--- title: "Missing delivery evidence: rebuilding a blocked payment file" canonical: https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/missing-delivery-evidence-blocked-payment/ lang: en alternate: https://www.billabex.com/fr/blog/preuve-livraison-absente-paiement-bloque.md updated: 2026-09-23 index: https://www.billabex.com/llms.txt --- # Missing delivery evidence: rebuilding a blocked payment file The customer's accounts payable team requests delivery evidence before releasing an invoice. Your team says the order was dispatched and resends the invoice. Nothing moves because the documents do not answer the question being asked. An invoice describes what was billed; it does not, on its own, replace the information needed to establish what the customer received and how that relates to the charge. Start by establishing what is actually missing. Can the customer not find a document in its process, or is receipt of the goods disputed? Did the shipment reach the right site but the wrong department? These situations require different investigations. Grouping them under “missing document” makes it difficult to assign the next action to the person who can genuinely resolve it. ## Define the missing evidence before searching everywhere Ask for the blocked invoice reference, the delivery concerned and the document the customer expects. It might be a signed delivery note, receipt recorded in its system or operational approval. Establish whether the issue concerns the document's absence, its contents or the identity of the person who received the goods. A general request for supporting evidence leaves too many possible interpretations for an efficient response. France's Observatory of Payment Terms recommends defining checking and acceptance arrangements and identifying validation contacts on both sides. That explains why accounts payable alone cannot always resolve the blockage: confirmation may sit with a warehouse or the user of the service. The objective is to find the person able to establish the relevant fact. [Good-practice guide, page 8](https://www.banque-france.fr/system/files/2024-11/Guide_Bonnes_pratiques_ODP_V6.pdf). Then check the original commercial document. If the [purchase order is missing](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/missing-purchase-order-blocked-invoice/), two separate obstacles may exist: identifying what was ordered and establishing what was delivered. They can be investigated in one exchange, but should remain distinct in the case record. Finding a purchase order does not automatically demonstrate that the corresponding goods or services were actually supplied to the customer. ## Connect the order, dispatch and receipt Begin by linking the references. One invoice can combine several shipments, while a shipment may contain goods from multiple orders. Identify the order, picking, parcel or delivery numbers used in your systems. Verify the customer entity and destination site. A document naming another subsidiary does not become relevant merely because both entities operate under the same brand or share the same purchasing contact. Gather the available material: original delivery record, transport tracking, packing list, recipient email, operational system confirmation and any reservations. Record what each item actually establishes. A carrier collection entry documents dispatch; a handover confirmation records arrival according to its contents. It does not necessarily establish the detailed quantity or condition of every item. The strength of the package comes from the connections between its elements rather than the number of attachments. French Civil Code article 1358 allows evidence through different means unless the law provides otherwise. That supports continuing the search beyond one missing form while checking the rules and contractual arrangements applicable to the case. A collection of indications still needs assessment; it does not automatically become sufficient evidence simply because it is extensive or was assembled by the supplier. [Article 1358](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032042316). ## Preserve originals and label any reconstruction Retrieve documents from their source: your logistics team, the carrier or the customer. Keep the received files and references connecting them to the delivery. If you prepare a summary today, date it today and identify the material used. Do not recreate an old delivery note as though it had been signed at handover, and do not fill in a signature that was never obtained. For electronic writing, French Civil Code article 1366 connects evidential force with identifying its author and maintaining integrity in creation and retention. Those conditions support preserving the original material and its context. A cropped screenshot may help explain an investigation without necessarily replacing the complete record from which it came or proving everything the full document would establish. [Article 1366](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032042461). Where records conflict, raise that conflict with the case owner. A different date, amended quantity or unreadable reservation needs verification. Our guide to [decisions across operations, finance and sales](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/invoice-dispute-decision-owner/) separates responsibilities so the person requesting payment does not independently decide what should count as delivered or accepted. The commercial urgency of a receivable should not determine the factual conclusion drawn from incomplete evidence. ## Reconcile the quantities in a simulated example Consider a hypothetical invoice for **120 units at €80 before VAT**, totalling €9,600 before VAT. The file lists three deliveries: A for 50 units, B for 40 and C for 30. Documents for A and B specify quantities received. For C, the material recovered so far contains only a delivered tracking status, without a detailed document identifying the contents or recipient. | Simulated delivery | Stated quantity | Detailed evidence position | | ------------------ | --------------: | ---------------------------------- | | A | 50 | Document available | | B | 40 | Document available | | C | 30 | Document still being sought | | Total invoiced | 120 | Two of three deliveries documented | The quantities documented in the table represent 90 / 120, or **75%** of the total. The 30 units still requiring verification correspond to €2,400 before VAT. That amount measures the portion of the documentary file needing clarification; it is neither a discount to grant nor an automatically unenforceable balance. The invoiced amount does not change simply because your search has not yet recovered a file. Suppose document C is subsequently found and confirms 30 units. The quantity trail then covers all 120 units. If the customer separately reports five defective items, their value of 5 × €80 = €400 before VAT raises a different question about conformity. Documented delivery does not resolve that complaint, and €400 should not be deducted without appropriate treatment. Our guide to [a disputed invoice line](https://www.billabex.com/en/blog/disputed-invoice-line-partial-payment/) explains how to delimit that separate issue. ## Send a package that supports a decision Provide a summary linking each document to the invoice: reference, delivery, date, quantity covered and point clarified. Give files understandable names without changing their contents. State what remains unresolved. The recipient should be able to locate useful evidence without independently comparing several almost identical attachments or searching for an order reference buried in a lengthy chain of forwarded commercial messages and internal discussions. Then ask for the required decision: “Do these records allow you to confirm receipt for the invoice concerned? If another check is needed, could you identify it and its owner?” The wording distinguishes submission from acceptance. A technical acknowledgement does not prove operational validation or inclusion in a payment run. Record the reply in terms of what it actually confirms instead of selecting the most convenient status. If the document remains unavailable, agree on an appropriate route to clarification: confirmation from receiving staff, a joint quantity check or assessment of the other evidence. Do not assert that the customer must accept any replacement you provide. Where a European transaction is governed by another country's law, the evidential position must be assessed within that framework, with qualified advice where the disagreement remains unresolved. ## Close the documentary blocker and check the next stage When receipt is confirmed, record its source and validation date. Establish what remains in the payment process: accounting approval, a settlement date or another obstacle already identified. Do not leave the invoice labelled as missing evidence once the document has been recognised. Equally, do not mark it as paid simply because its administrative package is now complete and ready for further processing. [Billabex's customer view](https://www.billabex.com/en/product/customer-view-360/) brings invoices and conversations together to retain those steps in context. The file's value comes from connecting facts with supporting records: what was ordered, what is documented as received and what remains disputed. That connection allows a precise payment request to resume, with an explanation both your team and the customer can verify without confusing recovered paperwork with a resolved product complaint or an actual bank receipt. ## Sources - Observatory of Payment Terms, November 2024, page 8: [service and delivery validation](https://www.banque-france.fr/system/files/2024-11/Guide_Bonnes_pratiques_ODP_V6.pdf). - French Civil Code, article 1358, in force since 1 October 2016: [admissibility of evidence](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032042316). - French Civil Code, article 1366, in force since 1 October 2016: [electronic writing and integrity](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032042461).