SEPA mandate dates: signature, collection and sequence

Locate the date in the right layer

A direct-debit file can be structurally valid while its signature date follows the requested collection date. The independent SDD-MANDATE-DATE check compares DtOfSgntr under DrctDbtTx/MndtRltdInf with ReqdColltnDt in the enclosing payment block. The fictional failing example signs on 21 November and requests collection on 20 November 2026. Its report highlights the signature field rather than the account identifier.

Correct an inverted date only after checking the source agreement. A technical validator cannot supply a missing authorisation or determine whether a purported signature is genuine. Do not simply move every signature into the past to obtain a passing result.

Separate calendar validity from operational timing

Calendar checks reject impossible days and non-date values. The comparison with your chosen reference day is a different layer: an earlier collection date produces a review warning, while an unusually distant collection prompts scheduling review. The tool does not decide whether a date is a bank working day or whether the submission cutoff has passed.

The reference date makes an archived batch reproducible. For these fictional examples, select 6 November 2026; their requested collection date is later in that month. Rechecking the same XML after that collection date should produce a past-date warning without changing the signature-versus-collection rule. JSON and CSV retain the reference date alongside the message and rule versions.

Read CORE/B2B and sequence together

Select CORE or B2B explicitly and compare it with LclInstrm/Cd. A file tagged B2B while CORE is selected fails the profile-consistency check. This detects a mismatched export setting; it does not establish whether a debtor is eligible for the selected scheme or whether the debtor bank registered a business mandate.

FRST, RCUR, FNAL and OOFF are the covered sequence values. Their presence alone cannot reconstruct mandate history. In particular, the checker does not force every first submitted file to use FRST or infer that an RCUR collection has a valid earlier event. Bank requirements and the actual mandate record remain the relevant context.

Review duplicates without rejecting legitimate recurrence

A recurring subscription normally reuses a mandate reference. That repetition alone is therefore insufficient to identify an accidental second collection. The local review check combines creditor identity, mandate reference, requested collection date, debtor IBAN and numeric amount. A repeated combination within a message or across chosen batch files is flagged for review; a different collection date remains a separate instruction.

Repeated EndToEndId values are also review prompts, with NOTPROVIDED excluded from that uniqueness warning. These checks cannot find a duplicate already submitted in a previous session: no mandate or payment history is stored on the server. Review the accounting source and submission record before acting on a warning.

Keep address changes out of date repairs

The EPC has postponed the former November 2026 end date for unstructured addresses. This validator does not apply that obsolete deadline to an otherwise coherent mandate example. Address-profile validation and a bank's processing calendar remain separate from the explicit calendar and sequence facts described here.

Primary evidence and scope

EPC creditor identifier overview v12.0 provides the technical CI facts, including exclusion of the business code from the checksum. EPC CORE C2PSP 2025 v1.0 and EPC B2B C2PSP 2025 v1.0 describe the selected collection schemes and the current address postponement. The ISO message catalogue lists .12; this implementation deliberately selects .08 or explicit legacy .02. Sources checked 6 November 2026.

This explanation and its controls are independently written. No EPC text, TVS or bank rule package is redistributed. A rule-only demo establishes none of the official XSD, real mandate, authorisation, registration, working-day/cutoff or acceptance layers.