Hello:
When we go to build a batch in the "Select Payables Checks" screen
(GP8.00g73), the checks get created, but there are also a number of checks
getting created with a value of $0. We do not have any invoices in the
system for $0, so we are just wondering what we can do to stop this from
happening. Every time we have to go through and manually delete 20-30 $0
value checks in order for the batch to post.
Is there any way to find out why these checks are getting generated?
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
Utf
|
11/16/2009 5:00:01 PM |
|
This happens because there were previously invoices that were paid by
manual payment, so the system creates a zero dollar check (which will
not actually print a check) so that a remittance is generated (so you
will get the print remittance window).
Best thing is to let them run through, and print the remittances if
needed (or skip that step and choose to post).
Take care,
Christina
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
turtlesoup00
|
11/19/2009 12:57:50 AM
|
|
Another alternative is to load the PSTL dictionary.
There is a 'PM Minimum Check' facility that can be used within any company.
This is a 'free' option, so can be used when the 'demo' key is entered.
Once the PSTL is loaded, open the Select Check window. From the Additional
menu bar set a minimum check amount of at least one cent.
The PSTL (Professional Services Tools Library) dictionary will need to be
loaded onto all workstations. The minimum check amount is recorded in the
DEX.INI, not within the database.
------
Robert
<turtlesoup00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b47ae2f7-23a2-443e-8ade-6edbfe91f1ea@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> This happens because there were previously invoices that were paid by
> manual payment, so the system creates a zero dollar check (which will
> not actually print a check) so that a remittance is generated (so you
> will get the print remittance window).
>
> Best thing is to let them run through, and print the remittances if
> needed (or skip that step and choose to post).
> Take care,
> Christina
>
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
Reply
|
Robert
|
12/21/2009 8:45:51 AM
|
|