Letter from the table: The cost of waiting for an undisputed invoice

RC/CF/2026/T.54 · 13 October 2026 · Brussels, Belgium

To the Cashflow Council

I co-signed the 15-Day Pay Standard because I know the difference between an invoice being disputed and an invoice simply waiting in somebody else’s process. That difference is clear on paper. It is less clear when you are the small supplier waiting for the money.

On 3 March 2026, I sent an invoice for €3,840 to a large buyer for work already completed. The invoice was not disputed. Its payment terms gave the buyer 30 days, so payment was due on 2 April. I had planned around that date: money arriving would cover ordinary business expenses and an amount I had set aside for tax. I did not need the buyer to pay early. I needed the agreed date to mean something.

When the payment did not arrive, I checked that the invoice had reached the right accounts-payable address. I sent a reminder, then followed up again. The matter was described to me as still moving through an internal validation process. No one identified an error in the invoice or challenged the work. I was therefore left with a practical problem, not a genuine disagreement: the buyer had the benefit of the completed work, while I continued to finance the delay.

The payment arrived on 12 June—71 days after the due date. During those weeks I moved money between business needs, postponed a planned expense and spent time checking and following up instead of doing other work. The amount at stake was not large enough to make a formal dispute seem sensible, but it was large enough to matter to a small operation. That

is one reason late payment can be difficult to see from the outside. The cost is distributed across time, attention and decisions that never appear on the invoice.

Belgian law already provides important protections in commercial transactions. As I understand the applicable framework, the default payment period is 30 days, agreed terms are generally subject to a 60-day maximum, and late-payment interest and a fixed recovery-cost amount may be due when the legal conditions are met. The statutory interest rate can change, so I will not pretend that the calculation is as simple as adding a fixed percentage to every late invoice. But the existence of a right does not itself put money into an account. A small supplier must still notice the delay, establish what is owed, decide whether to pursue it and consider what that pursuit may do to the relationship with a much larger customer.

I did not begin by threatening legal action. I checked the invoice details, kept a record of reminders and asked for a clear payment date. Those were reasonable first steps. They did not change the fact that I had to spend time pursuing a debt that was not in dispute. In a business relationship where future work may depend on staying easy to deal with, even asking for what the contract already provides can feel like taking a risk.

The proposed standard would change the starting point. For a large buyer, the expectation would be payment within 15 days of an undisputed invoice, not payment whenever an internal process happens to finish. Automatic interest when payment is late would make the consequence routine rather than something each small supplier must decide whether to claim. Publishing payment times would also give suppliers and the public a way to see whether stated commitments match practice.

Fifteen days is not a demand that every invoice be paid before it can be checked. A buyer can raise a real, specific dispute. The point is that an undisputed invoice should not be held up by an open-ended administrative queue. If information is missing, the buyer should say what is needed promptly. If the invoice is accepted, the payment clock should not be extended simply because the supplier has less power to insist.

I understand that buyers have different systems and that a standard must be capable of being adopted in more than one country. That is why I support a clear common commitment, automatic consequences for lateness, and transparent reporting. A standard that is voluntary at first can still establish a meaningful expectation; a buyer that adopts it should be able to show that its payment practice follows it.