We build Agents. You build the Future.
● B2B offer — Debt collectionAI agent for debt collection: chase unpaid invoices without damaging the relationship
Late payments weigh directly on cash flow, and chasing is a task nobody enjoys — so it often gets put off, forgotten, or done clumsily. Your AI agent prepares your chasers steadily and tactfully, at the right moment and in the right tone, to bring the money in while preserving the client relationship. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — your invoicing data stays under control. The agent carries out what you have authorised; an authorised person approves every chaser before it goes out, except under a written sending mandate for amicable follow-up that you withdraw in one move, and you decide on any legal action.
Updated on
Fictional simulation — not a client result
For Dupont & Fils (a loyal client, first time late), I have prepared a friendly chaser proposing a payment plan — for approval.
⛓ Sourced · your invoicing software + the aged debtors report
I am preparing a summary of the file for the manager, who decides what happens next.
✎ Action · file ready to read over — the manager decides
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
A Blue Lemon Agent debt collection agent tracks your client receivables and the aged debtors report, prepares graduated chasers at the right moment, which you approve before they go out or which it sends under a written sending mandate for amicable follow-up, and adapts the tone to the history — to cut late payments and DSO. It handles amicable collection and escalates the difficult cases to a human: any legal action stays your decision. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity, in compliance with the GDPR. Live in two to three weeks. Your teams write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and your customers reach it on WhatsApp Business, your website chat or email — with no account to create and nothing to install. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote.
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Three options, one agent
A debt collection agent (tracking receivables, graduated chasers, multi-channel sequences), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work.
Setup + controlled subscription
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
All inclusive, no setup fee
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
On site, you own it
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Everything the agent handles — and what stays under your control
A single agent to run your amicable chasing, from due date to escalation. It prepares, prioritises and recommends; an authorised person in your team approves every chaser before it goes out, as well as the sensitive actions.
Receivables tracked by age
Prioritises each case by age, amount and history.
Graduated chasers at the right moment
Prepares the actions on the right channel, at the right time; every chaser goes out after approval.
Tone matched to each customer
Adjusts tone and content to the profile and the history.
Payment plans & time to pay
Proposes realistic plans and tracks whether they are honoured.
Payment reconciliation
Matches payments automatically, validates and closes cases.
DSO reporting & receivables at risk
Clear dashboards to steer cash and anticipate risk.
Escalating difficult cases
Spots the blockers, prepares the file and recommends escalation.
Extend the chasing channels
SMS adds points of contact to the same agent when a case calls for it; email stays included. The SMS channel is still under review: its full cost has not been established, no price is published, and it cannot be switched on from this page.
Same strategy, more points of contact.
Quoted separately — channel cost to be validatedSMS messages sent by the provider are extra, at your expense, re-invoiced at actual cost with no margin (T&Cs art. 6 ter.6, 7 bis.11 and 7 bis.13).
Need to go beyond amicable recovery?
These agents handle a different business process and are added to your recovery agent.
Litigation recovery
Prepares exhibits, deadlines and formal notices. A human decides and represents.
Legal agent from 390 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Supplier invoices
Handles the invoices you pay, on the purchasing side.
P2P agent from 506 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Entry & bookkeeping
Keeps entries and reconciliation up to date.
Accounting agent from 406 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
See the agent at work
5 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· A customer who paid at 32 days on average for four years has moved to 71 days across their last three invoices, and nothing else about them has changed. It is the most useful signal of the morning: it is handled with a call, and I give you what it takes to make it.
· A €12,400 invoice has been waiting for 94 days, out of the circuit since a dispute was opened and then closed in April. The dispute is closed, the debt is intact: its letter is written and goes out when you decide.
· Seven invoices carry the "in dispute" marker for more than 60 days, with no exchange on file. I surface them with their opening date: seven files to close, and that much receivable back in play.
· A customer owes you €4,200 and you owe them €3,800 on a credit note never applied. The real balance is €400 — and that is a €4,200 chaser avoided, with the relationship it would have cost. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 chances to collect · 1 balance down to €400
⛓ Source · aged balance, payment history, dispute log, credit notes issued
What I record: four years of payment at 32 days on average, without a single late payment. Then three invoices at 68, 73 and 71 days. No dispute, no complaint, no change of contact.
