly dated today) listing
all the invoices issued and still outstanding, including any charges in
respect of late payment, and showing the total amount due.

He'll probably wait until you commence proceedings (if you haven't already)
and then pay up, leaving you out of pocket to the tune of the court fee.

> I am about to take him to court so feel I
> must get this bit of admin correct.

I don't think minor errors in the invoicing are critically important.
The debt doesn't arise as a result of the invoice, it arises out of the
contractual obligation.

"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message 
news:rmBDm.5518$KR3.3222@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The 
>> original
>> invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly
>> I might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed
>> as per contract.
>>
>> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
>>
>> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
>> and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
>> should I do this another way.
>
> If the customer was right that your invoice charged him an incorrect 
> amount
> I'm not sure why you describe him as foolish to point this out.  It would
> seem eminently sensible, and refreshingly honest if you undercharged him.
>
> What would be foolish, though, and I suppose this must be what you mean,
> is to use this as an excuse to deem the entire invoice invalid and to
> delay settling it (especially when the amount in error is small compared
> to the whole).
>
> What he should have done is either pay the amount he believes you should
> have charged, and get you to fix the paperwork later by means of a 
> receipted
> supplementary invoice for the difference, or else pay the amount invoiced
> and get you to send an unreceipted supplementary invoice for the 
> difference.
>
> Alternatively he should have pointed out the mistake early on, giving you
> the opportunity to correct the paperwork straight away.
>
> I do *not* think you should now send a corrected replacement invoice
> together with credit note cancelling the entire original invoice, because
> this would probably give him another month or two to pay up before you
> could sue.  It might also invalidate your entitlement to late payment
> charges if you cancel the original invoice.  I think you should simply
> send a supplementary invoice for the difference, or possibly a credit
> note for the incorrectly billed items together with an invoice for the
> correct ones:
>
> Suppose your original invoice was for £200 labour plus materials of
> 5 widgets at £4.90 each, which should have been £5.10 each.  Then either
> send a credit note for £24.50 and an invoice for £25.50 or an invoice
> for £1 (containing detail of minus 5 at £4.90 plus 5 at £5.10).  I'm not
> up on dating conventions, but I would date these documents today, not
> backdate them to the date of the original invoice.  Of course they should
> still contain a reference to the original date of supply.  In either case
> I would send an accompanying "Statement" (certainly dated today) listing
> all the invoices issued and still outstanding, including any charges in
> respect of late payment, and showing the total amount due.
>
> He'll probably wait until you commence proceedings (if you haven't 
> already)
> and then pay up, leaving you out of pocket to the tune of the court fee.
>
>> I am about to take him to court so feel I
>> must get this bit of admin correct.
>
> I don't think minor errors in the invoicing are critically important.
> The debt doesn't arise as a result of the invoice, it arises out of the
> contractual obligation.
>

I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of supply. 
So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be shifting income 
from one tax year to another.  I thought this was frowned upon?

The customer has already paid part, which has caused some confusion, but far 
less than even the original invoice.

I have to admit that I was being a little economical with the truth, where 
actually I have already started county court proceedings, small claims 
track, for the correct amount and not the originally invoiced amount.  The 
contract documentation and the subsequent email conversations do indicate 
the full amount.

The bit about contractual obligation is an interesting point, but surely the 
debt only falls dues when it is asked to be paid, via an invoice?

The Court fee element is trivial in comparison of the time wasted through 
his procrastination of payment.  The hearing fee is less so!!

Many thanks for your reply.

"Fredxx"  wrote in message 
news:hbmrrm$s5j$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
<snipped>

Presumably a contract exists - agreeing upon a certain sum of money for your 
product or services.
You sent your customer a wrong invoice charging too little.
Your customer was bona fide in drawing your attention to your "mistake".
The only thing you needed to do was to send him a letter thanking him 
together with a supplementary invoice.
To start court proceedings without first attempting to settle the matter in 
a friendly way first, your customer already having shown to be bona fide by 
drawing your attention to your mistake, and defining it as such, is a bad 
thing to do, and certainly not the way to deal with your customers, and 
sadly consistent with your apparent lack of proper administrative 
procedures.

BUT ....

If the difference between the contractual sum and your erroneous invoice is 
small, you might have used this situation to enhance your image by letting 
your customer have the benefit.

www.thinkbones.com

"Zach"  wrote in message 
news:4adefb7e$0$28139$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
>
> "Fredxx"  wrote in message 
> news:hbmrrm$s5j$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
> <snipped>
>
> Presumably a contract exists - agreeing upon a certain sum of money for 
> your product or services.
> You sent your customer a wrong invoice charging too little.
> Your customer was bona fide in drawing your attention to your "mistake".
> The only thing you needed to do was to send him a letter thanking him 
> together with a supplementary invoice.
> To start court proceedings without first attempting to settle the matter 
> in a friendly way first, your customer already having shown to be bona 
> fide by drawing your attention to your mistake, and defining it as such, 
> is a bad thing to do, and certainly not the way to deal with your 
> customers, and sadly consistent with your apparent lack of proper 
> administrative procedures.
>
> BUT ....
>
> If the difference between the contractual sum and your erroneous invoice 
> is small, you might have used this situation to enhance your image by 
> letting your customer have the benefit.
>

Many thanks, I do expect a little deserved ribbing for my lack of 
administrative skills and procedures!!

