xmlvalid
Sign in Open validator

PEPPOL-EN16931-R061

Mandate reference MUST be provided for direct debit.

error: the document is invalid Peppol documentation ↗

Why it fails

  • The payment means is a direct debit (code 49 or 59), but there is no mandate reference in cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID.

How to fix it

Add the reference of the SEPA mandate the buyer signed.

What the rule checks

As the rule set's publisher wrote it. The rule runs on every element the context matches, and fails where the test is false; the validator reports the line of that element.

Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 rules 3.0.21 XRechnung 3.0 rules (UBL) 2.6.0
Context
cac:PaymentMeans[some $code in tokenize('49 59', '\s') satisfies normalize-space(cbc:PaymentMeansCode) = $code]
Test
cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID

Checked with Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 Invoice, Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 Credit Note

XRechnung 3.0 rules (CII) 2.6.0
Context
ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans[some $code in tokenize('49 59', '\s') satisfies normalize-space(ram:TypeCode) = $code]
Test
../ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms/ram:DirectDebitMandateID

Checked with XRechnung 3.0 Invoice (CII)