PEPPOL-EN16931-R061 — E-Invoice Validation Rule & Fix

Fixture ID: peppolDirectDebitNoMandate · XPath: /ubl:Invoice/cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID

1. Why This Rule Triggers (Diagnostic Message)

The payment means code (BT-81) is "59", which is a direct debit — you are telling the buyer that you will take the money rather than that they should send it. Peppol therefore requires the mandate reference (BT-89): the identifier of the authorisation the buyer signed permitting exactly that. Without it the buyer cannot reconcile the collection against a mandate they granted, and under the SEPA rulebook they can reclaim the funds for up to eight weeks with no reason given. Core EN 16931 leaves BT-89 optional; this is a tightening, and a well-judged one. This is a Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 profile rule: it applies because profile is "peppol-bis-3". It does not apply to the en16931, xrechnung-ubl or xrechnung-cii profiles, whose validators will accept the same document.

2. How to Fix PEPPOL-EN16931-R061

Set payment.directDebit.mandateReference to the mandate identifier (the Mandatsreferenz) you issued when the buyer signed the mandate. Peppol also expects the creditor identifier and the debited account alongside it — set payment.directDebit.creditorIdentifier and payment.directDebit.debitedAccount too.

3. Valid Code / Payload Example

"payment": { "meansCode": "59", "directDebit": { "mandateReference": "MND-2026-0042", "creditorIdentifier": "DE98ZZZ09999999999", "debitedAccount": "DE02120300000000202051" } }