DE-R-025-1

fatalPeppol BIS Billing 3.0profileUBLBG-19BT-81

If "Payment means type code" (BT-81) contains a code for direct debit (59), "DIRECT DEBIT" (BG-19) shall be provided.

Why it fails

The payment means code says direct debit (59), but the matching DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) group is missing, so the buyer has no instructions to pay by that method.

How to fix it

Add DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) with its details — for a transfer the IBAN (BT-84), for a card the masked PAN and holder name, for a direct debit the mandate reference and the debited account. Or change BT-81 to the method you actually mean.

What the validator checks

UBL — context (/ubl-invoice:Invoice/cac:PaymentMeans[cbc:PaymentMeansCode = 59] | /ubl-creditnote:CreditNote/cac:PaymentMeans[cbc:PaymentMeansCode = 59])[$supplierCountryIsDE and $customerCountryIsDE]

cac:PaymentMandate

Related rules

Part of DE-R — XRechnung via Peppol.

• DE-R-001
• DE-R-002
• DE-R-003
• DE-R-004
• DE-R-005
• DE-R-006
• DE-R-007
• DE-R-008
• DE-R-009
• DE-R-010
• DE-R-011
• DE-R-014
• DE-R-015
• DE-R-016
• DE-R-017
• DE-R-018
• DE-R-019
• DE-R-020
• DE-R-022
• DE-R-023-1
• DE-R-023-2
• DE-R-024-1
• DE-R-024-2
• DE-R-025-2

Check your own invoice against DE-R-025-1

This is a Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 rule: an invoice can be perfectly valid EN 16931 and still be rejected by it.