DK-R-007

fatalPeppol BIS Billing 3.0profileCIIUBL

For Danish suppliers PaymentMandate/ID and PayerFinancialAccount/ID are mandatory when payment means is 49

Why it fails

Payment means 49 (direct debit) was used without the mandate reference or the payer's account.

How to fix it

Add PaymentMandate/cbc:ID (the mandate reference agreed with the payer) and PaymentMandate/PayerFinancialAccount/cbc:ID.

What the validator checks

CII — context rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice[$DKSupplierCountry = 'DK' and $DKCustomerCountry = 'DK']/rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement/ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans

not((ram:TypeCode = '49') and not((normalize-space(../ram:CreditorReferenceID/text()) != '') and (normalize-space(ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms/ram:DirectDebitMandateID/text()) != '')) )

UBL — context ubl-invoice:Invoice[$DKSupplierCountry = 'DK' and $DKCustomerCountry = 'DK']/cac:PaymentMeans

not((cbc:PaymentMeansCode = '49') and not((normalize-space(cac:PaymentMandate/cbc:ID/text()) != '') and (normalize-space(cac:PaymentMandate/cac:PayerFinancialAccount/cbc:ID/text()) != '')) )

Related rules

Part of DK-R — Denmark.

• DK-R-002
• DK-R-003
• DK-R-004
• DK-R-005
• DK-R-006
• DK-R-008
• DK-R-009
• DK-R-010
• DK-R-011
• DK-R-013
• DK-R-014
• DK-R-016
• DK-R-017

Check your own invoice against DK-R-007

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