In my previous post, I outlined that the department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had proposed a complaints scheme, and the appointment of a Small Business Commissioner (SBC) over the scheme. The intention of the scheme was to give a helping hand to suppliers, where there is repeated late payment from their large business customers.

According to a recent report from BEIS, the date set for the implementation of the scheme is 1 October 2017.

The Cabinet Office website indicates that the final interviews for the appointment of the SBC took place in July 2017, and the announcement of the successful candidate is to be confirmed.

Draft regulations (SBC Regulations), also published recently, provide details of the requirements for presenting a complaint and the powers of the SBC.

The regulations state that the SBC will dismiss a complaint where the person making the complaint “has not communicated the substance of the complaint to the person against whom the complaint is made; and give that person a reasonable opportunity to deal with it”.

As with most legislation there is an exception, and this is “there is sufficient information to suggest that communicating it to the person against whom it is made would have a significant detrimental effect on the commercial interests of the person making it”.

How to make a complaint is also outlined in the regulations, and there is detailed guidance on the form and content, which must be in writing to the SBC and contain the following:

• • the date on which the complaint relates took place or started

• • whether the complaint relates to a payment or price

• • whether the complaint concerns any matters that are currently the subject of legal or adjudication proceedings

A complainant has 12 months from the date on which the complaint relates took place or started to present the complaint to the SBC, and this can be sent by email or in the post. The SBC has the discretion to extend the 12 months, where it is fair and reasonable. If the complaint is dismissed or not entertained under the scheme, the SBC must notify the complainant in writing.

In parts 1 and 2, I questioned whether the late payment culture would be resolved by the appointment of the SBC and the implementation of this scheme. However, having now read through the draft regulations, it appears to me that there are detailed factors that the SBC must consider when deciding whether to name and shame the respondent. These factors appear equally weighted between the complainant and the respondent.

Therefore, it seems very likely that in some cases the SBC will name and shame the large business concerned and publish a report. It follows that this would send a strong message to other large businesses; that they can no longer continue to make late payments, as their reputation is at stake.