Fjordkraft
Published: Friday 2004-02-20.
When I wrote yesterday’s posting about cheating with dates in invoices, I also sent a mail to Fjordkraft’s customer service, asking a clarification. Below is the response I received — note especially that they actually admit that they not necessarily send the invoice on the same date as it is “produced”:
From: kundepost@bkk.no
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:57:36 +0100
Subject: Sak nr : 6847[ Note: The message was originally in Norwegian ]
Hello!
Your invoice is produced by us, then sent to BBS(bankenes betalingssentral), who forwards it to your Internet bank and sends a mail to you that you have received a new einvoice. The date on the mail from BBS will not be the same as the date the invoice is produced on our side or the date we sent it out from here.
Sincerely customer service
NN
The key phrase here is:
The date [...] will not be the same as the date the invoice is produced
on our side or the date we sent it out from here
.
I knew it!
This entry is referenced in: More fiddling with dates
and
Response
.
Comments
The article is older than a fortnight and has been closed for new comments.
Disclaimer: The comments are copyrighted by their respective authors. The web site owner takes no responsibility for the contents of the comments. Improper comments will be deleted.
- Datum: 2004-02-20 22.06.05 CET
- Namn: Peter Karlsson
- Sänt från: 10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.42 via 062016210158.customer.alfanett.no
Jo. Det är mest principen jag är ute efter. Och, ja, jag har skrivit om ämnet förr, men då gällde det fakturor som skickats per post, där fakturautställande företag skyllt på långsam postgång.

Jag förstår om detta är principiellt fel, men så länge man har meningsfullt lång betalningsperiod går det väl att överse om fakturadatum inte stämmer med leveransdatum. I de fall som betalningsperioden är mindre än två veckor spelar det förstås större roll när man ska börja räkna. Det har väl tagits upp i bloggen tidigare förresten.