RA ID: CR0031

Change Request

for the update of ISO 20022 financial repository items

  1. Origin of the request:

A.1 Submitter: SWIFT

A.2 Contact person:

Vincent Kuntz

/

Frank Van Driessche

Tel: +32 2 655 3353

/

Tel: +32 2 655 4126

Mail:

/

Mail:

A.3 Sponsors: N/A

  1. Related messages:

  • pain.001.001.03
/ CustomerCreditTransferInitiationV03
  • pain.002.001.03
/ CustomerPaymentStatusReportV03
  • pain.007.001.02
/ CustomerPaymentReversalV02
  • pain.008.001.02
/ CustomerDirectDebitInitiationV02
  1. Description of the change request:

During the Payments Maintenance 2009, the Payments Initiation and Payments Clearing & Settlement messages have gone through a number of updates regarding the batch booking indicator. In the structure of the updated messages, the batch booking indicator is absent at message level in CustomerCreditTransferInitiationV03 (pain.001.001.03) and CustomerDirectDebitInitiationV02 (pain.008.001.02), but the definition of batch booking indicator defined at the payment information level is ambiguous as it still mentions "message".

More importantly, the batch booking indicator is still present at message level in the CustomerPaymentReversalV02 (pain.007.001.02). Consequently, the definition of batch booking indicator is not consistent with the three levels (message, payment information and transaction levels) of the CustomerPaymentReversalV02 message. Clarification on the usage of the batch booking indicator, when used at payment information level and at message level simultaneously, is required.

  1. Purpose of the change:

The purpose of this change request is to clarify and review the definition, presence and usage of the batch booking indicator in the Payments Initiation messages, and to align the Payments Clearing & Settlement messages if required.

  1. Urgency of the request:

For inclusion in the next ISO 20022 maintenance release.

  1. Business examples:

The current definition of the batch booking indicator data type shows that the two definitions for MeaningWhenTrue and MeaningWhenFalse are incorrect depending on the level where they are used within the message and this must be reviewed. Somehow it slipped through all validations during the Payments Maintenance 2009.

  1. SEG recommendation:

This section is not to be taken care of by the submitter of the change request. It will be completed in due time by the SEG(s) in charge of the related ISO 20022 messages.

Consider / X / Timing
- Next yearly cycle: 2010/2011
(the change will be considered for implementation in the yearly maintenance cycle which starts in 2010 and completes with the publication of new message versions in the spring of 2011) / Priority:
high
medium
low
- At the occasion of the next maintenance of the messages
(the change will be considered for implementation, but does not justify maintenance of the messages in its own right – will be pending until more critical change requests are received for the messages) / X
- Urgent unscheduled
(the change justifies an urgent implementation outside of the normal yearly cycle)
- Other timing:

Comments:

Defer to the 2011/2012 maintenance cycle, for implementation in 2012

Reject

Reason for rejection:

CR0031_SWIFT_BatchBookingDef_v2Produced by SWIFT on 1 June 2010 Page 1