E-Invoice Finder
Menu
CountriesCompare softwareDeadlinesGuidesCheckerCheck obligation
ENFRDEPLNL
France · post-launch troubleshooting

French e-invoice not received: an evidence-first recovery guide

Trace a missing French supplier e-invoice across the sender, PA, annuaire, AP and ERP, then recover it once without creating a duplicate.

Quick verdict:
  • Pause resends, credits and manual posting until the trace has one owner.
  • Ask for one exportable trail linking the business reference to both platform hand-offs.
  • Release the payable only after every surviving copy reconciles to one ledger outcome.
Get an independent France readiness reviewOfficial sources
Last checked: 5 September 2026Based on official sourcesClear summaryBusiness guidance, not legal advice
Official sources prioritized
Last-checked dates visible
Free checker, no signup required

What you need to know

Guide

1. Confirm that this transaction belongs on the regulated receiving path

Start with scope, not the inbox. Service-Public states that the French reform has applied since 1 September 2026: businesses within scope must be capable of receiving electronic invoices, while large enterprises and ETIs begin issuing and e-reporting from that date; the issuing and e-reporting start for SMEs and micro-enterprises follows in 2027. That timetable means a buyer may already have a regulated receiving obligation even when a smaller supplier is not yet required to issue under the new timetable. Record the supplier’s category and the reason it used the regulated channel, but do not infer delivery merely from the calendar. Verify the actual transaction and both legal entities. The central e-invoicing path concerns domestic B2B supplies between VAT-liable businesses established in France. B2C transactions and international flows are treated differently and may belong in e-reporting rather than this receiving investigation. Confirm the contracting supplier, invoicing supplier, buyer legal entity, establishment concerned, VAT treatment, invoice date and the system in which the purchase was ordered. A shared trading name or group name is not enough: compare the supplier and buyer SIREN, the relevant SIRET where establishment-level routing is used, and any reasoned electronic address carried for the recipient. Then establish what is alleged to exist. Ask whether the supplier created a structured or hybrid electronic invoice and submitted it through a plateforme agréée (PA), rather than merely emailing a PDF or making a portal image available. DGFiP explains that affected businesses use an approved platform to send and receive invoices and required data. A compatible software product cannot perform the regulated PA role by itself unless it is registered as a PA. An email attachment can be useful as a readable continuity copy, but it is not evidence that the regulated invoice travelled through the required route. If the flow is out of scope, move it to the appropriate contractual and tax process; if it is in scope, continue with one trace of the original document.

Guide

2. First 15 minutes: contain duplicate risk and open one trace record

Assign one incident owner and create one trace record before anyone retries anything. Temporarily stop ad hoc supplier resends, replacement invoice numbers, credit notes, manual AP posting and supplier-master edits for this document. Also ask AP staff not to mark it rejected or refused simply to make a queue disappear. These actions may be appropriate later, but taking them before the failure point is known can create two valid-looking records, break the audit trail or communicate the wrong business outcome to the supplier. Containment is document-specific; it should not freeze unrelated invoices. Capture the minimum identifiers in a single case: supplier invoice number and issue date; gross amount and currency; supplier and buyer legal names; their SIREN and relevant SIRET; purchase order or contract reference if available; intended recipient address, including the EN 16931 buyer electronic address (BT-49) or another reasoned address when used; supplier source-system document ID; sender-PA submission or correlation ID; claimed submission timestamp with time zone; file format; and every status label with its timestamp and originating system. These are tracing controls, not a claim that every item is a universal statutory invoice field. Preserve screenshots as supporting context, but request machine-exportable records or event logs where possible because screenshots are hard to correlate and may omit timestamps or identifiers. Use a simple naming rule for evidence, such as case number, stage, timestamp and source. Record who supplied each item and whether it is an original export, a copy or a verbal assertion. Search AP and the ERP by several stable attributes—invoice number, supplier identity, amount, date and platform identifier—before deciding the document is absent. Variations in punctuation, leading zeros, supplier-site records or converted formats can defeat a single-field search. The first-quarter-hour objective is not to diagnose everything; it is to prevent uncontrolled recovery and create enough identity continuity to follow one invoice across systems.

