Letter from the Table: What 27 Days Late Cost Me

RC/CF/2026/T.6 · Letter from the table · 4 April 2026

Translated from Polish by the Secretariat. Submitted to the Cashflow Council during evidence gathering.

To the Cashflow Council,

I support the proposed 15-Day Pay Standard. I do so because I know what it means to complete work, issue a proper invoice, and then wait for money that is already needed elsewhere.

On 29 January 2026, I completed an agreed piece of work for a large buyer. The buyer had confirmed that the work was received. I issued an invoice on 2 February for 18,600 złoty, with payment due within 30 days. There was no dispute about the invoice or the work. In my records, the due date was 4 March.

On 5 March, I sent a polite reminder. I did not want to begin with a formal demand. I wanted to preserve a working relationship and believed that an administrative delay might be corrected quickly. I received confirmation that the invoice was being checked for payment. That did not give me a date I could plan around.

On 16 March, I followed up again, by email and telephone. I explained that I was a small supplier and asked when the transfer would be made. I was told the matter would be passed on for processing. I did not receive a payment date. I kept the tone careful. A small supplier understands that a large buyer can choose other suppliers next time, and that a person asking for money already earned can be made to sound difficult.

The transfer arrived on 31 March: 27 days after the contractual deadline. During that period, the 18,600 złoty was not an accounting entry to me. It was money I could not use to meet my own obligations. I used 12,000 złoty of short-term bank credit to cover part of the gap. The interest and fees came to 146 złoty. I also spent about seven hours checking the account, writing reminders, calling, and making revised plans. Those hours were taken from work that could have brought in new income.

I delayed one payment to a supplier of my own and had to explain why. I had hoped not to do that. The amount due to me was not enormous to the buyer, but it was large in relation to the cash available in my business. That difference in scale is the central problem: a large organisation can treat a late invoice as one item in a process; a small business has to make decisions around the missing money.

Polish law already recognises that late payment in commercial transactions has consequences. In general, statutory interest for late payment may be due without a separate demand, and the creditor may also be entitled to fixed compensation for recovery costs. For a claim in the 18,600 złoty range, the statutory compensation falls in the 70-euro category, converted into złoty under the rules. These rights matter. But having a right is not the same as having the cash on time. A supplier may hesitate to claim interest or compensation from a buyer on whom future work depends. And where payment processes are opaque, it can be difficult to know whether a reminder, a formal demand, or another step will actually change the date of payment.

The proposed standard would make a practical difference. If this undisputed invoice had been paid within 15 days, the payment date would have been 17 February rather than 4 March. The money would have reached me 42 days before it actually did. I could have avoided at least part of the short-term borrowing and planned my own payments with greater confidence. Automatic interest when payment is late would also mean the supplier does not have to make a separate, awkward decision about whether to ask for what the rules already provide.

Publishing payment times would allow businesses to judge a buyer’s practice before they depend on it.

I do not believe every disagreement should be treated as late payment. A genuine, promptly explained dispute should be handled fairly, and the standard should apply to an undisputed invoice. But “processing” should not become an indefinite answer after the work has been accepted. Fifteen days gives a small supplier a clearer expectation and gives a buyer a simple rule against which its own process can be measured.