EPC Updates Verification of Payee Matching Recommendations for European Payments

The European Payments Council has published version 2.0 of its Verification of Payee Matching Recommendations, offering updated guidance on character handling and payee-name comparisons. The changes aim to improve consistency and reduce avoidable payment friction across participating payment service providers.

The European Payments Council (EPC) has published an updated set of recommendations for matching processes under its Verification of Payee (VOP) scheme, following the 2026 rulebook change management cycle and a public consultation.

Version 2.0 provides additional guidance on character sets used in VOP requests and responses, as well as how payment service providers (PSPs) and routing and/or verification mechanisms (RVMs) should handle character conversion.

The recommendations also address how responding PSPs can prepare and compare payee names before returning a verification result. The objective is to support more consistent implementation across the scheme while reducing unnecessary “No Match” and “Close Match” responses that could create friction during payment initiation.

The updated guidance accompanies version 1.1 of the VOP scheme rulebook, which became effective on 20 September 2026.

Updated guidance on character sets and conversion

The EPC’s recommendations clarify the character sets used in messages exchanged under the VOP scheme.

Generally, inter-PSP API messages must use a limited Latin character set transported through UTF-8. The updated document explains how PSPs and RVMs should manage character conversion and handle messages containing characters outside that permitted set.

This is relevant in a European payments environment where payee names may contain different scripts, accents, or character combinations. A name entered by a payer may not always match the format supported by the systems exchanging verification messages.

The EPC’s guidance provides a framework for managing those differences. However, the recommendations also recognize that alternative arrangements may be used where the parties involved have agreed to them contractually.

That flexibility allows participants to account for specific technical or operational arrangements while maintaining a common baseline for scheme implementation.

How PSPs should assess payee-name matches

The updated recommendations explain how a responding PSP may prepare and compare payee names before determining the result of a VOP request.

The scheme uses three possible outcomes:

• Match: The payee name supplied by the payer matches the name held by the responding PSP.
• Close Match: The supplied name differs, but the responding PSP identifies a sufficiently close match and may provide the correct payee name.
• No Match: The supplied name does not meet the responding PSP’s matching criteria.

The recommendations cover both natural persons and legal persons. They address common differences that can arise when names are entered, stored, or transmitted across payment systems.

Examples include spelling differences, transposed letters, initials, phonetic variations, commercial names, and commonly accepted abbreviations.

These cases can create problems for automated verification. A strict character-by-character comparison may return a negative result even when the payer’s intended recipient is identifiable.

The EPC’s guidance aims to help responding PSPs account for such variations while preserving the responsibility of each PSP to determine the final result.

Reducing payment friction without removing PSP responsibility

Verification of Payee is intended to help payers check whether a payee name corresponds with the account details provided before a payment is authorized.

A verification result can influence whether a payer proceeds, reviews the information, or changes the payment details. Unnecessary negative results may therefore interrupt legitimate payments and create additional work for customers and payment providers.

The EPC says the recommendations are intended to support a consistent and user-friendly implementation while reducing avoidable “No Match” or “Close Match” responses.

However, the document does not establish one mandatory matching algorithm for every responding PSP. Each PSP remains responsible for its matching outcome and may apply its own criteria.

This leaves room for individual providers to account for their systems, customer data, and operational requirements, while the EPC’s recommendations provide common guidance for the scheme.

Version 2.0 follows the updated VOP rulebook.

The recommendations follow the 2026 change management cycle for the VOP scheme rulebook and the associated public consultation.

Version 1.1 of the rulebook became effective on 20 September 2026. The EPC’s updated matching recommendations are intended to accompany that framework and provide additional operational guidance for participants.

The publication is particularly relevant to PSPs and RVMs implementing or refining VOP processes. Character handling, name preparation, and comparison logic can affect the quality of verification responses and the experience presented to payers.

The updated recommendations provide further guidance in these areas, but the release does not specify a separate implementation deadline for version 2.0.

What payment providers should review

For PSPs and RVMs, the updated document provides a reason to review how their systems process payee names and verification messages.

Relevant areas include:

• Character-set support and UTF-8 handling in inter-PSP API messages
• Conversion rules for characters outside the supported set
• Name preparation and comparison processes
• Treatment of initials, abbreviations, and commercial names
• Criteria used to determine Match, Close Match, and No Match outcomes
• Contractual arrangements that permit alternative technical handling

The practical impact will depend on how each participant currently implements the scheme and whether the updated recommendations require changes to its systems or procedures.

The EPC’s publication reinforces the importance of consistent payee verification across European payments. Better handling of names and character variations could reduce unnecessary interruptions, while each responding PSP retains responsibility for the verification decision.

Source note: This article is based on the supplied European Payments Council announcement and linked scheme documents. The recommendations’ stated objectives are attributed to the EPC; no independent implementation or performance data was provided.

EPC publishes updated recommendations for matching processes under the VOP scheme

EPCEuropean Payments Councilpayee verificationpayment fraud preventionpayment initiationpayment matchingPayment Service Providerspayments regulationPSPsRVMSEPAUTF-8Verification of PayeeVOP