What the data establishes, and what it leaves to the call: a regular customer who slips forty days does not become forgetful — the shift is sharp and dated. Three explanations remain, all common and all reversible: a cash-flow squeeze, a change of accounting system, or a new internal approval circuit. All three are settled by one question, and I have written it for the call.
What I propose: a call, not a chaser. The standard 45-day chaser you send would tell this customer, after four years without incident, that you treat them as a bad payer. That is the best way to lose the relationship without bringing payment forward by a day.
What I provide for that call: the four years of history, the three invoices, and the exact date the behaviour changed — February. That is what allows a precise question rather than an awkward one. customer-32-to-71-days.pdf4 years at 32 d · shift in February · call, not chaser
⛓ Source · 4 years of payment history, last 3 invoices, dispute log
Routing follows the nature of the delay: a change of behaviour goes to the salesperson who handles the account, never to collections — it is a relationship question before it is a collection question; an invoice out of the circuit to accounts, immediately; dormant disputes to whoever opened them, with the opening date; a low net balance to both — accounts and sales.
With a chase: 24 h on an invoice out of the circuit, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary: by cause of delay, never by customer ranked good or bad payer.
And I do not stop at the flag: the letters are written. 214 chasers drafted, each in the tone the account's history warrants; 34 sendings of a missing document, the document already attached; 11 letters that start from an unapplied credit note rather than from a demand; and dormant disputes surfaced with their opening date and last exchange. None has been sent.
What is left to you, and it is what protects the relationship: deciding and sending. A chaser carries your name in front of your customer — that is what gives it weight, and why no threatening wording appears in it and no legal characterisation is made. I prepare, you decide, you send — and sending takes ten minutes for all 214.
And I read what you have opened to me, account by account, every access logged and withdrawable on a word.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What the letter says: the invoice number, the date, the amount, the due date, and the fact that a dispute was opened on 14/02 and closed on 03/04 — which explains why nothing was chased for seven weeks.
Why that mention is in it: because it is true and the customer knows it. A 94-day chaser that pretends not to know about a seven-week dispute hands the customer a ready-made reply, and one more round trip.
What makes this letter beyond dispute: it claims only what is established — the principal, to the euro. No penalties stated, no proceedings referred to, no "failing payment within eight days": the penalty amount follows from the contract and from the start date of the calculation, and a letter whose every figure holds is a letter the customer has nothing to answer but payment.
What I propose in addition: three versions of the same letter — neutral, firm, and with an instalment offer — because the tone is chosen on what you know about this customer, and that choice is yours.
Outside a sending mandate, none of the three goes out unless you have opened it. chaser_3-versions.pdf3 tones · no threat · no penalty stated amicable-follow-up-mandate_extract.pdf2 reminders · one-move withdrawal · log
⛓ Source · invoice of 06/05, dispute log 14/02-03/04, account history
The three elements that determine it: what your contract or terms of sale provide, what the customer actually accepted, and the start date of the calculation. I hold the first two on file; the third follows from the receipt date, which is captured at issue.
What happens if I state a wrong amount: the customer disputes it, they are right, and they dispute the principal in the same breath. A chaser containing a quantifiable error becomes a chaser disputable in its entirety.
What I do instead: I give you what your terms of sale provide, quoted, and the receipt date if it is on file. On this invoice it is not — I say so rather than starting from the invoice date.
And the gain that carries to every invoice after: across your 214 overdue invoices, 29 already carry a recorded receipt date; the other 185 can carry one from the next issue on. The data costs nothing to collect, and it makes penalties computable across your whole book. penalties_what-is-missing.pdf185 invoices to equip from the next issue
✎ Framework · penalties not computed — your terms of sale quoted as they stand
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· 128 invoices — forgetfulness. Usually punctual customer, delay under 30 days, no dispute. A simple chaser is enough, and 84% of them are settled within ten days.
· 41 invoices — administrative blockage. Something is missing at the customer's end: a purchase order, a reference, a document. Chasing achieves nothing: the document has to be supplied. I say which for 34 of them.
· 29 invoices — difficulty. Progressive lengthening of payment time, partial payments, or an earlier instalment request. Here it is the instalment plan that collects, not the firm chaser: those 29 letters are written with a staged offer, and they keep the customer as well as the debt.
· 16 invoices — dispute. A disagreement is recorded on file.