While it was bad form to start proceedings without getting invoices and 
amounts correct, he can't really claim any loss, as it doesn't make a 
difference to the initial court fee.  And he also has the option of paying 
the small increase, reducing the claim.

I don't think the customer really intended to draw my attention to the error 
beforehand - but hey!  If he had paid the invoice in full in a timely 
fashion, I would never have discovered the error.

My main concern was the date of any invoices, I presume this supplementary 
invoice should be the same date as the original.

Fredxx wrote:

> I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of
> supply.

As I remarked before, I'm not sure, but intuitively I would disagree
and say that in principle the date on the invoice should be the date it
is actually issued, and that it should never be backdated.  Of course if
you were administratively on the ball, you would issue the invoice on the
date of supply, which in the case of simple supply of goods would be the
normal procedure.  But in the case of work done, it is not uncommon for
people to batch up their admin, and have an invoicing session only once
every week or two.  In this case I would expect the invoice to be dated
on the day of the admin session, but to make reference to the relevant
supply date and tax point, which would be earlier.

> So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be
> shifting income from one tax year to another.

Tax year, eh?  This is a roundabout way of telling us your friend
has been procrastinating since before the beginning of April, I
take it.

> I thought this was frowned upon?

It is indeed right and proper that income should be recorded in your
accounts on the supply date, but I see no reason why the invoice date
should have to be the same, and if different it's not the invoice
date but the supply date or tax point which determines into which
accounting year or VAT quarter the income goes.

> The bit about contractual obligation is an interesting point, but surely
> the debt only falls dues when it is asked to be paid, via an invoice?

Not sure about that.  It may well be that payment falls due upon completion
of the work (in some cases even earlier).  It probably depends on what the
contract has to say on the matter.

I don't think the role of the invoice is to make the payment fall due,
I think the invoice is merely a formal communication which tells the
customer that payment is due and asks for it.  So the invoice is
issued as a consequence of payment being due, not the other way round.

Of course there may be a separate agreement forming part of the
contract which governs the timing of payment, and allows the customer
reasonable time from receipt of invoice to pay, but that doesn't really
affect the question of payment being due more or less immediately the
work has been done, it merely plays a part in determining how soon you
can deem payment to be overdue for the purpose of commencing proceedings
and charging interest etc.

"Fredxx"  wrote in message
news:hbmrrm$s5j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

< snip >

>
> I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of
> supply. So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be
> shifting income from one tax year to another.  I thought this was frowned
> upon?
>

The invoice date doesn't have to be the same as tax point.  The latter
determines which VAT qtr the xaction should have gone in.  As this was a 
genuine error, including it in a later VAT qtr is ok.

WIP, "shipped, not yet invoiced" or something similar at year-end ensures
you don't shift income between accounting years.

HTH

-- 
Martin

"Fredxx"  wrote in message 
news:hbn0in$4mu$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Zach"  wrote in message 
> news:4adefb7e$0$28139$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
>>
>> "Fredxx"  wrote in message 
>> news:hbmrrm$s5j$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> Presumably a contract exists - agreeing upon a certain sum of money for 
>> your product or services.
>> You sent your customer a wrong invoice charging too little.
>> Your customer was bona fide in drawing your attention to your "mistake".
>> The only thing you needed to do was to send him a letter thanking him 
>> together with a supplementary invoice.
>> To start court proceedings without first attempting to settle the matter 
>> in a friendly way first, your customer already having shown to be bona 
>> fide by drawing your attention to your mistake, and defining it as such, 
>> is a bad thing to do, and certainly not the way to deal with your 
>> customers, and sadly consistent with your apparent lack of proper 
>> administrative procedures.
>>
>> BUT ....
>>
>> If the difference between the contractual sum and your erroneous invoice 
>> is small, you might have used this situation to enhance your image by 
>> letting your customer have the benefit.
>>
>
> Many thanks, I do expect a little deserved ribbing for my lack of 
> administrative skills and procedures!!
>
> While it was bad form to start proceedings without getting invoices and 
> amounts correct, he can't really claim any loss, as it doesn't make a 
> difference to the initial court fee.  And he also has the option of paying 
> the small increase, reducing the claim.
>
> I don't think the customer really intended to draw my attention to the 
> error beforehand - but hey!  If he had paid the invoice in full in a 
> timely fashion, I would never have discovered the error.
>
> My main concern was the date of any invoices, I presume this supplementary 
> invoice should be the same date as the original.
>
>
Yes, the additional invoice should bear the same date
as the original (wrong) invoice. Keep the description simple,
and don't call it a "supplementary" invoice. Simply invoice
the balance remaining to be invoiced with reference to the
contract number or similar job reference. Be careful of how
you phrase it, so it cannot be interpreted as the balance
outstanding, given what the customer has already paid,
else you will be in more trouble.

