The customer who keeps saying the cheque is in the mail
Every time you call, the payment has supposedly just been sent. Days pass and nothing arrives, then the same line comes again.
What this scenario teaches
- How to recognise a delay tactic dressed as reassurance
- Why specifics beat accusations when a promise repeats
- How to make the next stall harder to use
- When a polished excuse signals a deeper cash problem
6 min read
The scenario
You have called twice now. Both times the customer was warm and apologetic and assured you the cheque went out — or is about to. The first time you took it at face value and waited. A week on, nothing had landed, so you called again, and got almost the same answer. The amount is not large, the relationship has been fine, and the person sounds entirely sincere. But you are now on your third week past due, and the pattern is starting to look less like a postal delay and more like a holding move.
What's really going on
'The cheque is in the mail' is the oldest stall in collections precisely because it is hard to disprove and easy to repeat. Occasionally it is true — cheques do go missing. But when the same reassurance recurs without a payment ever appearing, it is almost always a way to end an awkward call without committing to anything checkable. The customer is buying a few more days of quiet. Sometimes that is disorganisation; sometimes it is an early signal that cash is tight and yours is one of several invoices being juggled. Either way, the polite vagueness is the tell, and your job is to replace it with something specific.
Your options
You can respond in a few ways:
- Accept it again and wait. Easy, but it rewards the stall and resets the clock with nothing gained.
- Pin down the details. Ask exactly when it was posted, for how much, and to which address — specifics make a repeat much harder.
- Offer a faster method. Propose a bank transfer or card payment on the spot, which removes the postal excuse entirely.
Switching the conversation to electronic payment is usually the single most effective move, because it dissolves the very excuse being used.
Recommended approach
Stay friendly but get concrete. That's great — can you tell me the date it went out and the amount, so I can match it when it lands? And while I have you, if it's easier I can take a card payment now or send our bank details for a transfer today. This is not an accusation; it is a courteous way of making the stall unusable. If the cheque is genuinely posted, the details cost nothing. If it is not, you have offered an instant alternative and the excuse evaporates. Confirm whatever is agreed in writing the same day — the amount, the method, and the date — so there is a record. If the same vague answer keeps coming back even after you offer to take payment immediately, treat that as a meaningful signal rather than bad luck with the post. Moving customers onto fast electronic payment is one of the simplest ways to retire excuses like this for good; the Academy library covers making it easy for customers to pay.
What to avoid
Do not call the customer a liar — even when you suspect it. Accusing language turns a recoverable account into a confrontation and gives them a grievance to hide behind. Equally, do not keep accepting the same line on trust; each unquestioned repeat trains the customer that the stall works. And do not let weeks accumulate without ever offering a faster payment method — clinging to the cheque keeps the only excuse alive that the customer needs.
The lesson
- A repeated 'cheque in the mail' with no payment is a stall, not a postal problem.
- Replace vagueness with specifics: date posted, amount, and address.
- Offer an instant electronic payment to dissolve the excuse on the spot.
- Never accuse — make the stall unusable instead, and log every promise.
Frequently asked questions
What if the cheque really did get lost in the post?
Then the customer loses nothing by giving you the posting date and amount, and by stopping it and paying electronically instead. Genuine senders cooperate readily.
How many times should I accept this excuse?
Once on trust is fair. By the second repeat with no payment, switch the conversation to an immediate electronic payment rather than accepting it again.
Is offering to take payment by phone too pushy?
No — it is helpful. You are removing a barrier. Framing it as making things easier for them keeps the tone professional, not aggressive.
Real situations, the right call
When an account goes past talking, Merion recovers it — commission-only, no upfront fee.