RE: [SYSTEM21] A/R Reconciliation .

["Michael Berman" <berman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gilbert
The GL would be correct as it is a deallocation session only and nothing was
posted to GL.
The fact that the Debtor Balances matches the Trial Balance would indicate
that the deallocation was successful  (not that there would be a change of
balance).

With the retro being out of whack would require a closer examination.
Can you confirm whether these invoices and UC's are on or off the Retro?  It
could be something simple as the period used for the deallocation is not one
that you selected.

Contact me directly if you wish.


Regards

Michael Berman

(m) 0419 324 558

-----Original Message-----
From: system21-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:system21-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of GManoovaloo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 6:49 PM
To: jbausers-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SYSTEM21] A/R Reconciliation .




We have the following A/R situation -

The Recon report  ( 13/ARU) shows allocation errors ,. All those sessions
are type DA . An example below:

 Session no . . . .    16936   Event no . . . . .         88127
 Customer  Item Type/   Currency       Transaction        Transaction
           Reference                   Prime Value         Base Value
xxxxxx       IN F340647      MUR             8344.64            8344.64
xxxxxx   IN F340648      MUR            22018.15           22018.15
xxxxxx       IN F340650      MUR             2526.57            2526.57
xxxxxx      UC 20055618     MUR            28303.13-          28303.13-
xxxxxx      UC 20055624     MUR             7166.00-           7166.00-
Totals.                                   2579.77-           2579.77-
 Sum of base allocations is non zero

Session Enq.  shows:


15:56:22
 Session Enquiry....Transactions by Session
 Session number...   16936     Session Type.... Deallocated Payments
 G/L Session No...   22831     Session status.. PROCESSED
 Batch Number.....             Session total...              .00
            Item       Trxn
 O Account  type & ref typ Curr  Date   Perd.    Amount Posted  Discount
Taken
   xxxxxx  IN F340647  AL MUR 11/04/02 0205           8344.64
.00
   xxxxxx    IN F340648  AL MUR 11/04/02 0205          22018.15
.00
   xxxxxx  IN F340650  AL MUR 11/04/02 0205           2526.57
.00
   xxxxxx   UC 20055618 AL MUR 11/04/02 0205          28303.13-
.00
   xxxxxx   UC 20055624 AL MUR 11/04/02 0205           7166.00-
.00

The G/L session enquiry :


16:09:09
 Transaction Enquiry
 Session . . . :   22831                  Session total . . :
.00
 Time & date . : 12:08 - 12:08 29/05/02   Total prime . . . :
.00
 User & terminal FADBUBJ     QPADEV0049   Transaction total :
.00
     Type  Co  Account  Doc.ref. Period  Doc.date    Control total    Cur
    (There are no documents for the requested session.)

One can see that the debits are unequal to credits . Other DA type sessions
exist with debits = credits . How does this happen and what would be the
corrective action ?
At the same time , we have noted that  44/ARE ( Retrospective ) & 42/ARE (
Debtors balance ) do not tally in total ,while the latter balances with the
Trial Balance.

Thanks for any assistance
Regards
Gilbert .


_______________________________________________
This is the System 21 Users (SYSTEM21) mailing list
To post a message email: SYSTEM21@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/system21
or email: SYSTEM21-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/system21.