Rules / DK-R-007 · Markdown

Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 · rule

DK-R-007

Layer peppol·Checked against Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 2026.5

What does DK-R-007 mean? For Danish suppliers PaymentMandate/ID and PayerFinancialAccount/ID are mandatory when payment means is 49

Why did my invoice fail DK-R-007?

For Danish suppliers using payment means code 49 (direct debit), both PaymentMandate/ID (the mandate reference) and PayerFinancialAccount/ID (the debited account) are mandatory. Without the mandate reference and the payer's account, the direct debit cannot be collected. In UBL both live under cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate.

Official rule text

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

Common causes

• Code 49 set but no cac:PaymentMandate block emitted
• Mandate reference present without the payer's account identifier, or vice versa
• Direct-debit details stored outside the structured mandate element

How do I fix it?

<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>49</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
  <cac:PaymentMandate>
    <cbc:ID>MANDAT-001</cbc:ID>
    <cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
      <cbc:ID>10203040506</cbc:ID>
    </cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
  </cac:PaymentMandate>
</cac:PaymentMeans>

Related rules

DK-R-002 · DK-R-003 · DK-R-004 · DK-R-005 · DK-R-006 · DK-R-008 · DK-R-009 · DK-R-010