The Table, No. 15: Late payment moves from evidence to legislation

From the Founding Secretariat

Dear members and partners,

This week brought a subject many small-business owners know in practical terms—waiting for money already earned—into a new stage of public debate. The UK Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May. Reseated’s Secretariat issued a statement the following day, while councils and Fellows continued their work of recording evidence and identifying patterns across different business experiences.

Our role is not to speak for every business or to claim that one account settles a question. It is to make recurring practices visible, test whether they are widespread and consistent, and develop proposals that decision-makers can consider. This digest records the work published this week and the next steps ahead.

In solidarity,
The Founding Secretariat

The week at the table

The introduction of the UK Late Payments Bill in the Lords is the week’s lead development. The bill is now before Parliament; it has not become law. On 20 May, the Secretariat published RC/SEC/2026/3, On the introduction of the UK Late Payments Bill. The statement places the legislative development alongside the experience gathered through Reseated’s Cashflow Council. It is a moment to follow closely, not a reason to assume that the problem has been resolved.

Late payment is often described as a matter of dates and invoices. For a small business, the consequences can reach further: money due for completed work may be needed for wages, materials, rent or the next order. The Cashflow Council’s task is to distinguish individual circumstances from patterns that may justify a common response. Its work does not replace legislation or represent the position of every business.

Several records and evidence submissions were published this week. The council records include the fourth sessions of the Fair Play Council (RC/FP/2026/SR.4, 16 May), Trade Council (RC/TR/2026/SR.4, 18 May), Resilience Council (RC/RS/2026/SR.4, 20 May) and Red Tape Council (RC/RT/2026/SR.4, 22 May). The Fellows roundtable’s third summary record, RC/A/2026/FR.3, was published on 20 May.

Three evidence submissions also joined the public record: Platform Council submission RC/PL/2026/S.2, “When platform rules change”; Cashflow Council submission RC/CF/2026/S.2, “The cost of waiting for payment”; and Fair Play Council submission RC/FP/2026/S.2, “When a review affects a seller’s standing.” These titles identify the subjects of the submissions, not a finding by the Assembly. Each belongs to a wider process in which evidence is gathered, patterns are tested and proposals are opened to consultation.

By the numbers

As of 22 May, Reseated had 729 members seated in 49 countries. Members had filed 1,895 reports from 50 countries. The difference between the two country counts reflects the distinct measures: where members are seated and where reports originate.

Reports by council were:

• Platform: 1,064
• Cashflow: 510
• Fair Play: 121
• Red Tape: 77
• Trade: 69
• Team: 31
• Resilience: 23

The council figures add to 1,895. They are reports, not a count of businesses or a measure of how many people experienced the same issue. Reseated uses them as inputs to review, alongside the five-part pattern test: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration.

The wider context matters too. The United Nations estimates that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises make up about 90% of businesses, account for 60–70% of employment and contribute around half of global GDP. The ILO estimates that MSMEs provide about 70% of employment worldwide, and that roughly 80% operate in the informal economy. These global estimates describe the scale of the sector; they do not tell us whether any particular practice has been established in a specific market.

From the table

A small supplier completes a job for a larger customer and sends the invoice on time. The payment date moves once, then again. The supplier keeps taking calls and fulfilling other work, but the gap between finishing the job and receiving the money leaves less room to plan purchases and cover regular costs. Asking for an update takes time; pressing too hard feels risky when the supplier hopes to work with that customer again.

The point is not that every delayed invoice has the same cause or consequence. It is that a payment delay can affect more than bookkeeping, and that the balance of power may shape whether a supplier feels able to challenge it. Reports that describe dates, steps taken, explanations given and practical effects help the Cashflow Council test whether experiences like these recur. Members should not include their own business name or identifying details unless they choose to make them public.

Coming up

The next scheduled milestone is the publication of the draft Platform Fairness Standard, planned for 26 May. A public consultation on PL-001 is scheduled to open on 2 June and run through 2 July. The consultation is the opportunity to examine the draft, point out where its language is unclear, and explain what a proposed standard would mean in practice. It is not an adoption ballot.

Open Tables continue monthly, providing space for members to discuss evidence and questions across councils. The next Cashflow Council milestone in the shared calendar is its pattern-test review on 23 June. No Assembly adoption ballot is scheduled for the items discussed in this digest. When a proposal reaches that stage, the ballot and its status will be announced through the appropriate Assembly record.

As these steps approach, members can continue filing reports through the relevant council. Reports are useful when they are specific: what happened, how often, over what period, and what supporting material is available. Do not include confidential information that you are not authorized to share.

One thing you can do

If you have experienced a payment delay, record the timeline while it is fresh: the agreed payment terms, the date you delivered the work or goods, the invoice date, any revised date or explanation, and when payment arrived—or whether it remains outstanding. Keep copies of relevant correspondence where it is safe and lawful to do so. A clear account helps distinguish a one-off disruption from a repeated practice.

Then submit the experience through the Cashflow Council’s reporting process, using generic descriptions for other parties and leaving out your business name unless you want it public. If the experience does not fit Cashflow, choose the council that best matches the practice. One report is not a verdict. It is one piece of evidence in a process built to test patterns before proposing a fix.

Reseated is a global assembly of small-business owners. Members are anonymous unless they choose a public seat.