What I classify, and what I keep from classifying: I classify invoices, at a given moment — never customers. 23 of your accounts today carry one invoice in forgetfulness and another in dispute: a label placed on the customer would have both treated the same way, and the worse of the two would win. The classification is redone every night, and an invoice changes family the moment its exchange changes. 214-invoices_4-families.pdf128 forgetful · 41 blocked · 29 difficulty · 16 dispute
⛓ Source · 214 overdue invoices, payment histories, disputes, exchanges
What I did: found, for each blocked invoice, the exchange where the customer says what they are waiting for.
· 19 are waiting for a purchase order number the customer requires on the invoice. You have it: it is on the signed quotation.
· 9 are waiting for an invoice in the right format — the customer mandates a portal, and the invoice went by email.
· 6 are waiting for an attachment: signed delivery note, acceptance certificate.
· 7 are waiting for a document the exchange does not name. For those, the question that names it is written in one sentence, addressed to the contact on file: one reply and they join the 34.
What that represents: €218,000 blocked by missing documents, €167,000 of it where the document already exists at your end.
What I have prepared for the 34: each sending is written and the document attached — the purchase order number taken from the signed quotation for the 19, the portal upload prepared for the 9, the delivery note attached for the 6.
What is left to settle, and it is an accounting decision: a resend or a reissue can restart a payment period depending on the customer's terms. I reread the terms of all 34: only six carry that clause. On those six, your accountant decides; the other 28 go on one approval — €141,000 back in the circuit. 41-blockages_218000-eur.pdf34 identified · €167,000 unblockable
⛓ Source · 41 blocked invoices, customer exchanges, signed quotations
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I record: they owe you €4,200 on two invoices; you owe them €3,800 on a credit note issued on 12/06 and never applied. The real balance is €400.
What happens if the chaser goes out as it stands: the customer receives a €4,200 demand while they have been waiting eight weeks for a €3,800 credit note. They will reply, they will be right, and the exchange will cost more than the €400.
What I have written: a letter that starts from the credit note — you confirm it has been taken into account, you set out both invoices and the credit note line by line, and you ask for the balance. The amount demanded becomes €400, and it is beyond dispute.
What is left to your accountant: the offset itself. It is a transaction, it may require both parties' agreement, and it carries the name of whoever posts it. The letter offsets nothing: it records — and that is precisely why it can go out today, without waiting for the entry.
How many cases like it: I cross-referenced your unapplied credit notes with your overdue invoices. 11 customers are in this position, for €34,000 of credit notes. Three of them had received a chaser before this cross-check: their corrective letter is the first one ready, and all eleven are written. 11-customers_unapplied-credit-notes.pdf€34,000 of credit notes · 11 corrective letters written
⛓ Source · 2 invoices, credit note of 12/06, credit notes / aged balance cross-check
What is kept: the invoice and its due date, the delay family at the moment of the flag, the chaser prepared and whether it was sent, the customer's reply, and the payment.
What never accumulates, and it is a design choice that protects you: no customer risk score, no "bad payer" label, no transferable rating, no statistics per collections officer.
Why "no score": a risk score built on your past delays outlives the situation that produced it. A customer who had six hard months in 2024 would carry a label into 2027, and somebody would eventually refuse an order on that basis — without knowing the score is three years old.
The delay family, by contrast, is dated and attached to an invoice, not to a customer. That is the difference between a finding and a judgement.
What the monthly summary contains: causes of delay, recurring missing documents, unapplied credit notes, and settlement times by family. Four indicators about your flows. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 4 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What the file contains: the €9,600 invoice for client L. A transfer of €7,100 arrived on the 22nd, and an email the same day disputes a €2,500 line — a service the client says was never ordered. The rest is paid, and the dispute covers exactly the balance.
The point that had not yet been defined in my sorting rule: I file an invoice in one family — oversight, administrative blockage, dispute, declared hardship. Nothing in it says what becomes of an invoice partly paid and disputed for the rest. I prepared nothing on my own here — and the file is not waiting: the transfer is matched, the disputed line is isolated, and the corresponding purchase order is out.
