Stopping the same supplier being created twice
How a school stops one supplier being set up twice in its supplier list, why duplicates lead to wrong payments, and the warning signs to review.
By Achekam · · 4 min read · For Education businesses in South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya
Look through the supplier list of almost any school that has been running for a few years and you will find the same company more than once. "ABC Stationers", "A.B.C. Stationers (Pty) Ltd" and "ABC Stationery – do not use" all point to the same business. Each was created by a different person, in a different year, in a hurry to pay an invoice.
It looks like untidiness. In practice, duplicate supplier records are one of the easiest ways for a school to pay an invoice twice, to pay the right supplier into the wrong account, or to miss a supplier being paid far more than anyone realised. This article explains how duplicates creep in, what Achekam checks, and the routine that keeps the list clean.
How duplicates creep in
Schools are especially prone to duplicate suppliers, for ordinary reasons:
- Many buyers. The sports department, the kitchen, the boarding house and the maintenance team all buy, and each may add the suppliers it uses.
- Turnover of staff. A new bursar or administrator does not know the old names and creates a fresh record.
- Name changes. A supplier changes its trading name, registers as a company, or is bought by a group.
- Seasonal suppliers. Uniform suppliers, exam-paper printers and tour operators appear once a year, long enough for everyone to forget the existing record.
None of this needs bad intent. But once there are two records, invoices, payments and history are split between them, and nobody sees the whole picture.
Checks by name and VAT number
In Achekam, a business keeps one supplier list, and quotations, orders and bills all pick their supplier from it. That single list is the first defence: there is no separate supplier file for purchasing and another for payments.
When a supplier is added, Achekam checks the list for duplicates by name or VAT number. A check by name catches the obvious repeat; a check by VAT number catches the supplier entered under a slightly different name.
There is a limit for Nigerian and Kenyan schools. A supplier's VAT number must currently be in the South African format, so Nigerian and Kenyan VAT numbers are refused. Schools in those countries will usually leave the field empty, which means the duplicate check can only compare names. Agree a naming rule (registered name exactly as on the supplier's tax registration, no abbreviations) so that the name check has a fair chance.
How duplicate records lead to paying the wrong account
The danger is not the duplicate itself but what it allows.
Paying twice. An invoice entered against one record and again, weeks later, against the other is less likely to be noticed than a repeat on the same record. Achekam's matched-invoice posting does use the supplier's invoice number to stop the same invoice being posted twice, so keep that safeguard working by always entering the supplier's own invoice number exactly as printed, and by keeping each supplier to one record.
Paying the wrong account. A duplicate is a convenient place for a changed bank account to hide. If someone creates "ABC Stationers (new)" with different bank details, payments start flowing to that account while the original record looks untouched. ICAEW sets out the warning signs of fake supplier invoices, from mismatches with purchase orders and delivery notes to the importance of verifying bank-detail changes, in its guide on how to identify and deal with fake invoices.
Missing the total. Spend split across two records hides how much the school really pays one supplier, which matters when a governing body asks whether a contract should have gone to tender.
Warning patterns worth reviewing
Some patterns deserve a second look whenever they appear:
- two suppliers with the same bank account;
- a supplier whose bank account matches an employee's;
- competing quotes from suppliers sharing a phone number, e-mail domain or address;
- a new supplier with a name very close to an existing one;
- a long-dormant supplier record that suddenly receives a payment.
Achekam's procurement integrity review, sold as its own add-on, raises questions about warning patterns of exactly this kind, such as competing quotes sharing contact or bank details, or a supplier being paid into an employee's bank account. It raises questions; a person investigates and decides. One part of it, the check for purchases split to stay under a threshold, does nothing until a threshold is set, which the app cannot currently do. How a review like this works in practice is described in a procurement integrity review.
Who may add suppliers
Good practice is to keep the power to create suppliers narrow:
- Limit supplier creation to one or two people in the finance office.
- Ask departments to request new suppliers on a short form, with the supplier's registration details and a bank confirmation letter.
- Check the list for an existing record before creating anything.
- Keep the person who creates suppliers apart from the person who approves payments where staff numbers allow.
- Each term, review the suppliers added and, with your accountant's help, decide which record survives for any duplicate and stop using the others.
Bills themselves have a further safeguard: a bill entered without a purchase order waits for approval before it posts, which gives the approver a moment to ask "do we already know this supplier?" Where orders exist, matching the invoice to the order and delivery helps too, as explained in three-way matching.
Start with the list itself. Sort it by name this week, mark every suspected duplicate, and decide which record survives for each.
General guidance only, not advice on your own circumstances. Tax and payroll rules change: check the current position with the authority or your adviser.