Guide

3. Build an evidence chain and follow the first broken hand-off

Trace forward from creation and backward from the buyer’s ledger. Do not jump directly from “not in ERP” to “supplier must resend.” At each boundary, require an outbound event from the upstream system and a correlated inbound event from the downstream system. The first boundary with positive upstream evidence but no matching downstream evidence defines the branch to investigate. If neither side has reliable evidence, keep the outcome “unproven” rather than assigning blame. | Stage | Evidence to obtain | Decision rule | |---|---|---| | Supplier source | Original document ID, invoice number, generated file, creation and release events | No release event means no demonstrated transmission | | Sender PA | Submission acknowledgement, validation result, PA trace ID, routing choice and outbound event | Acceptance without an outbound event remains sender-side or sender-PA work | | Annuaire route | Recipient legal identifier, reasoned address, PA endpoint selected and dated lookup evidence | A mismatch sends the case to routing correction, not AP import | | Recipient PA | Correlated receipt event, integrity or format checks, lifecycle message and delivery-to-client event | Receipt here but no client delivery moves the trace downstream | | AP workflow | Connector intake, queue or quarantine entry, duplicate decision and workflow status | A present item is an ingestion or workflow case, not non-delivery | | ERP ledger | Posting attempt, supplier-account match, document number and duplicate check | A posted or parked record changes recovery into reconciliation | Interpret labels only with the platform’s own definition and event source. “Submitted,” “sent,” “delivered,” “received,” “rejected” and “refused” may describe different technical or business boundaries, and not every product uses identical wording or codes. A technical rejection can indicate that the document or transmission failed a control before usable delivery. A refusal is generally a business lifecycle action and should not be manufactured to represent a missing connector event. FNFE-MPE professional guidance recommends careful lifecycle-status use and highlights CDAR messages and AFNOR XP Z12-012; treat that as operational guidance, not legislation. The useful result is a timestamped chain of correlated evidence, not a green icon.

Guide

4. Sender source and sender-PA branch: prove what “sent” means

If the supplier source has no release event, the likely break is before PA submission. Check approval workflow, batch selection, interface errors, credentials or permissions, and whether the invoice remained in draft, scheduled or failed status. Ask the supplier for an export showing the source document ID, release timestamp and exact destination interface. A generated Factur-X, UBL or CII file on a local drive proves creation, not submission. Likewise, an emailed PDF, successful print job or “send” button click does not establish that a PA accepted and routed the regulated invoice. If the source shows release, ask the sender PA for evidence tied to the same invoice: submission acknowledgement; PA trace or correlation ID; file name and format; validation result; timestamped routing decision; recipient identifiers and address used; outbound event; and any downstream acknowledgement or error. A hash or immutable object reference can strengthen identity continuity when available, but do not make a particular technical mechanism a universal requirement. Ask for the event export or support transcript rather than a cropped dashboard image. The phrase “sent successfully” is ambiguous until the PA states which boundary succeeded—upload, validation, routing selection, forwarding or recipient-PA acknowledgement. Branch on the evidence. No PA acknowledgement means investigate the supplier-to-PA connector or submission. A PA acknowledgement followed by validation failure means correct the identified document or format defect under controlled change. Acceptance with no routing or outbound record remains with the sender PA. An outbound event with a recipient-PA error requires both PAs to correlate their identifiers and timestamps. Do not ask for a new invoice number simply to trigger another transmission, and do not prescribe a credit note unless the underlying commercial or accounting facts call for one. Preserve the original payload and error, because overwriting the failed attempt removes the comparison needed to show what was fixed.

Guide

5. Annuaire, legal entity and recipient-address branch

Routing evidence must connect the intended buyer to the endpoint actually selected. Compare the buyer SIREN with the contracted legal entity, then assess the SIRET when the organisation routes by establishment. Under EN 16931, BT-49 identifies the buyer electronic address; BT-34 identifies the seller electronic address. Compare the reasoned receiving address used on the invoice with the address expected by the buyer and exposed through the annuaire. A correct group name with the wrong legal entity, an obsolete establishment, a transposed identifier or a valid but unintended department address can send the invoice away from the AP team that is searching for it. Request two views from the sender PA: the directory lookup or routing evidence at the time of transmission, and the route visible now. Request the buyer’s corresponding PA connection and address configuration, including effective dates and ownership of each address. This comparison distinguishes a bad invoice address, stale sender-side directory data, buyer configuration drift and an endpoint-selection defect. Do not invent or promise a universal directory propagation interval. If evidence differs between platforms, escalate with the exact SIREN/SIRET, address, timestamps and PA correlation IDs so the parties can reconcile their records. A buyer without an active, correctly connected receiving route after the applicable start date has a readiness problem, but that conclusion still needs configuration evidence. It does not make a continuity PDF the regulated invoice or prove that every attempted delivery failed for the same reason. Correct the authoritative buyer configuration first, verify that both sides resolve the intended route, and decide how the original invoice will be replayed only after the route is stable. Preserve the before-and-after directory evidence. For decentralised buyers, document which establishment or service owns each reasoned address and where unmatched invoices should land; otherwise a technically delivered document may remain operationally invisible. FNFE-MPE’s checklist is useful professional guidance on reasoned addresses, PA connection and directory synchronisation, while the official DGFiP material remains the source for the regulated platform framework.

