Reject vs return vs recall
The three main SEPA r-transactions answer different questions: a reject means the payment never settled, a return means the beneficiary side sent it back after settlement, and a recall is the originator side asking — not demanding — that money come back.
| DIMENSION | Reject | Return |
|---|---|---|
| When it happensA recall also happens after settlement, but it starts on the originator side — the payment itself was fine; the sender wants it undone. | Before settlement completes: the instruction is refused during validation, clearing, or the receiving PSP's pre-settlement checks. | After settlement: the beneficiary's PSP received the funds but sends them back. |
| Who initiates itA recall is initiated by the originator's PSP, usually prompted by the originator; the beneficiary's PSP then decides whether to give the money back. | The clearing and settlement mechanism or the beneficiary's PSP, refusing the instruction. | The beneficiary's PSP, on its own initiative (for example, the account is closed) — not at the beneficiary's request under the credit transfer scheme. |
| Message that carries itA recall request travels as camt.056; a positive answer arrives as pacs.004 (funds returned), a negative one as camt.029 (refusal with reason). | A pacs.002 payment status report with a negative status and a reason code. | A pacs.004 payment return referencing the original transaction. |
| Whether money movesA recall request by itself moves nothing; funds only move if the answer is positive, and the rulebook lets the beneficiary's PSP deduct a fee from the amount it returns. | No settlement of the original amount takes place — nothing to unwind at the interbank level. | Yes: the return is a new movement of funds in the opposite direction, referencing the original. |
| Certainty of the outcomeA recall is inherently uncertain — the funds may already have left the beneficiary's account, and the answer can simply be no. Operations teams must never promise the customer a refund on the strength of a sent camt.056. | Definitive: the payment did not happen, and the originator can correct and resend. | Definitive: the money came back, and both sides' books can be squared. |
| Typical reasonsThe scheme restricts recall reasons to a short list — duplicate sending, a technical problem producing an erroneous transfer, or fraud — so a customer who simply regrets paying is outside the recall procedure. | Problems visible before settlement: format or account errors, closed or invalid accounts caught early, insufficient funds, or a regulatory block. | Problems discovered after settlement on the receiving side, such as an account closed or unable to be credited. |
| Time windowsRecalls have a longer window after settlement, and the rulebook gives the beneficiary's PSP a defined period to answer. We keep the exact durations out of this table — take them from the current SCT rulebook, and note that SCT Inst timelines differ. | Bounded by the clearing timeline itself: rejects arrive quickly, within the processing cycle. | The rulebook defines a short window after settlement within which a return must be sent. |
| What operations must doFor recalls, track the open request until a definitive pacs.004 or camt.029 arrives; an unanswered recall is an open case, not a resolved one. | Read the reason code, repair or escalate, inform the customer, and resend if appropriate — the original payment is dead. | Match the pacs.004 to the original payment, post the credit back, reconcile any amount differences, and notify the customer. |
Sources for this comparison3
- Scheme-specific rule2025 version 1.1 (EPC125-05)
2025 SEPA Credit Transfer rulebook ↗ — European Payments Council · r-transaction and recall procedures
Version 1.1 replaced version 1.0 at publication on 5 October 2025 and is stated to remain in effect up to 21 November 2027. It moves the date from which the unstructured address format is no longer permitted to 15 November 2026.
- Market practiceversion 4.0 (EPC131-17)
Clarification paper on SEPA Credit Transfer and SEPA Instant Credit Transfer rulebooks ↗ — European Payments Council · recall and reason-code guidance
Version 4.0 applies to the 2025 SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks and replaces version 3.1 of EPC131-17.
- Simplified educational illustration
Payments Signal editorial teaching models — Payments Signal
What this simplifies: This two-column layout treats recall in the notes because it is a request procedure, not a payment status. Exact windows, reason-code lists, and fee rules belong to the current rulebooks; SCT Inst r-transaction handling differs from SCT in timing and detail.
Used wherever diagrams, scenarios, figures, or example values are didactic constructions rather than sourced facts; every such use carries a simplifications disclosure. All people, companies, banks, and list entries in examples are fictional.