Skip to main content

Reference

Markdown export

PEPPOL-EN16931-R061 Direct debit requires the mandate reference identifier (BT-89)

Under rule PEPPOL-EN16931-R061, every payment means with a direct debit code in BT-81 (49 = direct debit, 59 = SEPA direct debit) must state the mandate reference identifier BT-89. The rule comes from Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, and the KoSIT rulepack for XRechnung 3.0.2 applies it too, for UBL and CII. In UBL, the validator checks for cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID inside the same cac:PaymentMeans; in CII, for ram:DirectDebitMandateID in ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms of the header settlement. The rule is flagged as fatal, so the invoice is not valid.

Problem Description

ERROR

Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 rule (OpenPeppol)

Context and Significance

The error appears when an invoice is marked as direct debit but the mandate reference stays in the ERP customer record or is printed only in a note. Without BT-89 the buyer cannot match the debit to a mandate. R061 covers only the mandate reference. But BT-89 creates the direct debit group BG-19, for code 49 as well as for code 59. As soon as BG-19 is present, XRechnung 3.0.2 also requires the creditor identifier BT-90 under BR-DE-30 and the debited account BT-91 under BR-DE-31.

Solution

Take the mandate reference from the signed direct debit mandate (for SEPA, the unique mandate reference agreed with the buyer) and export it in BT-89. In UBL 2.1, add <cac:PaymentMandate><cbc:ID>MANDATE-2026-001</cbc:ID></cac:PaymentMandate> inside the <cac:PaymentMeans> with code 49 or 59. In CII, add <ram:DirectDebitMandateID>MANDATE-2026-001</ram:DirectDebitMandateID> inside <ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms> under <ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>. If there is no mandate, the buyer cannot be debited: use a credit transfer code (30 or 58) with the seller account in BG-17 instead.

Quick actions

Validate XMLConvert invoice

Valid Examples

  • BT-81 = 59 with BT-89 = "MANDATE-2026-001" in cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID
  • CII: TypeCode 49 with ram:DirectDebitMandateID = "M-7781" in the header payment terms

Invalid Examples

  • BT-81 = 59 with the debited IBAN in cac:PaymentMandate/cac:PayerFinancialAccount, but no cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID
  • BT-81 = 49 and the mandate reference appears only in the invoice note (BT-22)

Code Examples

Valid XML
<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>59</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
  <cac:PaymentMandate>
    <cbc:ID>MANDATE-2026-001</cbc:ID>
    <cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
      <cbc:ID>DE89370400440532013000</cbc:ID>
    </cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
  </cac:PaymentMandate>
</cac:PaymentMeans>
Invalid XML
<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>59</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
  <cac:PaymentMandate>
    <cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
      <cbc:ID>DE89370400440532013000</cbc:ID>
    </cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
  </cac:PaymentMandate>
</cac:PaymentMeans>

Affected Fields

BT-89 Mandate reference identifier
BG-19 Direct debit
BT-81 Payment means type code

Validation Tools

Official KoSIT Validator

Run the official KoSIT validator with the XRechnung configuration to check EN 16931 and XRechnung rules.

Convert PDF to XRechnung

Find validation errors during conversion and review each correction.