LEARN. PRACTICE. GROW.Concept and mechanism
A mandate authorizes a creditor to initiate direct-debit collections through its payment service provider. It can be paper-based or electronic. An accepted invoice or valid IBAN does not automatically replace that authorization. The process must retain the mandate and relevant changes, including revocation. SDD Core and SDD B2B are not interchangeable variants of one flow. Core permits a refund request without justification during eight weeks; for an unauthorized collection, a request can be made up to thirteen months. In B2B, an authorized collection does not carry the same refund right, and the debtor must be a business customer. Identify the scheme before deciding handling.
Guided application
In B2B, the debtor PSP confirms mandate data with its customer and checks collections against retained data. A project should assign this dependency an owner, evidence, and acceptance criterion alongside file testing. When revocation arrives by email, the problem may lie in propagating state to the batch selecting collections. A controlled data source, effective timing, and links between versions allow reconstruction of why a collection was considered eligible. During handover, the shift must know how to locate that evidence and escalate discrepancies. Applicable conditions and institutional procedures should guide real cases.
Example: XML tests pass but ten B2B mandates remain unconfirmed. Valid files alone do not establish readiness; partial activation requires controlled selection and an explicit decision.
Common pitfalls
Core treated as silent fallback; balance treated as consent; business status treated as automatic B2B proof; revocation stored without propagation.
Related topics: Instruments, participants, and settlement · Timing, confirmations, and late outcomes · Data and verification of payee
Connect authorization, mandate state, and collection decision with traceability.
Reference: SDD Core and B2B overview · DR Payments and SEPA professional assessment2026.10