Bank statement import ignores Payee column

Good day Patch.
Thank you for the lengthy feedback. I do understand completely.
I think my statement in the beginning was misunderstood. The moderator seems to not understand that all I need, and for that matter other users who participate in this conversation, is for “Payee other” to also appear on a custom report when the Payee field is selected. The “suppliers and customer” appear there but not “other”, since the change to 3 categories of Payees were made. It downloaded from the bank import and it is on the system. Can it just be link to appear on the report. Since it was there before I cannot imagine that it cannot be linked again. That is all we are asking for.

I will wade in here at my own peril.

@Solnce Bank Rules currently allows you to select COA and payee/payer through customer, supplier or other. Then by using a part of the description text from the bank to filter transactions relevant for that rule. I can’t speak for everyone but in most transactions this alone is sufficient to import bank statements in Manager and allocate it to the correct account and payee/payer.

So with the aid of bank rules, you only have to add supplier, customer or other payee once in bank rules and it will be applied on subsequent imports.

It has been noted that there are occasions when a transaction needs to be split into two or more COA. The developer has recognised this and is intending to implement something to address this.

This should address virtually all requirements at bank import stage as far as I am aware!

I don’t think that anyone is in disagreement at this point. I think the confusion is coming in from the fact your post appeared to be about an issue with bank imports, when in reality your issue is about why payee/payers are not showing in customer and supplier statements when they used to in the past before the introduction of customer, supplier and other.

Change the title of your topic to be payee/payer not showing in reports such as customer reports. This would help to remove confusion as to what the problem is because a lot of people are focusing on bank imports and bank rules which is actually nothing to do with the problem.

I think that this first question is a very fair question. Before the introduction of customer, supplier and other, these payees/payers according to various posters, showed up on the various reports in question such as customer report. So the question is, why has this functionality been removed? Can the developer bring back this lost functionality?

The second question. If say the customer report now only shows transactions in accounts receivable/payable then what purpose does setting the customer on the payments/receipts form achieve if they don’t show up in any reports - particularly when they used to. Again I think that this is a very good question. The whole point of linking customers and suppliers to payments and receipts was to create a way to gain more information on customers and suppliers via reports if everything was linked. But adding the payee/payer as a customer or supplier in payments and receipts doesn’t appear to link with anything if reports are only showing transactions linked to accounts receivable/payable.

I do agree with @Solnce and @Louis_Kriel that their request has not been understood. This is not about bank rules or bank import. This is about information in the payee/payer field that used to show on various reports before the introduction of customer, supplier and other and now apparently no longer do. Could you answer the two questions asked.

I am not clear why the posters are not using accounts receivable and payable if they are using suppliers and customers, but that is a whole different discussion. They clearly used to be able to see this information on reports before the customer, supplier and other change and just want this functionality re-instated.

Thank you Dalacor. I appreciate your support. You hit the nail on the head. That is all I want.
I am using the program for a small distribution company who operates in a remote rural area. They only have one permanent Supplier. The rest of their business is conducted in cash and they will for example buy spares once off from different people and re-fuel at various filling stations and pass through toll gates. It is not all the time the same suppliers. To create a supplier for each and every person they buy from would be a waste of time as most of these suppliers is a once off.

My understanding is Manager is moving towards indexed contacts. By which I mean the contact has a unique database reference (eg GUID) as applies for customer, supplier, employees etc entered in the appropriate tab.

The advantage of doing so is database relationships can then be displayed. Achieving these benefits required both data code (entry method) and the subsequent reports to be written/ enhanced to use the information. For example customer or supplier can now be entered on cash sales / purchases. Customer / supplier reports currently only use accounts receivable / accounts payable entries (invoiced) however it is planned also to include cash transactions. (Btw the other thing supplier / customer on cash sales does is unambiguous define the sales vs purchase components of tax codes).

These advantages can build provided Manager structures it’s data entry. It will make Manager a far more powerful application in the longer term which is why I support the approach.

Achieving this progress involves encouraging users to enter data in a manner which will benefit all users.

As for my contact I only ever interact with once so there is no need to enter them as an entity in Manager. If that’s really the case then there’s also no need from Manager to prominently display or report on them.

I will concur with you @Patch. Your point struck me as well. I do not understand the value of having reports about suppliers that you only use once. If you are not going to use them again, I do not see any benefit collecting any information about them.

But I have never run my business on a cash basis and I use the same suppliers and customers again and again. So my business model is very different from a cash based business. In addition, I never use these reports, so I did not concern myself with this point, but focused more on clarifying what I thought was the confusion surrounding this topic.

Good to hear that Customer and Supplier reports will include cash transactions because you could have the same suppliers and customers but don’t use invoices. The need to have reports on these suppliers and customers remain the same as business using invoicing system instead of cash. So their request will be addressed at some point in the future.

Yes of course. I forgot the whole point of having customers and suppliers on the payments/receipts was to link the correct tax code to the transaction in cases where Manager was not correctly allocating a transaction as a purchase or sale. So that is a very good reason why the customers/suppliers was included in payments/receipts.

My explanations of the program to someone else do not indicate lack of understanding of your complaints. They indicate my understanding of the program. You may notice I have written nothing in this thread about your personal complaints. I only engaged in discussion with the original poster. You were nowhere in evidence until you decided to criticize my lack of understanding. I still have said nothing about your personal complaints concerning the program.

Yes, I am aware of that, but my point is a little bit elsewhere. Manager’s bank rules are very basic and in my situation these can contribute to -10% transactions at the most, all other needs to be processed manually. You can’t split transaction, you can’t apply different taxation, you can’t apply multiple filters to transactions (name is AND/OR amount is NOT <>= etc.). For example, sometimes I buy Milk from amazon, sometimes stationery sometimes concrete, all these will be posted to the different accounts, but all these comes from Amazon, so no reason to not to apply the name. So more sophisticated bank rules would be very welcomed. Or bulk transaction processing or even both. In fact those two (rules or bulk processing) can compensate each other, but the more job you’ll do during import, the less you’ll need to do later.

What I don’t like about the new process is that role must be applied during bank statement import/transaction processing, this is not the transactions role, but customers/suppliers, so why it has to be set up on transactions level? This is customer/supplier process and shouldn’t be mixed with other processes in other words, role should be already assigned/determined or should be processed elsewhere, but not on the transactions level. For example, I set up ‘Amazon’ in suppliers tab, that should already determine its role, so no any additional processing should not be required. On bank rule (or elsewhere) when I choose Name ‘Amazon’, that should already mean that it is supplier, but if I need to allocate funds to ‘Amazon’, which is customer, then I’ll be required to set up new ‘Amazon’ under Customers tab what will immediately determine its Customer role. Then there will be two amazons ‘Amazon (suppl.)’ and ‘Amazon (cust.)’ and will be eliminated need to allocate role on each transaction. Saves time and less mistakes.

So that’s my point about bank rules, roles and bulk processing.

As for the title, initially I though that this is pure bug when the name field is being omitted during import, which is kind a half of true - it is not bug, but not the feature either.

Thanks everyone for discussion and sharing thoughts.

@Solnce, you overlook situations where money might be received from a supplier, such a refund for defective goods, or payments might be made to a customer because of accidental overpayment against a sales invoice.

1 Like