Community

@Ralf: I completely agree with you that the lack of guarantee reduces the usability of payment initiation services. Furthermore, I believe that if the banks receive proof that the payment has happened (such as an immediate payment being executed) within a reasonable time, it makes sense to provide that in the response towards the TPP (however, as you pointed out, they have no such obligation, so it's rather their decision). But the problem is, that in some cases the payment will not be executed immediately, and may finally be rejected for several reasons (f.e. AML regulations). Therefore banks cannot guarantee those executions, because they don't receive guarantee from the underlying payment system. In other words, the banks (even those that are happy to comply with the requirement of providing guarantee of execution) cannot provide more information than what they have and receive.

@Arjeh - I agree that the lack of guarantee will substantially reduce the usability of PSD2 enabled payment services. However, the guarantee is not up to the banks entirely, but the underlying payment services. Even SCT Inst allows exceptions where execution of a payment will be pending (and not accepted neither rejected!). Taking all these into account, I believe that the TPPs should rather make sure they have mechanisms to discover when a payment is completed. But isn’t that the case already? Aren’t current Fintechs using payment services without guarantee upon initiation? I do have a view on the ban of screen-scraping myself – but I find it far more important that the RTS is getting more and more delayed, and that leaves banks and TPPs with a huge uncertainty about what and when to implement.