We are rolling out IFS 10 in a German subisdiary and they a highly automated payment flow.
As per discussion, I am facing the same challenge. ISO and SEPA adds IFS Payment order reference in the EndToEndID tag but how do we verify that IFS can match that order / or order’s items by using the MT940DE fileformat ?
We have tried to replicate their current MT940 returnfile with IFS Payment Order ID but this is not recognized - yet.
What we are looking for is a way to know for sure that the items in the Paymnet Order can be acknowledged/paid by means of loading the MT940 bank statment into External Payments interface. The prepared references seems not to recogninse the EndToEndID tag value.
Is there a particular set up requiered in the format message codes ?
Page 1 / 1
Hi Krister,
The payment order acknowledgement logic has been handled in CAMT.053 and CAMT.054 files. But, if you are going to use MT940 file, you have to make some changes to file template (MT940DE). The best solution is to inform customer to check the possibility of using CAMT.053 file. Most of the German banks are supporting for the CAMT.053 version, so it is better for them to move to the newest version of the electronic bank statement.
Anyway, I will try to explain the logic bit in detail, when you create the payment order, the system store the EndToEndId value in separate column in payment_order_tab (Order ID/PaymentDate/OrderItemID). This value is used as a matching attribute when loading the return bank statement file. For an example, if we take camt.053 file, if transaction type of the respective message code has been set as Payment order (note that payment format message function is not applicable for MT940 or camt.05X payments), the system directly match the EndToEndId mentioned in the file with the EndToEndId value available in the payment order level. When you load the MT940 file via MT940DE template, you have to make sure that correct Order ID (and Payment Date) is passed during the matching logic. The logic is bit complex to explain via a message. You might need to go get a help from a technical resource to go through the code logic. If you have a technical resource, I might be able to give some hint.
Best Regards
Eranda
We managed to get it to work for a single item in the initial test by adding ORDER_ID (c37) with a search criteria in Function Details … we will test 1 order many item and possibly add ORDER_ID_ITEM (c38) as it seems the full MT940 file states each order item - row for row … might get it to work if CAMT.053 option does not materialize