"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message 
news:9lEDm.5584$KR3.796@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of
>> supply.
>
> As I remarked before, I'm not sure, but intuitively I would disagree
> and say that in principle the date on the invoice should be the date it
> is actually issued, and that it should never be backdated.  Of course if
> you were administratively on the ball, you would issue the invoice on the
> date of supply, which in the case of simple supply of goods would be the
> normal procedure.  But in the case of work done, it is not uncommon for
> people to batch up their admin, and have an invoicing session only once
> every week or two.  In this case I would expect the invoice to be dated
> on the day of the admin session, but to make reference to the relevant
> supply date and tax point, which would be earlier.
>
>> So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be
>> shifting income from one tax year to another.
>
> Tax year, eh?  This is a roundabout way of telling us your friend
> has been procrastinating since before the beginning of April, I
> take it.

Erm - yes - in fact a bit longer!!

>
>> I thought this was frowned upon?
>
> It is indeed right and proper that income should be recorded in your
> accounts on the supply date, but I see no reason why the invoice date
> should have to be the same, and if different it's not the invoice
> date but the supply date or tax point which determines into which
> accounting year or VAT quarter the income goes.

It does make it easier if the date on the invoice is the supply date, and 
perhaps it's why many invoices use the term tax point to distinguish that 
the date of issue may well be different.

>
>> The bit about contractual obligation is an interesting point, but surely
>> the debt only falls dues when it is asked to be paid, via an invoice?
>
> Not sure about that.  It may well be that payment falls due upon 
> completion
> of the work (in some cases even earlier).  It probably depends on what the
> contract has to say on the matter.
>
> I don't think the role of the invoice is to make the payment fall due,
> I think the invoice is merely a formal communication which tells the
> customer that payment is due and asks for it.  So the invoice is
> issued as a consequence of payment being due, not the other way round.
>
> Of course there may be a separate agreement forming part of the
> contract which governs the timing of payment, and allows the customer
> reasonable time from receipt of invoice to pay, but that doesn't really
> affect the question of payment being due more or less immediately the
> work has been done, it merely plays a part in determining how soon you
> can deem payment to be overdue for the purpose of commencing proceedings
> and charging interest etc.
>

There are no terms for payment in the contract.  However by default, aren't 
there statutory terms which apply?


I had asked a friend earlier who is AAT qualified, and they've only just 
come back saying that the that I ought to produce a credit note for the full 
amount, and re-issue for the whole amount, dated the same day as the 
original supply.  Which is at odds with Zach's suggestion.  Zach's does 
sound simpler and in some respects neater in respect of compensation and 
interest which the customer may well then try to wriggle out of.

Many thanks for your reply.