Guide

6. Recipient PA to AP and ERP: inspect the hidden middle

When the recipient PA can prove receipt, stop describing the case as supplier non-delivery. Trace the PA’s integrity and format checks, any conversion, the client-delivery event, connector acknowledgement and the first AP-system event. DGFiP notes that a PA may convert an invoice into a format suited to its client while preserving integrity, authenticity, readability and completeness. Compare identifiers before and after conversion so a changed file name or envelope does not break correlation. Confirm that the buyer’s stack supports its agreed core formats, commonly Factur-X, UBL and CII, without assuming that every implementation accepts every optional profile or extension. Inspect connector queues, retry states, dead-letter or error queues, scheduled import jobs and API responses. Then check permissions and tenancy: the invoice may be visible to the PA administrator but hidden from the AP team because it belongs to another legal entity, establishment, role or workbasket. Search quarantine for malware scans, schema or business-rule validation, supplier-master mismatch and missing purchase-order routing. Record the exact rule and input that triggered quarantine; “invalid invoice” is too vague for a safe correction. Finally, examine AP and ERP controls. Look for supplier-site mapping errors, leading-zero normalisation, tax or currency validation, closed accounting periods, parked documents, workflow reassignment and failed attachments. Search the duplicate engine using more than invoice number alone, because punctuation or format conversion may alter presentation. Equally, do not override a duplicate warning merely because the user cannot see the first record: prove whether a hidden, parked or partially posted object already exists. If the PA has a client-delivery acknowledgement but AP has no intake event, the connector boundary owns the next action. If AP accepted the item but ERP did not, preserve the AP record and repair or replay only the failed downstream step.

Guide

7. Recover once, communicate precisely and reconcile the outcome

Choose recovery only after identifying the failed boundary. Prefer replay from the authoritative failed queue or PA event when that preserves the original business document and correlation. If a routing configuration was wrong, correct and verify the route before authorising a controlled retransmission of the original. If an AP-to-ERP import failed, replay that connector step rather than asking the supplier to issue again. If a document defect genuinely requires supplier correction, agree the accounting treatment with qualified owners and retain both the original error and corrected evidence. The objective is one economically valid invoice in the buyer’s process, not merely one more successful transport event. Use a written recovery instruction naming the invoice, authorised operator, exact step to replay, expected correlation behaviour and stop condition. Tell the supplier what has been proven, what remains unproven and whether any action is requested. Avoid casual instructions such as “resend it,” “change the invoice number” or “raise a credit and new invoice”; each can create duplicate liability or an inaccurate commercial record. A readable copy may support operational review, but label it as a copy and prevent it from entering a separate manual posting route. It does not create a legal safe harbour. After recovery, reconcile the recipient-PA event, AP intake, ERP posting or parking result and lifecycle communication. Run duplicate checks against the original identifiers, amount, supplier and any alternate transmission references. Close the incident only when the accountable AP owner can locate the invoice, the ledger state is known, parallel copies are contained and the supplier receives an accurate outcome. Preserve the trace according to applicable company, tax and contractual retention rules; this guide does not invent a special statutory trace period. Nor should anyone assume that a missing invoice automatically resets, suspends or extends a payment deadline. Payment consequences depend on the facts, contract and law, so unresolved tax, contractual or late-payment questions need current-source professional review.

