{
  "id": 10442212,
  "title": "We Had Four Records for One Supplier and Paid Its Invoice Twice",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/28/we-had-four-records-for-one-supplier-and-paid-its-invoice-twice",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-09-28T12:40:26.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dev.to",
    "slug": "dev-to",
    "url": "https://dev.to/serguey_shinder_4ab9b87b1/we-had-four-records-for-one-supplier-and-paid-its-invoice-twice-53cg"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In March, the company made two payments of thirty eight thousand pounds to a haulage subcontractor, despite having paid the same invoice in January. The finance system treated these as separate transactions, treating the supplier as two different entities. The subcontractor was identified four different ways within the system - by its trading name, as Limited, Ltd, and as a depot it had acquired in 2022.\n\nThe duplicate invoice check, designed to flag such occurrences, worked as intended by identifying the same invoice number from the same supplier. However, the payment process did not account for the various ways the supplier was recorded, resulting in the duplicate payments.\n\nThe issue went unnoticed because the payment check only looked for the same invoice number from the same supplier, not the specific name or legal status of the supplier. This discrepancy went unnoticed until the subcontractor pointed it out. The existing controls assumed that one record meant one company, thus failing to prevent the double payment.\n\nThe mistake had two visible impacts - the duplicate payment and the fact that the company's spending was split across three records for the largest carrier, preventing the identification of a volume threshold breach in their contract. This oversight led to the company paying lower tier rates for an extended period.\n\nFollowing this incident, the company revamped its supplier management, matching suppliers on company registration number and tax number instead of names. The creation of new records was restricted under these conditions, and duplicate invoice checks now cover all records sharing these numbers. Moreover, supplier creation was centralized under a team of three in finance, reducing the forty-person workforce previously involved. This change led to an eighteen hundred record merge, an effort that is unlikely to be repeated if the new controls remain effective.",
  "summary": "In March we paid a haulage subcontractor thirty eight thousand pounds for an invoice we had already paid in January. They noticed before we did and sent it back, which is the kindest thing a supplier has done for us in some time. Our duplicate invoice check had done exactly what it was built to do. It looks for the same invoice number from the same supplier. The first payment went to one supplier…",
  "key_points": [
    "Company made two payments to haulage subcontractor in March",
    "Finance system treated supplier as two different entities",
    "Updated controls now match suppliers by registration number"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}