"Fredxx"  wrote in message 
news:hbne8d$gq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message 
> news:9lEDm.5584$KR3.796@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of
>>> supply.
>>
>> As I remarked before, I'm not sure, but intuitively I would disagree
>> and say that in principle the date on the invoice should be the date it
>> is actually issued, and that it should never be backdated.  Of course if
>> you were administratively on the ball, you would issue the invoice on the
>> date of supply, which in the case of simple supply of goods would be the
>> normal procedure.  But in the case of work done, it is not uncommon for
>> people to batch up their admin, and have an invoicing session only once
>> every week or two.  In this case I would expect the invoice to be dated
>> on the day of the admin session, but to make reference to the relevant
>> supply date and tax point, which would be earlier.
>>
>>> So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be
>>> shifting income from one tax year to another.
>>
>> Tax year, eh?  This is a roundabout way of telling us your friend
>> has been procrastinating since before the beginning of April, I
>> take it.
>
> Erm - yes - in fact a bit longer!!
>
>>
>>> I thought this was frowned upon?
>>
>> It is indeed right and proper that income should be recorded in your
>> accounts on the supply date, but I see no reason why the invoice date
>> should have to be the same, and if different it's not the invoice
>> date but the supply date or tax point which determines into which
>> accounting year or VAT quarter the income goes.
>
> It does make it easier if the date on the invoice is the supply date, and 
> perhaps it's why many invoices use the term tax point to distinguish that 
> the date of issue may well be different.
>
>>
>>> The bit about contractual obligation is an interesting point, but surely
>>> the debt only falls dues when it is asked to be paid, via an invoice?
>>
>> Not sure about that.  It may well be that payment falls due upon 
>> completion
>> of the work (in some cases even earlier).  It probably depends on what 
>> the
>> contract has to say on the matter.
>>
>> I don't think the role of the invoice is to make the payment fall due,
>> I think the invoice is merely a formal communication which tells the
>> customer that payment is due and asks for it.  So the invoice is
>> issued as a consequence of payment being due, not the other way round.
>>
>> Of course there may be a separate agreement forming part of the
>> contract which governs the timing of payment, and allows the customer
>> reasonable time from receipt of invoice to pay, but that doesn't really
>> affect the question of payment being due more or less immediately the
>> work has been done, it merely plays a part in determining how soon you
>> can deem payment to be overdue for the purpose of commencing proceedings
>> and charging interest etc.
>>
>
> There are no terms for payment in the contract.  However by default, 
> aren't there statutory terms which apply?
>
>
> I had asked a friend earlier who is AAT qualified, and they've only just 
> come back saying that the that I ought to produce a credit note for the 
> full amount, and re-issue for the whole amount, dated the same day as the 
> original supply.  Which is at odds with Zach's suggestion.  Zach's does 
> sound simpler and in some respects neater in respect of compensation and 
> interest which the customer may well then try to wriggle out of.
>
> Many thanks for your reply.
>
>
A number of problems you seem to be having would appear to be arising from a 
lack of terms and conditions that you should communicate to your customer 
prior to acceptance of the contract and work done on it, or prior to the 
delivery of goods or services to your customer. In some countries terms and 
conditions may be deposited at the Chamber of Commerce; it then suffices to 
refer to them on the written contract (not on the back of the invoice, that 
is too late), depositing terms and conditions might be less off-putting to a 
prospective customer. (Actually the party dealing with you should enquire 
about the authority you have to enter into the contract, and so should you. 
In some countries, the prospective party to a contract who does not do this 
is considered non bona fide, which could be used against him at a court of 
law. In the old common law there is the principle that the law does not 
protect those who do not protect themselves. There is a tricky issue of 
dealing outside the realm of authority and the party who does this 
benefitting by it.) Alternatively terms and conditions will need to 
accompany the contract. Drawing up terms and conditions can be a costly 
affair if you employ legal counsel. An alternative is getting together terms 
and conditions of competitors and making a list of the issues you need to 
cover, also of the various ways of doing that (the wording). You must not 
simply copy what other firms have written because you might be infringing 
upon copyright. In some countries the proper phrasing is determined by law, 
to which you should refer in each case. In some countries there are branch 
organizations who have done all this work for you. Then deviating from what 
is usual for a particular branch might be used against you at a court of 
law. As to interest, terms and conditions should stipulate the period within 
which payment is due, after which interest will be charged without prior 
notice. This information should also be printed on the invoice. In some 
countries the percentage interest you are allowed to charge is limited by 
law. I use the words « in some countries » because I have mainly worked on 
the continent, nevertheless how things are done in different countries might 
shed light on useful alternatives. So, in sum, it would appear to me that 
some of your problems have arisen from the lack of proper terms and 
conditions, and communicating them at the right time and in the proper way 
to your customer.

Zach.

On Oct 21, 9:06 am, "Fredxx"  wrote:
> I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The original
> invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly I
> might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed as
> per contract.
>
> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
>
> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
> and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
> should I do this another way.  I am about to take him to court so feel I
> must get this bit of admin correct.
>
> Hope I've explained this well enough.  Many thanks in advance.

The last thing you want to do it to take somebody to court over an
unpaid invoice and then they produce a credit note relating to that
invoice.

Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.

As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years by
adjustments to the accounts.

"Zach"  wrote in message 
news:4adff339$0$28148$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
>
> A number of problems you seem to be having would appear to be arising from 
> a lack of terms and conditions that you should communicate to your 
> customer prior to acceptance of the contract and work done on it, or prior 
> to the delivery of goods or services to your customer. In some countries 
> terms and conditions may be deposited at the Chamber of Commerce; it then 
> suffices to refer to them on the written contract (not on the back of the 
> invoice, that is too late), depositing terms and conditions might be less 
> off-putting to a prospective customer. (Actually the party dealing with 
> you should enquire about the authority you have to enter into the 
> contract, and so should you. In some countries, the prospective party to a 
> contract who does not do this is considered non bona fide, which could be 
> used against him at a court of law. In the old common law there is the 
> principle that the law does not protect those who do not protect 
> themselves. There is a tricky issue of dealing outside the realm of 
> authority and the party who does this benefitting by it.) Alternatively 
> terms and conditions will need to accompany the contract. Drawing up terms 
> and conditions can be a costly affair if you employ legal counsel. An 
> alternative is getting together terms and conditions of competitors and 
> making a list of the issues you need to cover, also of the various ways of 
> doing that (the wording). You must not simply copy what other firms have 
> written because you might be infringing upon copyright. In some countries 
> the proper phrasing is determined by law, to which you should refer in 
> each case. In some countries there are branch organizations who have done 
> all this work for you. Then deviating from what is usual for a particular 
> branch might be used against you at a court of law. As to interest, terms 
> and conditions should stipulate the period within which payment is due, 
> after which interest will be charged without prior notice. This 
> information should also be printed on the invoice. In some countries the 
> percentage interest you are allowed to charge is limited by law. I use the 
> words « in some countries » because I have mainly worked on the continent, 
> nevertheless how things are done in different countries might shed light 
> on useful alternatives. So, in sum, it would appear to me that some of 
> your problems have arisen from the lack of proper terms and conditions, 
> and communicating them at the right time and in the proper way to your 
> customer.
>

