attestwireAttestwire › Rule reference › PEPPOL-EN16931-R061
PEPPOL-EN16931-R061 A direct debit must state the mandate reference
noun · Peppol BIS · fatal · BT-89
For a sample invoice, the library reports: 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.
- Business term
BT-89- Severity
fatal
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.
A passing value
"payment": { "meansCode": "59", "directDebit": { "mandateReference": "MND-2026-0042", "creditorIdentifier": "DE98ZZZ09999999999", "debitedAccount": "DE02120300000000202051" } }What the library returns
The full error returned by @attestwire/en16931. It includes the rule ID,
affected field and suggested correction. Developers can use this object in their application:
{
"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 is always a UBL path. On a CII invoice, look for the
matching CII field instead.