Verification of Payee – a match made in heaven?

Since 9 October 2025, payment service providers (PSPs) based in the eurozone are required to conduct verification of payee (VOP) checks under the Instant Payment Regulation (IPR). The VOP process set out in the IPR seems pretty straightforward:

• The payer provides the payee’s account identifier and name to their PSP.
• The payer’s PSP transfers that information to the payee’s PSP.
• The payee’s PSP verifies that the details provided by the payer match the data it has on file for their customer.
• The payee’s PSP transmits the VOP response to the payer’s PSP.
• The payer receives the VOP response from their PSP and based on the result, either authorises the payment or takes any other action, e.g. cancels the payment.

So far, so good.

In an ideal scenario, the data provided by the payer’s PSP and the data kept by the payee’s PSP are identical – we’d have our match made in heaven.

However, the reality is often more complicated. Payers make typos; payees go by different names than their official name; their name includes special characters or they share an account with someone else. The IPR gives a non-exhaustive list of examples that could be considered a close match.

In step 3 of the VOP process, the payee’s PSP, who bears the full responsibility for the outcome of the VOP match and is liable for the response it reports to the payer’s PSP, can apply different criteria to determine whether there is a match, close match or no match.

And those different criteria are the crux of the matter.

Pain points impacting the outcome of the VOP matching check

• There is no market-wide standard that specifies which data should be used for the VOP check and how this check should be performed. For example, there is no uniform name-matching logic for handling typos or corporate naming variations. Payments to corporations then run an increased risk of being rejected due to minor name mismatches.
• Determining which name(s) to check during verification can be challenging, especially for corporates operating under multiple aliases or branch names.
• The allowed maximum character length for the payee’s name varies across different schemes and initiation channels. This can lead to inconsistencies in the data, e.g. due to automatic truncation, and ultimately to mismatches during the verification.
• There are limitations to the VOP verification process when it comes to virtual accounts and collection accounts. The VOP verification may only check the main account but not underlying sub-accounts. This may become problematic in cases where payments are collected on behalf of third parties because it can lead to no-match results.

The lack of standardised name-matching logic, difficulties with aliases, truncation issues and the complexity of virtual account structures can all lead to inconsistent outcomes. When clients see messages  like “No match” or “Verification not possible”, they often feel uncertain about whether to approve their payments .Frequent mismatches can thus cause frustration or mistrust, leading clients to ignore future warnings.

However, as PSPs are finetuning their VOP services, it is crucial to mitigate those challenges as quickly as possible to avoid user frustration and distrust. Collaborative efforts across the industry – including continued guidance from the EPC as scheme owner, proactive communication from PSPs to their customers and work at many levels to optimally loop corporates into the process – will be critical to achieve the full effectiveness and reliability of VOP services.

In the end, when all these efforts are paying off, VOP should deliver the frictionless match-made-in-heaven experience everyone expects for legitimate transactions – and become a true love story for end users thanks to the extra level of security it provides.

Download the EBA report A match made in haven – Key challenges for VOP matching checks