PEPPOL-EN16931-R061 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
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.
This rule is implemented and its error payload below is real, but the long-form write-up — normative text, worked example, divergence note — is not written yet. Everything the library knows about this rule is on this page. Ask and we will prioritise it.
- Business term
BT-89- Severity
fatal
What the library returns
The exact object in result.errors when this rule fires.
Generated by running @attestwire/en16931, not transcribed:
{
"rule": "PEPPOL-EN16931-R061",
"field": "BT-89",
"severity": "fatal",
"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.",
"fix": "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.",
"example": "\"payment\": { \"meansCode\": \"59\", \"directDebit\": { \"mandateReference\": \"MND-2026-0042\", \"creditorIdentifier\": \"DE98ZZZ09999999999\", \"debitedAccount\": \"DE02120300000000202051\" } }",
"xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/PEPPOL-EN16931-R061"
}
xpath locates the element in the generated UBL document,
which is where a KoSIT or Peppol validator will report the same problem.
A passing value
"payment": { "meansCode": "59", "directDebit": { "mandateReference": "MND-2026-0042", "creditorIdentifier": "DE98ZZZ09999999999", "debitedAccount": "DE02120300000000202051" } }The fix
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.