Three ways of doing it. File the whole invoice as a dispute: no reminder goes out, which is right on the €2,500, but the client has paid the rest and has nothing to answer for — they will not even get the acknowledgement that says so. File the whole invoice for reminder: the balance is claimed, and claimed on a line the client disputes in writing — that is the letter that turns a disagreement into a conflict. Split the invoice in two: the undisputed balance follows the simple reminder, the disputed line goes to the dispute queue, and a single letter says both: the client reads a letter that acknowledges their payment and handles their dispute.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that does not make a punctual client pay the price of a disagreement over one line, and your tool already carries a dispute at line level: the split reads on what you already record.
You can also give me another one — for instance: the whole invoice in dispute until the objection is examined, and an acknowledgement sent the same day to say the payment did arrive.
Shall I remember it for the next ones? 17 of your 214 overdue invoices carry a part payment and a dispute on one line, for €31,400 of which €8,900 disputed. If you approve the rule, I will prepare the next ones this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the count every month. part-payment-and-disputed-line_three-ways.pdf1 invoice · 3 ways of doing it · 17 comparable cases
⛓ Sourced · transfer of the 22nd, client email of the 22nd, purchase order for the disputed line, 17 comparable invoices out of 214
The rule, in one sentence: an invoice partly paid and disputed for the rest is split in two: the undisputed balance follows the simple reminder, the disputed line goes to the dispute queue, and a single letter says both, opening on the payment received. Sending stays with your signature.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a letter that opens on a balance due reads as a reprimand, even when it is accurate. The same letter opening on « your transfer of the 22nd has arrived » gets an answer instead of silence — and across the 17 comparable files, the 6 that had received a payment acknowledgement answered in 4 days on average against 19.
What it changes today: the letter for client L. is written and waiting for you — payment of €7,100 acknowledged, the €2,500 line examined with the purchase order in support, no mention of penalties on the disputed part.
What lets you go back on it: the rule is entered in the sorting rule under its name, with its date, the person who approved it and the invoice that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line, and I go back to bringing you these invoices one by one.
✎ Rule approved · sorting rule, entry « part payment and disputed line », approved on 27/09 — sending stays with the company's signature
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
The stages of your AI agent project
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Why unpaid invoices build up — and why nobody dares chase
Late payments weigh on cash flow, but chasing remains the task nobody enjoys. For want of time, it gets put off — when it has a direct and immediate effect on the money coming in.
! The issue
The company is caught between cash flow that tightens with every overdue invoice and the fear of upsetting a good client by chasing too hard. The result: chasers are irregular, put off, sometimes clumsy. And most consumer AI tools amount to entrusting your client list, their outstanding balances and their creditworthiness to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
A collection agent is only of interest if it is steady without being aggressive and hosted in France. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, a tone graduated to the history, escalation of difficult cases to a human: the cash comes in faster without the client relationship suffering. The aim is not to replace your finance team, but to refocus it on the files that deserve it.
Your customers' data: sovereignty & compliance
Your clients' invoicing and creditworthiness data is sensitive. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, file by file.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to the company: your client list and their outstanding balances do not leave the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Exposure of your client list to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per client
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your company and your portfolio.
Sending under mandate, or approval before sending
Without a mandate, every reminder waits for an authorised person. With a written sending mandate for amicable follow-up — scope, ceiling per debtor, duration, one-move withdrawal, log —, the agent sends the overdue-invoice reminders you have set, in your name, from your address and under your signature, using your templates, to businesses or private individuals as you choose. It collects nothing, replies to no debtor and never sends a formal notice: anything beyond reminders goes back to a person. Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no chaser sent outside a written sending mandate or an authorised person's approval, no formal demand sent by the agent; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
How much time can the finance team recover?
By automating work that is often neglected, the agent brings the cash in faster and refocuses the finance team on the difficult cases. The gain depends on your outstanding client balances and your current payment times.
Four guarantees that matter to your receivables
Related resources
Your questions, our answers
How does this differ from invoice processing?
Does the agent issue formal demands or take legal action?
Does the agent send the chasers by itself?
Who answers for the rules of amicable collection?
Does it preserve the client relationship?
Does it connect to my invoicing software?
Does it also chase by telephone?
Is financial data protected?
How long does it take to deploy the agent?
Which tools can people use to talk to the agent?
Can the agent chase my customers by text message?
Can it send a letter, or a registered letter?
Other agents for your financial cycle
And for your organisation?
Let's size up the potential on your receivables
30 minutes to frame your chasers and your escalation thresholds — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.