In scenarios where the direct debit is rejected due to insufficient funds or payment being stopped, the Data Holder displays the original transaction and then reverses it. This clearly shows the customer that a direct debit was received but it had to be reversed.
Considering the above scenarios, should a Data Holder only display the Direct Debit original transaction or should the Direct Debit reversal transactions also be displayed, in the Direct Debit end point?
The Direct Debit endpoint is intended to show Direct Debit Authorisations and not Direct Debit transactions. So, the expectation would be that this would be presented as a Direct Debit Authorisation in the Direct Debit endpoint, where the direct debit was rejected due to insufficient funds or payment being stopped.
However, the Transactions endpoint should contain the additional detail, if this would normally be displayed on a statement or in internet banking.
Note: A limitation of Direct Debits under BECS is that an institution receiving a direct debit can only infer an authorisation from the transaction history.