When an item is lost and the patron is charged, and then the item is returned, a refund or credit is issued and the charge removed. That item then shows as paid for in the record. Should this be the case? What is particularly confusing is if this item is lost again and charged for. The record will show paid for. Should the conditions for this paid for status in the item record be refined so that it does not mislead staff into thinking it is paid for when in fact it is not?
I agree - this is very confusing to see a patron has "Paid" for an item when it was actually a write off or something else. Paid for should only reflect actual payment taken, not write offs etc.