Not paying or recovering — why these are not the same thing

Companies that start checking their logistics invoices usually start with the archive. That is logical: the archive holds two or three years of data, the errors have already happened, and their total is visible at once. An audit produces a figure you can show the board.

But that figure has a property that is not obvious at first. It is not money. It is a right to demand money — and that right has a period of validity, a burden of proof, and a requirement that the other side agree.

What happens when the error is found after payment

The invoice has been paid. It turns out that a line was calculated at the wrong rate. What follows is this:

You need a claim. Not an email with a question mark, but a document stating the specific invoice, the specific line, the rate applied, the correct rate and the difference. If the carrier does not agree, this document will be the basis for what comes next, so its content has to be right the first time.

You need evidence. The carrier is not obliged to accept your calculation. You will need a copy of the invoice, the contract or the rate table, the transport document and — if the dispute concerns a road toll — the registration data. Collecting these documents often takes longer than analysing the error itself.

You need to track the limitation period. Article 32 of the CMR Convention sets a period of one year; in the case of wilful misconduct — three. “In all other cases” the period starts to run on the expiry of three months after the making of the contract of carriage. A written claim suspends the period, but only the first one — a second claim on the same question no longer has that effect. And most importantly: once the period has expired, the claim cannot even be used for set-off (Article 32(4)). Which means you will not be able simply to deduct the amount from another invoice.

A refund of German road toll is subject to a different period — until the end of the third calendar year following the year of payment. For contracts for the sale of goods under the Vienna Convention — three years.

You need to wait. Even when a claim is accepted, the money does not come back at once. In practice 60–180 days, and sometimes longer. All that time the amount sits in the accounts as a receivable whose receipt is not guaranteed.

What happens when the error is found before payment

None of that.

One email is enough: “On invoice No. 4471, line 4, a rate of 34.8 ct/km has been applied. The vehicle is registered in CO2 class three, so 33.2 ct/km applies. Please issue a corrected invoice.”

The carrier sees the same thing. Its system holds the same registration data. There is almost never a discussion, because there is nothing to argue about — and, no less important, the carrier has not yet received the money. Returning money is a different act, psychologically and in the accounts, from issuing a corrected invoice.

There is no limitation period, because there is no claim. An amount not paid is not a claim — it is simply an amount that should not have been on the invoice.

A third thing that gets forgotten

In many jurisdictions, paying an invoice without reservation is treated as acknowledging it. Which means a missed error costs twice: the amount paid, and a weakened ability to dispute it. The burden of proof shifts to your side — it is not for the carrier to prove the invoice is correct, but for you to prove it is not, and to explain as well why you paid it.

Does that mean a historic audit is unnecessary?

It is necessary. A historic audit answers the question nothing else will: whether there are errors at all, and which ones. Without it, ongoing monitoring would be a blind check against a generic list, with no idea where the weak point in your own flow actually is.

Besides, some errors are one-off. A wrong CO2 class is a registration error: once the vehicle is reclassified, it does not recur. Those are exactly the errors a historic audit finds, and once they are corrected the value of ongoing monitoring falls — it is fair to say so up front.

The right order is this: the audit shows what is happening and how much has been lost. The one-off errors are corrected for good. Ongoing monitoring is left for those that recur with every new invoice, every new truck and every new regulation.

A sentence worth keeping

Recovering money is a project. Not paying it is a decision.