Guide

8. Escalation and evidence-based PA or software review

Escalate with a bounded evidence pack, not a narrative alone. Include the case identifiers, a one-page event timeline, original document reference, both PA correlation IDs where available, sender and recipient routing evidence, relevant payload or validation metadata, queue exports, screenshots as secondary support, actions already taken and the precise missing hand-off. State the requested outcome—for example, locate the recipient acknowledgement, explain an endpoint choice, export a dead-letter entry or confirm whether a replay preserves document identity. Do not set an invented statutory trace SLA; use contractual support targets and incident severity agreed with the providers. Repeated inability to produce this evidence is a capability signal. Review the PA and software stack against observable criteria: end-to-end correlation across API, PA and client events; time-stamped directory lookup evidence; clear separation of technical validation, delivery and business lifecycle statuses; downloadable queue and error exports; support for agreed Factur-X, UBL and CII profiles; visible conversion lineage; role and legal-entity diagnostics; quarantine reason detail; duplicate controls; controlled replay; reconciliation reporting; and support that can coordinate across another PA. Check how CDAR messages and applicable AFNOR XP Z12-012 guidance are implemented, but verify product-specific behaviour rather than assuming universal labels. Decision criteria should reflect incident evidence and operating needs. A platform that resolves the fault quickly but cannot export proof may still create audit and support cost. Software with strong dashboards but weak correlation to ERP postings leaves the most important boundary opaque. Conversely, one isolated configuration mistake does not by itself justify replacement if detection, correction and prevention are strong. Use an independent readiness and incident assessment to separate configuration, process, integration and provider gaps, then compare required capabilities, service commitments, migration risk and total operating cost. The commercial question is whether the stack can demonstrate and reconcile invoice movement reliably—not which named vendor tops a generic ranking.

Guide

9. Fictional example: three missing invoices, three different causes

Consider Atelier Lumière SA, a fictional French buyer with two establishments and one central AP team. On 4 September, three suppliers report invoices as sent, yet none appears in the ERP. AP initially proposes asking all three suppliers for PDFs and fresh invoice numbers. The incident owner stops that plan, opens separate trace records and searches the PA, AP workbaskets, quarantine and ERP by supplier, amount, invoice number and correlation ID. The same symptom produces three different evidence chains. Invoice A was created and accepted by the sender PA, whose event export shows routing to an old establishment SIRET and a reasoned address formerly used by a regional office. The recipient PA received it under that legal-entity workbasket, but central AP lacked permission to see it. The mistakes were treating the trading name as sufficient and searching only the central inbox. Decision criterion: both PAs had matching receipt evidence, so no supplier resend was needed. The buyer updates address ownership, grants controlled visibility, moves the original through the approved workflow and preserves the dated annuaire evidence. Invoice B shows a source release event but no sender-PA acknowledgement. The supplier’s integration log reveals that its batch credential had lost submission permission; the dashboard’s “sent” label meant only that the source export job ran. The mistakes were presenting a local success state as delivery proof and considering a credit note before a valid submission existed. Decision criterion: the first broken hand-off was source to sender PA. After permission repair, the supplier submits the original once, records the new PA correlation ID and waits for correlated recipient evidence before closing the case. Invoice C reached the recipient PA and passed format checks, but the PA-to-AP connector placed it in a dead-letter queue after a buyer-side certificate rotation. A help-desk agent had suggested changing the invoice number to bypass a suspected duplicate. The incident owner rejects that workaround because PA receipt is proven and the ERP contains no posting. Decision criterion: replay the narrowest failed step. IT repairs the connector, replays the existing queue item, verifies AP intake and ERP parking, then confirms the duplicate engine recognises the original supplier number. Atelier Lumière records three preventive actions: govern establishment addresses and access, require supplier-support evidence to distinguish export from PA acceptance, and monitor connector acknowledgements with queue export capability. Its independent review scores the stack on correlated identifiers, directory history, permissions diagnostics, replay controls, support cooperation and reconciliation—not on a vendor popularity list. The example also shows why a single “please resend” playbook is unsafe: routing, initial submission and downstream ingestion require different owners, proofs and recoveries.

Checklist

Confirm that the transaction, supplier and buyer legal entities belong on the French regulated e-invoicing path.

Assign one owner and open one trace record for the original supplier invoice.

Pause ad hoc resends, replacement numbers, credit notes and manual posting for that document.

Capture the invoice identifiers, SIREN/SIRET, intended address, amount, timestamps and available correlation IDs.

Search the recipient PA, AP queues, quarantine and ERP using several stable attributes.

Obtain sender source release evidence and the sender PA’s acknowledgement, validation and outbound events.

Compare transmission-time and current annuaire routing evidence for the intended recipient.

Locate the first hand-off with upstream proof but no correlated downstream event.

