The Table, No. 8: A letter on late payment

From the Founding Secretariat

Dear members and friends,

This week’s work was a letter, not a new standard or a ballot. On 30 March, Reseated issued RC/CF/2026/20 to the UK Department for Business and Trade and the Small Business Commissioner, concerning the government’s late-payment consultation response. The document is one step in a larger process: collect reports, examine whether a problem repeats across businesses, consult, and then put a proposed answer to members.

That process depends on more than the number of people who speak up. It depends on whether their accounts reveal a shared practice, and whether the proposed response is clear enough for decision-makers to consider. This digest gives a brief account of the letter, the evidence base as of today, and what is next. Thank you to everyone who has taken time to report, review, and make this work possible.

The week at the table

RC/CF/2026/20 is addressed to the UK Department for Business and Trade and the Small Business Commissioner. Its subject is the government’s response to the late-payment consultation. The letter puts Reseated’s work before institutions connected to the issue; it does not itself change payment practices, establish a new rule, or mean that either recipient has replied.

The timing matters. On 24 March, Reseated submitted a response to the UK government’s late-payment consultation. This week’s letter follows that step and carries the conversation to the two named institutions. Together, the documents show how a member-led assembly can make a concern legible outside the assembly: first by gathering evidence, then by using a public consultation, and then by writing to institutions with a role in the policy discussion.

Late payment is a cashflow issue, but it is also a question of how commercial arrangements work in practice. For a small firm, an invoice that remains unpaid can affect the timing of wages, supplier bills, stock purchases, and other commitments. Those effects are not captured by the date printed on an invoice alone. The details matter: when payment was due, what happened next, and whether the experience is repeated across different businesses.

That is why Reseated’s process starts with reports rather than a ready-made conclusion. A letter can carry concerns into a policy conversation, but it should not substitute for evidence or imply that every business has the same experience. The Cashflow Council’s reports are part of the record members can use to test whether a practice is widespread and consistent, and to decide what kind of response would be useful. The letter this week is a procedural milestone in that work—not a claim that the problem has been solved.

The document is available as RC/CF/2026/20, dated 30 March 2026. We will record any subsequent institutional response through the ordinary process; there is no reply to report in this digest.

By the numbers

As of 3 April 2026, Reseated has 350 seated members in 49 countries. Members have filed 800 reports, originating from 50 countries. These are separate counts: the member count describes where people are seated, while the report count describes where reports were filed.

The reports are distributed across the seven councils as follows:

• Platform: 517
• Cashflow: 188
• Fair Play: 38
• Red Tape: 29
• Trade: 17
• Team: 10
• Resilience: 1

The council totals add up to 800. Platform and Cashflow account for most of the reports so far, while the other councils are also building their records. The counts show where members have submitted evidence; on their own, they do not show that a particular practice has passed Reseated’s pattern test. Volume is one part of that test, alongside frequency, consistency, spread, and corroboration.

These figures are an early snapshot of an assembly still gathering evidence. A small number in a council does not mean the concern is unimportant, and a large number does not by itself settle what should be done. The next task is careful review: identify what reports have in common, preserve differences that matter, and avoid turning individual experiences into claims broader than the evidence supports.

From the table

It reflects the kind of cashflow pressure a small business may face when payment is delayed.

A small supplier completes an order and sends an invoice on the agreed terms. The work is finished, but the money does not arrive when expected. The owner checks the account, follows up, and waits for an update. Meanwhile, the next set of costs does not wait: a supplier needs paying, a scheduled bill is due, and the business must decide whether it can commit to the next order before the previous one has been settled.

In this composite, the difficulty is not simply that one payment is late. It is the uncertainty around when it will arrive and the way that uncertainty moves through the business. The owner has to spend time chasing payment and weighing decisions that would otherwise be routine. A delay can shift pressure onto a firm that has little room to absorb it, even when the work has already been delivered.

That account is not evidence that every late payment has the same cause or consequence. It is a reminder of the questions reports need to answer: how often does this happen, how long does the delay last, what explanations are given, and do businesses in different circumstances describe a similar pattern? Those details help distinguish a single difficult transaction from a repeatable practice—and make any proposed fix more grounded in what members actually report.

Coming up

Open Tables continue monthly, with two sittings intended to make participation possible across Asia-Pacific and Europe, Africa, and the Americas. The dates and joining details for the next sitting should be taken from Secretariat notices; this digest does not announce a new date.

The next dated milestone in the current timeline is 23 April: the first Board election and the Platform Council’s pattern-review note, RC/PL/2026/N.1. The Q1 report is also scheduled for that date. These are upcoming items, not completed events. Members can follow Secretariat notices for any supporting material and instructions on participation.

On Cashflow, the March consultation response and this week’s letter form part of the ongoing work around late payment. No adoption ballot or new consultation deadline is announced here. Members with relevant experience can continue to submit reports through the established channels, including the details needed to assess whether a practice is recurring and consistent.

One thing you can do

If you have experienced a cashflow problem, file a report with the clearest facts you can provide: what happened, when it happened, how often it has happened, and what effect it had on the business. Describe the practice rather than naming a company. Do not include your business name unless you choose to make a public contribution. A precise account is more useful than a broad conclusion, and it helps the assembly test patterns without exposing members who prefer to remain anonymous.

If you have already reported, consider whether your account includes the sequence of events and any supporting details you are comfortable sharing. Evidence is the foundation for the next step. Thank you for helping make the table a place where small-business experience can be heard, tested, and turned into careful action.