I appreciate what you say.  In the past I have dealt with local customers 
which have been more like gentleman's agreements.  In this case a mutual 
friend put us in contact with each other.  This is the first incidence where 
the relationship has gone pear shaped where the customer has reneged on an 
agreement in order to try and get more work out of me for free.

To be honest, typically the customer's main concern is that knowledge 
doesn't find its way to their competitors and is seen to be far more 
important than terms and conditions.  If I was to put forward terms and 
conditions, I may come across as a nit-picking supplier, which might 
frighten the customer off, where normally goodwill will prevail.

I'm not sure how having a formal terms and condition would have helped in 
this instance, when there is a dispute in contractual delivery, however weak 
an excuse, is used to delay and/or prevent payment.

In the past I have taken a companies terms and conditions and modified them 
for my own use for the supply of equipment, but this instance is more a 
supply of a service, so they weren't really relevant.

Many thanks for all your help.  It's very much appreciated.

PeterSaxton wrote:
> On Oct 21, 9:06 am, "Fredxx"  wrote:
>> I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done. The
>> original invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed
>> out, foolishly I might add, that some items in the original invoice
>> are less than agreed as per contract.
>>
>> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
>>
>> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original
>> invoice, and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the
>> correct amounts, or should I do this another way. I am about to take
>> him to court so feel I must get this bit of admin correct.
>>
>> Hope I've explained this well enough. Many thanks in advance.
>
> The last thing you want to do it to take somebody to court over an
> unpaid invoice and then they produce a credit note relating to that
> invoice.
>
> Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
> clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.
>
> As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years by
> adjustments to the accounts.

Why todays date?  Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax point" or 
"date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?

Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?

I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new invoice, 
but thought all would be well if they were all dated the date of supply, 
with a covering letter.

Many thanks for your reply.

Fredxx wrote:

> PeterSaxton wrote:
>>
>> Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
>> clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.
>>
>> As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years by
>> adjustments to the accounts.
> 
> Why todays date?  Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax point" or
> "date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?

This is not an either-or matter; your invoice should show *two* dates.

Although it has become accepted practice for invoices to show only one
date, this is OK only when tax point and invoice date are the same (in
fact, it's common to see pre-printed invoice forms with a box for one
date, with the box labelled "invoice date and tax point").  But when
the two dates are different, as in your case, both should be shown.

So your invoice should show *both* the "tax point", which in your case
would be the date of supply, *and* the "invoice date", which should be
when you issue it (i.e. today).

> Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?
> 
> I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new invoice,
> but thought all would be well if they were all dated the date of supply,
> with a covering letter.

I think it should be for the additional amount, because if it's for the
full amount, you would be replacing (and therefore cancelling) the original
invoice, which technically might have implications about payment dates,
i.e. your customer might be entitled to the statutory two months (or however
long it is) *from today* to pay the new invoice.

Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>>>
>>> Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
>>> clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.
>>>
>>> As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years
>>> by adjustments to the accounts.
>>
>> Why todays date?  Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax
>> point" or "date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?
>
> This is not an either-or matter; your invoice should show *two* dates.
>
> Although it has become accepted practice for invoices to show only one
> date, this is OK only when tax point and invoice date are the same (in
> fact, it's common to see pre-printed invoice forms with a box for one
> date, with the box labelled "invoice date and tax point").  But when
> the two dates are different, as in your case, both should be shown.
>
> So your invoice should show *both* the "tax point", which in your case
> would be the date of supply, *and* the "invoice date", which should be
> when you issue it (i.e. today).
>
>> Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?
>>
>> I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new
>> invoice, but thought all would be well if they were all dated the
>> date of supply, with a covering letter.
>
> I think it should be for the additional amount, because if it's for
> the full amount, you would be replacing (and therefore cancelling)
> the original invoice, which technically might have implications about
> payment dates, i.e. your customer might be entitled to the statutory
> two months (or however long it is) *from today* to pay the new
> invoice.

I get the drift, many thanks for the points you have raised.  Most invoices 
I see have just the one date, ie the tax point, and certainly unlikely to be 
issued on the same date.