Authorise one recovery at that boundary and verify duplicate controls before release.

Reconcile PA receipt, AP intake, ERP state and supplier communication before closing the trace.

FAQ

What proof should we request from the supplier?

Ask for evidence tied to the same invoice: the supplier source document ID and release event, invoice number and date, sender-PA acknowledgement and correlation ID, validation result, timestamped recipient identifiers and address, outbound event, and any downstream acknowledgement or error. Prefer exports or logs over a dashboard screenshot. A “sent” screen may prove only that an upload or export step completed, not that the recipient PA or buyer received the invoice.

Where should the buyer search first?

Contain duplicate-prone action, then search both ends in parallel. Confirm the sender PA accepted the invoice while the buyer searches the recipient PA, all relevant legal-entity or establishment workbaskets, AP connector queues, quarantine, parked items and the ERP. Use invoice number variants, supplier identity, amount, date and platform IDs. If the recipient PA has the document, the investigation should move to access, workflow or integration rather than requesting another supplier transmission.

Is an emailed PDF enough if the regulated invoice is missing?

No assumption should be made that an emailed PDF is the regulated invoice. It may be a readable copy that helps AP identify the transaction or maintain communication, but it does not prove transmission through the PA route. Label and control any copy so it cannot create a parallel manual posting. Determine whether a structured or hybrid invoice was submitted through a PA, recover that original path and seek qualified advice where exceptional legal or tax handling is disputed.

Should the supplier resend the invoice immediately?

Usually not before the first failed boundary is known. The invoice may already be at the recipient PA, in quarantine, parked in AP or partly posted in the ERP. An uncontrolled resend can create duplicate workflow or payment risk. Correct the verified fault, choose the narrowest replay or retransmission that preserves document identity, name one authorised operator and require correlated receipt evidence. A new invoice number or credit note should follow genuine accounting facts, not be used as a transport workaround.

How do SIREN, SIRET and the annuaire affect delivery?

SIREN identifies the legal entity, while SIRET distinguishes establishments. The buyer may also use a reasoned receiving address for a service or workflow. The sender PA’s routing evidence should therefore match the contracted buyer, relevant establishment and intended address exposed through the annuaire. Compare the lookup used at transmission with current configuration. A mismatch can route a technically valid invoice to another endpoint or workbasket, but no universal directory propagation time should be assumed.

How can we distinguish no transmission, rejection, refusal and an ERP import failure?

Follow events, not labels alone. No source release or PA acknowledgement means transmission is not demonstrated. A validation or technical rejection may stop a document before usable delivery. A refusal is generally a business lifecycle decision and should not be used to describe a broken connector. Recipient-PA receipt followed by no AP intake points to client delivery or integration; AP intake followed by no ERP result points farther downstream. Confirm each platform’s definitions because wording and codes are not universal.

Does a missing invoice automatically change the payment deadline?

Do not assume that non-visibility in AP automatically resets, suspends or extends payment timing. The answer can depend on when and how the invoice was issued or made available, the evidence of receipt, contractual terms, the underlying transaction and applicable law. Preserve the timeline and avoid making unsupported promises to the supplier. Route tax, contractual and late-payment disputes to qualified advisers using current official sources and the complete transmission evidence.

When does poor traceability justify reviewing the PA or software?

Review capability when incidents repeatedly cannot be correlated, routed, exported, replayed or reconciled without manual guesswork. Assess time-stamped directory evidence, cross-system IDs, queue and quarantine exports, clear status definitions, conversion lineage, role diagnostics, duplicate prevention, controlled replay, ERP reconciliation and cross-PA support. Distinguish a correctable configuration error from a structural observability gap. An independent assessment should compare these evidence-based requirements, operating cost and migration risk rather than publish a named-vendor ranking.

Key regulations, formats and terms

FranceFrench tax administrationDGFiPimpots.gouv.frapproved platformplateforme agrééePDPFactur-XUBLCIISIRENVATe-reportingSMEmicro-enterpriseaccounting softwareEuropean CommissioneInvoicingEN 16931Directive 2014/55/EUstructured electronic invoiceVAT automationcross-border tradeMissing French supplier e-invoice troubleshooting

France — Country hub

France

Open country hub →

Use the country hub to see every related deadline, checklist, format guide and software comparison for this market.

Continue reading

Official sources

We prioritize official government and EU sources where available and keep last-checked dates visible for mandate-sensitive pages.