How European banks can meet October’s VoP deadline?

For this article, we spoke with Aleksandar Sekulovski, Senior Project Manager at G+D Netcetera, to explore the challenges European banks are facing with this tight timeline, why some institutions are still scrambling to get ready and how this experience is reshaping the competitive landscape. We also asked Aleksandar about the consequences of missing the deadline and what banks can do to catch up.

For a deeper understanding of what VoP is and why it’s important, read our previous article:
Verification of Payee, and the new requirements under the SEPA rulebooks, mandated by the revised EU Payment Services Regulation.

The 9 October 2025 deadline for VoP implementation is unlike anything the European banking sector has seen before. Instead of a phased rollout, thousands of institutions will need to implement VoP at once - although some are gradually introducing it in stages, using internal pilots or domestic rollouts, to ensure a smoother transition before they implement it fully.

Aleksandar Sekulovski, Senior Project Manager at G+D Netcetera, shares some insights.

“Banks are now realising the magnitude of the task at hand,” he says. “The compressed timeline is revealing weaknesses that many institutions didn’t anticipate until now.”

Interoperability is one of the primary issues. Many banks find that their legacy systems weren’t built to handle real-time verification checks.

“The issue isn’t just about connecting old and new systems,” Aleksandar explains. “It’s about making sure those connections are secure, fast, and reliable under pressure. Some banks are discovering that their core infrastructure can’t handle the volume of VoP requests without major upgrades, which takes time and resources they don’t have.”

Data quality is another major hurdle. Banks often have outdated or inconsistent customer records, which can complicate the verification process.

“Data quality problems are more prevalent than many banks anticipated,” Aleksandar notes. “Something as simple as a missing middle initial or an outdated business name can lead to false positives or negatives in the verification process. And when that happens at scale, it erodes customer trust and creates operational nightmares.”

Bulk payment complications also pose a challenge. A single mismatch in a file containing hundreds of transactions can halt the entire process, forcing manual reviews and delays.

“Bulk payment complications can be particularly tricky,” Aleksandar explains. “A single error can have a cascading effect, impacting multiple transactions. And as well as increasing the risk of errors, it also requires significant manual intervention to correct.”

Customer communication is proving equally tricky. VoP introduces new warnings and verification steps that many customers won’t recognise.

Operational readiness is another critical factor that mustn’t be overlooked. Banks need to make sure that their employees are fully trained to handle VoP-related queries and that customer-facing channels are updated to reflect the new process.

“Maintaining operational readiness is absolutely crucial,” says Aleksandar. “Banks need to make sure that their employees are fully trained to handle VoP-related queries and that customer-facing channels are updated. For example, if a customer calls about a ‘close match’ warning, the frontline team needs to be able to explain it confidently and guide them through the next steps. That requires training and clear escalation paths - all of which take time to get right.”

The compressed testing timeline adds to the pressure. According to the European Payments Council (EPC), the  EPC Directory Service became available for testing in June 2025, giving banks just a few months to prepare. This shortened window has forced banks to rush their testing cycles, increasing the risk of bugs and integration failures.

“Normally, a project like this would have a year or more of testing,” Aleksandar points out. “Now, banks are prioritising speed over perfection, which means some issues will inevitably slip through.”

The compressed timeline may also force some banks to sacrifice customisation and fallback planning, especially for cross-border reachability. As a result, many opt for minimal viable implementations, which could lead to operational gaps once the system goes live.

Given the tight timeline, many banks are opting for ready-made Verification of Payee solutions from established vendors. These solutions offer advantages such as quick deployment and proven infrastructure. For example, G+D Netcetera’s Verification of Payee solution can be implemented in as little as six weeks, which may help banks meet the deadline.

“Building a compliant VoP system from scratch in this timeframe is risky,” Aleksandar says. “Even with the best teams, the risks of delays, compliance gaps or post-launch failures are quite high. G+D Netcetera’s solution can be implemented in as little as six weeks, which for many banks is the difference between making the deadline and missing it.”

But speed isn’t the only advantage. Off-the-shelf solutions also bring proven reliability and ongoing support.

Customer experience is another critical factor. VoP introduces friction by design - after all, it’s meant to stop fraud - but that friction needs to be managed carefully to avoid alienating customers.

“A poorly implemented VoP system can feel clunky or worrying to customers,” Aleksandar notes. “This is why we’ve designed G+D Netcetera’s solution to minimise false positives and provide clear, actionable feedback. For example, instead of a generic ‘no match’ warning, we help banks tailor messages to the specific scenario - whether it’s a typo in the payee name or a legitimate mismatch.”

For banks that decide to build their own systems, the risks are significant.

“Missing the deadline is a big danger,” Aleksandar warns. “But launching something that’s unstable or not user-friendly can be equally dangerous. Building in-house involves extra hurdles, such as certificate management, regulatory reporting and unexpected integration issues with the EPC Directory. Without vendor expertise, post-go-live support can also become a bottleneck, and under-tested systems may fail under real-world conditions. Regulators won’t tolerate non-compliance, but customers won’t tolerate a bad experience. If a bank cuts corners now, they may pay for it later in reputational damage or lost business.”

G+D Netcetera’s pre-built VoP solution goes beyond just meeting technical requirements, with much of the focus being on helping banks prepare for the implementation.

“We help banks prepare for the operational realities,” Aleksandar says. “That includes training staff, testing customer journeys and setting up monitoring to catch issues early. This helps with compliance while also making sure VoP actually reduces fraud without disrupting legitimate payments.”

Not complying with regulations by the time the VoP deadline approaches, carries certain risks. SEPA payments will continue to be processed, but banks may face regulatory action or reputational risk if they are not compliant. Aleksandar confirms. “There are consequences such as fines, losing customers or even being excluded from the EPC scheme. And while they’re playing catch-up, banks that meet the deadline will move ahead with optimised processes and new features that keep their customers happy.”

For banks that realise they won’t make the October deadline, the first step to address is damage control.

“The worst thing a bank can do is stay silent,” Aleksandar advises. “They need to engage with their regulator, notify the European Payments Council (EPC) if they can’t confirm compliance and communicate transparently with customers to avoid unnecessary fees or miscommunication. They should also consider fast-tracking a solution with a trusted partner and preparing contingency plans for customer communication and fraud monitoring. The longer they wait, the harder it becomes to recover.”

Aleksandar thinks the divide between early adopters and laggards will only grow wider after October.

For those still on the fence, Aleksandar’s advice is clear: “Don’t wait. Even if you can’t meet every requirement by October, having a plan in place is better than scrambling after the fact. And for banks that act now, there’s still time to turn this challenge into an opportunity.”

The VoP deadline is a defining moment for European banking. While the challenges are daunting, the banks that act decisively will emerge stronger - with better fraud prevention, smoother operations and deeper customer trust.

Want to learn how G+D Netcetera can help your bank meet the VoP deadline with confidence and turn compliance into a competitive advantage? Get in touch with our experts.