"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message 
news:Pg0Em.470$5w5.351@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>>>
>>> Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
>>> clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.
>>>
>>> As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years by
>>> adjustments to the accounts.
>>
>> Why todays date?  Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax point" or
>> "date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?
>
> This is not an either-or matter; your invoice should show *two* dates.
>
> Although it has become accepted practice for invoices to show only one
> date, this is OK only when tax point and invoice date are the same (in
> fact, it's common to see pre-printed invoice forms with a box for one
> date, with the box labelled "invoice date and tax point").  But when
> the two dates are different, as in your case, both should be shown.
>
> So your invoice should show *both* the "tax point", which in your case
> would be the date of supply, *and* the "invoice date", which should be
> when you issue it (i.e. today).
>
>> Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?
>>
>> I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new 
>> invoice,
>> but thought all would be well if they were all dated the date of supply,
>> with a covering letter.
>
> I think it should be for the additional amount, because if it's for the
> full amount, you would be replacing (and therefore cancelling) the 
> original
> invoice, which technically might have implications about payment dates,
> i.e. your customer might be entitled to the statutory two months (or 
> however
> long it is) *from today* to pay the new invoice.
>

It might provide a little additional fun if the new "extras only" invoice 
was stamped "paid" - and then enclose a statement showing the part payment 
allocated to the "extras", any balance allocated to the long outstanding 
invoice, and the unpaid remainder shown as "2 years overdue and counting" or 
whatever.  If credit card coys can decide how to allocate payments, why not 
the rest of us creditors? :-)


-- 
Martin

Martin wrote:

> It might provide a little additional fun if the new "extras only" invoice
> was stamped "paid" - and then enclose a statement showing the part payment
> allocated to the "extras", any balance allocated to the long outstanding
> invoice, and the unpaid remainder shown as "2 years overdue and counting"
> or
> whatever.  If credit card coys can decide how to allocate payments, why
> not the rest of us creditors? :-)

You old devil.

-- 
I know, I know.  "Less of the 'old'."

On Oct 22, 4:37 pm, "Fredxx"  wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 9:06 am, "Fredxx"  wrote:
> >> I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done. The
> >> original invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed
> >> out, foolishly I might add, that some items in the original invoice
> >> are less than agreed as per contract.
>
> >> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
>
> >> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original
> >> invoice, and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the
> >> correct amounts, or should I do this another way. I am about to take
> >> him to court so feel I must get this bit of admin correct.
>
> >> Hope I've explained this well enough. Many thanks in advance.
>
> > The last thing you want to do it to take somebody to court over an
> > unpaid invoice and then they produce a credit note relating to that
> > invoice.
>
> > Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
> > clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.
>
> > As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years by
> > adjustments to the accounts.
>
> Why todays date?  Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax point" or
> "date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?
>
For what purpose? You can still give the date when the work was done.
Todays date is the date of issue.

> Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?

Additional amount otherwise you are invoicing them for too much.
>
> I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new invoice> but thought all would be well if they were all dated the date of supply,
> with a covering letter.
>
What is your claim for? Did you say what invoice you are claiming for?
It would be confusing if you claim for a certain amount and one
invoice and then there is a credit note referring to that invoice and
also the claim is for a certain amount and the outstanding invoice is
for a different amount.

On Oct 21, 12:37 pm, "Fredxx"  wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> news:rmBDm.5518$KR3.3222@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fredxx wrote:
>
> >> I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The
> >> original
> >> invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly
> >> I might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed
> >> as per contract.
>
> >> I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.
>
> >> Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
> >> and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
> >> should I do this another way.
>
> > If the customer was right that your invoice charged him an incorrect
> > amount
> > I'm not sure why you describe him as foolish to point this out.  It would
> > seem eminently sensible, and refreshingly honest if you undercharged him.
>
> > What would be foolish, though, and I suppose this must be what you mean> > is to use this as an excuse to deem the entire invoice invalid and to
> > delay settling it (especially when the amount in error is small compared
> > to the whole).
>
> > What he should have done is either pay the amount he believes you should
> > have charged, and get you to fix the paperwork later by means of a
> > receipted
> > supplementary invoice for the difference, or else pay the amount invoiced
> > and get you to send an unreceipted supplementary invoice for the
> > difference.
>
> > Alternatively he should have pointed out the mistake early on, giving you
> > the opportunity to correct the paperwork straight away.
>
> > I do *not* think you should now send a corrected replacement invoice
> > together with credit note cancelling the entire original invoice, because
> > this would probably give him another month or two to pay up before you
> > could sue.  It might also invalidate your entitlement to late payment
> > charges if you cancel the original invoice.  I think you should simply
> > send a supplementary invoice for the difference, or possibly a credit
> > note for the incorrectly billed items together with an invoice for the
> > correct ones:
>
> > Suppose your original invoice was for £200 labour plus materials of
> > 5 widgets at £4.90 each, which should have been £5.10 each.  Then either
> > send a credit note for £24.50 and an invoice for £25.50 or an invoice
> > for £1 (containing detail of minus 5 at £4.90 plus 5 at £5.10).  I'm not
> > up on dating conventions, but I would date these documents today, not
> > backdate them to the date of the original invoice.  Of course they should
> > still contain a reference to the original date of supply.  In either case
> > I would send an accompanying "Statement" (certainly dated today) listing
> > all the invoices issued and still outstanding, including any charges in
> > respect of late payment, and showing the total amount due.
>
> > He'll probably wait until you commence proceedings (if you haven't
> > already)
> > and then pay up, leaving you out of pocket to the tune of the court fee> >> I am about to take him to court so feel I
> >> must get this bit of admin correct.
>
> > I don't think minor errors in the invoicing are critically important.
> > The debt doesn't arise as a result of the invoice, it arises out of the
> > contractual obligation.
>
> I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of supply.
> So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be shifting income
> from one tax year to another.  I thought this was frowned upon?
>
> The customer has already paid part, which has caused some confusion, but far
> less than even the original invoice.
>
What is the dispute about?

