Payment teams move money. Recovery starts by proving whether the delay sits in the rail, the process, a dispute or the customer.

By Lars Holdgaard, Founder of Debitura

When an overseas customer says payment is “in process”, the phrase can conceal four very different problems. The transfer may be stuck in the payment chain. The invoice may be blocked inside accounts payable. The customer may dispute the sale. Or the customer may have accepted the debt but lack the money or intention to pay it.

Only the first two are payment-operation problems. Treating all four as if they need another reminder wastes time and can allow a recoverable receivable to deteriorate.

The EU Payment Observatory’s 2025 report illustrates the scale of the issue. In its company survey, 56% of exporters reported problems with delayed payments, compared with 49% of non-exporters. Businesses also reported spending an average of 9.85 hours a week chasing late payments. For finance and payments leaders, the useful question is therefore not simply how to move money faster. It is how to identify when money movement is no longer the real problem.

Run a four-layer test within 72 hours

Start with the payment rail. Ask whether the customer actually instructed the payment. Request the execution date, amount, currency and a trace or confirmation that the buyer’s bank can verify. Check for rejected or repaired instructions, incorrect beneficiary data, correspondent-bank queries and value-date differences. A credible trace produces evidence. “It should arrive soon” does not.

Next, test the buyer’s process. Confirm that the invoice names the right legal entity, uses the required purchase order and tax information, and has reached the person who can approve it. Ask for the exact exception, the person who owns it and the date on which it will be cleared. Administrative friction is usually specific. If nobody can name the blockage, keep testing.

Third, ask whether the customer disputes any part of the transaction. The answer should identify the amount, the reason and the evidence. A disagreement about delivery, scope, quality or price is a commercial issue. Separate a genuinely disputed amount from any undisputed balance and give the dispute a decision owner rather than leaving it in the collections queue.

The final layer is credit. If the customer accepts the invoice but changes payment dates, stops responding, requests more supply without reducing the balance or offers vague assurances without evidence, the problem has moved beyond payment operations. Continuing to optimise the rail will not create the missing willingness or capacity to pay.

Faster settlement does not remove trade credit risk

Modern cross-border payments can reduce cost, improve visibility and shorten settlement once a valid payment instruction exists. They do not change the commercial risk created when a seller delivers before receiving cash.

The U.S. International Trade Administration describes open-account trade as a sale in which goods are shipped and delivered before payment is due, commonly on 30, 60 or 90-day terms. Those terms are attractive to buyers and competitive for sellers, but they are also among the highest-risk options for the exporter.

That distinction matters when businesses discuss real-time rails, payment orchestration or local payment methods. These tools can improve conversion and settlement. They cannot make a customer approve an invoice, abandon a dispute or prioritise one creditor over another. Payment design should therefore sit beside credit limits, deposits, milestone billing, insurance and escalation rules, not replace them.

Build a recovery file that works in another country

Once an accepted debt has become a credit problem, assemble a file that someone outside the original sales relationship can understand.

Record the debtor’s exact legal name, registration number and address. Include the contract or purchase order, invoice, statement of account, proof of delivery or performance and any acceptance of the debt. Preserve payment traces, the customer’s stated reason for delay, promises made and missed, and a short chronology with dates and owners.

Also record the governing-law and dispute-resolution clauses without trying to interpret them internally. A local adviser should be able to see the agreed terms and decide what matters in the debtor’s market.

The aim is not paperwork for its own sake. It is to remove ambiguity before memories fade, account managers leave and evidence becomes difficult to recover across systems and time zones.

Use the least expensive next step that remains credible

The correct escalation follows the diagnosis.

A traced bank delay needs payment investigation. A purchase-order mismatch needs process repair. A real dispute needs a commercial settlement or legal assessment. An accepted debt with broken promises needs a firm written demand and, if direct contact has stopped producing evidence or credible commitments, local pre-legal recovery.

Legal options vary by market and by whether the claim is contested. The European Payment Order, for example, offers a simplified route for certain uncontested cross-border monetary claims within its scope. That is one procedure, not a universal answer. The broader point is that local rules and the status of the claim shape the route.

Companies handling unpaid claims across several markets may use an international debt collection process that coordinates local agencies or law firms in the debtor’s country. The value is not a harsher reminder. It is a credible local next step based on a complete file.

Feed the failure back into the next sale

Every unpaid foreign invoice should change at least one future control. The answer may be a lower credit limit, a deposit, milestone payments, credit insurance, tighter entity checks or clearer invoice requirements. For trusted customers, open-account terms may still be commercially right. The lesson is to price and control the exposure deliberately.

A good payments operation makes valid money movement fast and visible. A good receivables operation recognises when that job is finished and another must begin. The handoff point is simple: once the rail and process are clear, a dispute needs a decision and an accepted unpaid debt needs recovery.

*** 

About the author 

Lars Holdgaard is the founder of Debitura and has 10+ years of experience across debt collection, accounts receivable, technology, and startups. Before Debitura, he co-founded and led product and technology work at startups and scaleups, building software for financial administration and receivables management. Lars studied at the IT University of Copenhagen and the Technical University of Denmark. 

*** 

This article has been published on our website with permission.

*** 

If you found this article helpful and would like to read similar articles, please subscribe to our newsletter.