Dunning: Chasing Invoices Without Losing the Customer

An invoice is sixty days late. Nobody has chased it, because chasing feels rude and everyone is busy. When somebody finally does, the answer comes back in four minutes: we never received it, send it to accounts payable rather than to the person who signed the contract.

Separate the causes before the tone

Keep the ageing report. Age, balance and customer history all matter for prioritising. What ageing cannot tell you is why payment is blocked, and that is the column most systems do not have. Sixty days late because the invoice went to the wrong address is a different problem from sixty days late because the customer is short of cash.

The first needs a corrected invoice and an apology. The second needs a conversation about a payment plan. The third, genuine refusal over a disputed deliverable, needs the person who owns the relationship and possibly a look at what the contract says.

One sequence sent to all three gets the easy money late and the hard money never.

Stopping the sequence on a disputed invoice is a rule that routinely gets missed. A customer who has raised a genuine query and then receives three escalating reminders learns that your systems are not listening, and that is a harder thing to repair than a late payment.

Start before the due date

One useful message arrives before anything is late. A short note a few days ahead, confirming the amount and the date and asking whether anything is needed to process it, catches the administrative failures while they are still free to fix.

It also changes the relationship of the whole sequence. You are not chasing, you are confirming, and a customer who has already acknowledged the invoice has far less room to be surprised by it later.

After that, four touches is usually enough: the day it becomes overdue, about a week later with a specific date requested, a call from a person, and then whatever your escalation actually is. Every message should contain the invoice number, the amount, the due date and a way to pay in one click, because a reminder that requires the customer to go and find the invoice is a reminder that gets postponed.

Where AI earns its place

The drafting, first. Writing four well-judged messages per customer segment is a half-day job that keeps getting deferred, which is how a business ends up sending one bluntly worded template for years. Generating a consistent set, in a tone you actually approve, removes the reason that never happened.

Then the sorting. Grouping an overdue list by likely cause rather than by age is pattern work: which invoices lack a PO reference, which customers have a history of needing a resend, which accounts have an open support ticket that might be a dispute. The signals are already in your systems and nobody has time to cross-reference them, which is the same gap described in getting your receivables under control.

One category has to exist for any of this to be safe, and it is the one nobody builds: cause unknown. An email saying we are looking into it is not evidence of a cash flow problem, and a support ticket is not evidence of an invoice dispute. Without an explicit unknown, a suggested cause becomes a recorded fact, and the next reminder is sent on the strength of a guess.

That points at the division that actually matters here, which is not that AI writes and people chase. AI proposes a likely blocker from the evidence it can see and shows that evidence. Workflow rules decide what may be sent, checking recorded payments, agreed payment dates and open disputes first. A named person owns the exceptions. Approved templates bound the tone.

Payment-behaviour patterns are the quietly valuable one. A customer who reliably pays after the third reminder is a pattern that belongs in your cash forecast, and a pattern that is getting worse is worth attention on its own. The two uses are not alternatives, which is the point of a cash flow forecast that is worth trusting.

What to keep off the automation

Anything that threatens. Legal action, interest charges, suspension of service and referral to a collections agency all carry commercial and sometimes legal weight, and they need a person who knows what the account is worth and what the contract permits.

The failure mode here is specific and worth naming. An automated sequence that threatens a client of eight years over an invoice their finance team had already queried costs more than the invoice. Build the stop condition at invoice level rather than account level. Pause generic reminders on a disputed invoice and route it to a named owner, instead of freezing an entire account because somebody opened an unrelated support ticket. Test that rule before the sequence goes live.

Tone also needs a human read. Ask for a firm reminder without defining the boundaries and you have left the tone to the model, with firmness as the only instruction it was given. Read the final message as the customer, not as the sender, which is the discipline in keeping customers while fixing processes.

The upstream fix

Before improving the chasing, count how many of your overdue invoices had something wrong with them. Missing reference, wrong recipient, unclear line items, terms that were never agreed in writing.

That number is uncomfortable for a lot of businesses, and it means part of the collections problem is an invoicing problem wearing a disguise. Measuring it first is the gap analysis that tells you whether to build a sequence or fix a template.

Frequently Asked Questions