"Fredxx"  wrote in message 
news:hbpua2$kp2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Zach"  wrote in message 
> news:4adff339$0$28148$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
>>
>> A number of problems you seem to be having would appear to be arising 
>> from a lack of terms and conditions that you should communicate to your 
>> customer prior to acceptance of the contract and work done on it, or 
>> prior to the delivery of goods or services to your customer. In some 
>> countries terms and conditions may be deposited at the Chamber of 
>> Commerce; it then suffices to refer to them on the written contract (not 
>> on the back of the invoice, that is too late), depositing terms and 
>> conditions might be less off-putting to a prospective customer. (Actually 
>> the party dealing with you should enquire about the authority you have to 
>> enter into the contract, and so should you. In some countries, the 
>> prospective party to a contract who does not do this is considered non 
>> bona fide, which could be used against him at a court of law. In the old 
>> common law there is the principle that the law does not protect those who 
>> do not protect themselves. There is a tricky issue of dealing outside the 
>> realm of authority and the party who does this benefitting by it.) 
>> Alternatively terms and conditions will need to accompany the contract. 
>> Drawing up terms and conditions can be a costly affair if you employ 
>> legal counsel. An alternative is getting together terms and conditions of 
>> competitors and making a list of the issues you need to cover, also of 
>> the various ways of doing that (the wording). You must not simply copy 
>> what other firms have written because you might be infringing upon 
>> copyright. In some countries the proper phrasing is determined by law, to 
>> which you should refer in each case. In some countries there are branch 
>> organizations who have done all this work for you. Then deviating from 
>> what is usual for a particular branch might be used against you at a 
>> court of law. As to interest, terms and conditions should stipulate the 
>> period within which payment is due, after which interest will be charged 
>> without prior notice. This information should also be printed on the 
>> invoice. In some countries the percentage interest you are allowed to 
>> charge is limited by law. I use the words « in some countries » because I 
>> have mainly worked on the continent, nevertheless how things are done in 
>> different countries might shed light on useful alternatives. So, in sum, 
>> it would appear to me that some of your problems have arisen from the 
>> lack of proper terms and conditions, and communicating them at the right 
>> time and in the proper way to your customer.
>>
>
> I appreciate what you say.  In the past I have dealt with local customers 
> which have been more like gentleman's agreements.  In this case a mutual 
> friend put us in contact with each other.  This is the first incidence 
> where the relationship has gone pear shaped where the customer has reneged 
> on an agreement in order to try and get more work out of me for free.
>
> To be honest, typically the customer's main concern is that knowledge 
> doesn't find its way to their competitors and is seen to be far more 
> important than terms and conditions.  If I was to put forward terms and 
> conditions, I may come across as a nit-picking supplier, which might 
> frighten the customer off, where normally goodwill will prevail.
>
> I'm not sure how having a formal terms and condition would have helped in 
> this instance, when there is a dispute in contractual delivery, however 
> weak an excuse, is used to delay and/or prevent payment.
>
> In the past I have taken a companies terms and conditions and modified 
> them for my own use for the supply of equipment, but this instance is more 
> a supply of a service, so they weren't really relevant.
>
> Many thanks for all your help.  It's very much appreciated.
>
>
If the nature of your business is such that terms and conditions would be 
overdone and would turn customers away, the focus might be on the contract. 
The way you speak of the contract in question suggests that a written 
contract is in place. A written contract usually contains terms and 
conditions and shouldn't tip the apple cart. If, as I understand what you 
wrote, your customers are afraid of losing knowledge, the assurance of their 
know-how protection might be in the contract and off-set (balance out) the 
issues you yourself wish to protect. But then again, I have no insight into 
the nature and size of your business, or in the stage of growth in which 
your business currently is.

