How an NDIS Provider Smoothed 14–35 Day Payments Using Invoice Finance vs LOC
NDIS provider cashflow case study for Melbourne business | Switchboard Finance
📍 Melbourne, VIC · local case study · NDIS payments ·
Business Owners Finance Hub · 2026
NDIS providers can look “profitable” but still feel broke — because payroll and supplier runs happen weekly, while payments arrive 14–35 days later. This Melbourne case study shows the decision: invoice finance vs a business line of credit (LOC), and when a broader working capital loan makes sense. The goal is simple: stop the timing gap from forcing overdrafts, late BAS, or panic lending.
If you want the plain-English explainer first, start with Invoice Finance 101 and the core cashflow trio hub at Business Loans. The “money page” lane for flexible drawdowns is Business Line of Credit.
Glossary quick links (definition-first, no repeats): Invoice Finance and Business Line of Credit.
1) The problem: weekly payroll vs 14–35 day payments
The provider was Melbourne-based with a stable flow of participant services, but payment timing created a predictable squeeze. Payroll was weekly, invoices were frequent, and the “cash in” was always behind the “cash out”.
The consequence was a cycle: dipping into buffers, delaying supplier payments, and occasionally pushing BAS obligations later than they wanted. Nothing was “wrong” operationally — the timing model just needed a finance lane that matched it.
- Cash out: weekly wages + super + fuel/vehicle costs + software subscriptions.
- Cash in: payments landing 14–35 days after service delivery/invoicing.
- Pressure points: wage weeks + quarter-end + any unexpected staff overtime.
2) The facility choice: invoice finance vs LOC vs working capital loan
The decision wasn’t “can we borrow?” — it was “which facility matches the pattern?” They needed something that flexed up when invoicing surged and naturally cycled down when payments landed.
The consequence of picking the wrong lane is you create new stress: a LOC can drift into permanent utilisation, while invoice finance can become clunky if the invoicing process isn’t consistent. So we compared them on how they behave in the real world.
| Option | Best for | Where it can go wrong | When it wins |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invoice finance | Bridging invoice-to-payment timing | Messy invoicing / inconsistent billing rhythm | Payments are delayed but predictable (14–35 days) |
| LOC | Flexible buffer for mixed expenses | Becomes a “forever balance” if not managed | You need a controllable wage+supplier safety net |
| Working capital loan | Bigger one-off buffer (expansion/hiring) | Fixed repayments can tighten cash if growth slows | You’re stepping up headcount or opening a new territory |
In this case, the “cleanest match” was invoice finance for the timing gap — with a small LOC as a secondary buffer for non-invoice expenses. For the broader framework, see Business Cashflow System (WCL + LOC + Invoice).
3) The approval-ready sequence (so you don’t get stuck in re-work)
The fastest approvals happen when the lender can see the loop: service → invoice → payment → wages/suppliers. When that story is clear, the facility sizing becomes a math exercise, not a debate.
If the story isn’t clear, the consequence is a clarification loop: more questions, re-queueing, and slow decisioning. Here’s the sequence that made the file clean.
- Step 1: short business overview (services, team size, how payments work, current timing gap).
- Step 2: invoice samples + payment proof that shows 14–35 day timing (one clean chain).
- Step 3: wage run + supplier outflows (show the weekly “cash out” rhythm).
- Step 4: facility proposal: invoice finance for timing + optional LOC for non-invoice expenses.
- Step 5: simple “usage rules” (how the facility cycles down when payments land).
If you want the closest “lane explainer” for the LOC side (and when it’s better than a term loan), use Business Line of Credit Guide.
A Melbourne NDIS provider doesn’t usually fail because demand is low — it fails when payroll runs weekly and payments land 14–35 days later. The fix is matching the facility to the timing gap, not “borrowing more”.
In this case, Invoice Finance matched the invoice-to-payment cycle, while a Business Line of Credit acted as a small secondary buffer for non-invoice costs. If you want the full trio framework, use Business Loans.
FAQ
Not necessarily — it’s a fit question, not a size question. If your payments arrive later than your wage runs, invoice finance can match that timing. The consequence of using the wrong tool is you carry a permanent balance instead of a facility that naturally cycles down.
A LOC is strong when you need flexible drawdowns for mixed costs (payroll, rent, supplier runs) that don’t directly tie to specific invoices. The consequence is if you don’t set usage rules, it can become a “forever balance” that never cycles down.
When the lender can’t clearly see the loop of income timing vs wage/supplier outflows. The consequence is re-queueing: every clarification response can push the file further back in the credit queue.
You size it against the gap: average weekly cash out multiplied by the expected delay window, then stress-test for “busy weeks”. The consequence of under-sizing is constant top-ups; the consequence of over-sizing is wasted cost and poor utilisation discipline.
Build a one-page timing map and send a clean submission bundle (overview, invoice-to-payment proof, wage rhythm, proposed facility and usage rules). The consequence of skipping this is a slower outcome because the lender spends time reconciling the story instead of assessing it.
Disclaimer: This content is general information only and isn’t financial, legal, or tax advice.
