EPC publishes version 2.0 of VOP matching recommendations

Updated guidance for VOP matching

The European Payments Council (EPC) has published version 2.0 of its recommendations for matching data under the Verification Of Payee (VOP) scheme. The update follows the 2026 change management cycle for the VOP scheme rulebook and the public consultation held alongside it. It supplements version 1.1 of the rulebook, which took effect on 20 September 2026.

The recommendations provide further guidance for payment service providers (PSPs) and Routing and/or Verification Mechanisms (RVMs). They explain how payee names can be handled and compared when a verification request is processed.

Character set requirements

The updated document gives more detail on the characters used in VOP requests and responses. As a general rule, API messages exchanged between PSPs should use a limited Latin character set transported through UTF-8. The guidance explains how PSPs and RVMs can manage character conversion and handle messages that contain characters outside that set.

The recommendations describe a default approach rather than a single mandatory model. Parties may use other arrangements where they have agreed to them contractually.

Matching names of people and businesses

A substantial part of the document covers how a Responding PSP may prepare and compare a payee name, then assign a result: Match, Close Match or No Match. The recommendations apply to both natural and legal persons. They cover spelling differences, transposed letters, initials, phonetic variations, commercial names and commonly used abbreviations.

These are frequent reasons why the name entered by a payer may differ from the name used for verification. The guidance gives scheme participants a shared reference for handling such cases in a comparable way.

Consistency and provider responsibility

According to the EPC, the recommendations are intended to support a consistent and user-friendly implementation of the VOP scheme. They aim to reduce unnecessary No Match or Close Match responses and limit friction when a payment is initiated. An unclear verification result could otherwise disrupt or delay a transfer.

The document does not replace the role of individual providers. Each Responding PSP remains responsible for the matching result it returns and may apply its own criteria. The recommendations offer a common framework, while the final decision remains with the provider.

Version 2.0 updates reference points for PSPs and RVMs in two operational areas: message encoding and name comparison. Both have a direct effect on how verification responses are produced and received under the scheme.