Regards,
Zach.
www.thinkbones.com

Zach wrote:
> "Fredxx"  wrote in message
> news:hbpua2$kp2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Zach"  wrote in message
>> news:4adff339$0$28148$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
>>>
>>
>> I appreciate what you say.  In the past I have dealt with local
>> customers which have been more like gentleman's agreements.  In this
>> case a mutual friend put us in contact with each other.  This is the
>> first incidence where the relationship has gone pear shaped where
>> the customer has reneged on an agreement in order to try and get
>> more work out of me for free. To be honest, typically the customer's main 
>> concern is that knowledge
>> doesn't find its way to their competitors and is seen to be far more
>> important than terms and conditions.  If I was to put forward terms
>> and conditions, I may come across as a nit-picking supplier, which
>> might frighten the customer off, where normally goodwill will
>> prevail. I'm not sure how having a formal terms and condition would have
>> helped in this instance, when there is a dispute in contractual
>> delivery, however weak an excuse, is used to delay and/or prevent
>> payment. In the past I have taken a companies terms and conditions and
>> modified them for my own use for the supply of equipment, but this
>> instance is more a supply of a service, so they weren't really
>> relevant. Many thanks for all your help.  It's very much appreciated.
>>
>>
> If the nature of your business is such that terms and conditions
> would be overdone and would turn customers away, the focus might be
> on the contract. The way you speak of the contract in question
> suggests that a written contract is in place. A written contract
> usually contains terms and conditions and shouldn't tip the apple
> cart. If, as I understand what you wrote, your customers are afraid
> of losing knowledge, the assurance of their know-how protection might
> be in the contract and off-set (balance out) the issues you yourself
> wish to protect. But then again, I have no insight into the nature
> and size of your business, or in the stage of growth in which your
> business currently is.

There was a written contract, and a non-disclosure-agreement signed to cover 
intellectual property.  There were nothing in the contract about timely 
payment, but was happy to accept what might be called the "industry 
standard".

This customer has been a unique experience, and have never known anyone like 
him before.  Most customers expect a days work for a days pay, and don't 
keep moving goalposts in a fixed price contract.  Indeed, most customers 
want to maintain a good reputation to their suppliers.  I suppose alarm 
bells should have sounded when a friend had said "he doesn't like paying"!

"Fredxx"  wrote in message 
news:hbruqc$4fc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Zach wrote:
>> "Fredxx"  wrote in message
>> news:hbpua2$kp2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Zach"  wrote in message
>>> news:4adff339$0$28148$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I appreciate what you say.  In the past I have dealt with local
>>> customers which have been more like gentleman's agreements.  In this
>>> case a mutual friend put us in contact with each other.  This is the
>>> first incidence where the relationship has gone pear shaped where
>>> the customer has reneged on an agreement in order to try and get
>>> more work out of me for free. To be honest, typically the customer's 
>>> main concern is that knowledge
>>> doesn't find its way to their competitors and is seen to be far more
>>> important than terms and conditions.  If I was to put forward terms
>>> and conditions, I may come across as a nit-picking supplier, which
>>> might frighten the customer off, where normally goodwill will
>>> prevail. I'm not sure how having a formal terms and condition would have
>>> helped in this instance, when there is a dispute in contractual
>>> delivery, however weak an excuse, is used to delay and/or prevent
>>> payment. In the past I have taken a companies terms and conditions and
>>> modified them for my own use for the supply of equipment, but this
>>> instance is more a supply of a service, so they weren't really
>>> relevant. Many thanks for all your help.  It's very much appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>> If the nature of your business is such that terms and conditions
>> would be overdone and would turn customers away, the focus might be
>> on the contract. The way you speak of the contract in question
>> suggests that a written contract is in place. A written contract
>> usually contains terms and conditions and shouldn't tip the apple
>> cart. If, as I understand what you wrote, your customers are afraid
>> of losing knowledge, the assurance of their know-how protection might
>> be in the contract and off-set (balance out) the issues you yourself
>> wish to protect. But then again, I have no insight into the nature
>> and size of your business, or in the stage of growth in which your
>> business currently is.
>
> There was a written contract, and a non-disclosure-agreement signed to 
> cover intellectual property.  There were nothing in the contract about 
> timely payment, but was happy to accept what might be called the "industry 
> standard".
>
> This customer has been a unique experience, and have never known anyone 
> like him before.  Most customers expect a days work for a days pay, and 
> don't keep moving goalposts in a fixed price contract.  Indeed, most 
> customers want to maintain a good reputation to their suppliers.  I 
> suppose alarm bells should have sounded when a friend had said "he doesn't 
> like paying"!
>
>
In certain types of business the "scope" of the project needs explicit
specification in the contract under a separate contract heading.

Zach.