The European Payments Council (EPC) has published version 2.0 of its recommendations for matching processes under the Verification Of Payee scheme.
The updated document follows the 2026 change management cycle for the Verification Of Payee (VOP) scheme rulebook and the public consultation that accompanied it. It sits alongside version 1.1 of the VOP scheme rulebook, which became effective on 20 September 2026. It gives payment service providers (PSPs) and Routing and/or Verification Mechanisms (RVMs) further guidance on how payee names should be handled and compared when a verification request is processed.
Character set requirements
The new version expands on the character sets used in VOP requests and responses. As a general rule, inter-PSP API messages must use the limited Latin character set transported through UTF-8. The document explains how PSPs and RVMs should manage character conversion, and how they should treat messages containing characters outside that set.
The guidance sets a default position rather than a single mandatory model. In addition, parties can use different arrangements where they have agreed to them contractually.
Name matching for natural and legal persons
Much of the document covers how a Responding PSP may prepare and compare payee names. It also covers how the PSP may decide whether a verification result is a ‘Match’, ‘Close Match’ or ‘No Match’. The recommendations apply to both natural persons and legal persons. They address several types of variation that can affect name comparison: spelling differences, transposed letters, initials, phonetic variations, commercial names, and commonly accepted abbreviations.
These cases are among the most common sources of discrepancy between the name a payer enters and the name used for verification. The guidance aims to give participants a shared reference for handling them in a comparable way.
Consistency and provider responsibility
According to the EPC, the recommendations aim to support a consistent and user-friendly implementation of the VOP scheme. They are intended to reduce unnecessary No Match or Close Match responses and avoid friction at the point of payment initiation, where an unclear verification result could disrupt or delay a transfer.
The document does not take over the role of individual providers. Each Responding PSP remains responsible for the matching outcome it returns and may apply its own criteria. The recommendations, therefore act as a common framework that participants can align with, while the final decision stays at a provider level.
For PSPs and RVMs, version 2.0 gives updated reference points in two operational areas: message encoding and name comparison. Both directly shape how verification responses are produced and received under the scheme.
