The PSD2 recognises the difference between authorised and unauthorised transactions.

Within 8 weeks authorised transactions can be refunded immediately on a 'no questions asked' principle.

Is this as soon as any payment service user claims that the transaction is unauthorised? (In practice for direct debits this is only after 8 weeks and before 13months after the initial transaction?)

Or is this as soon as the payment service provider analysed if the transaction is really unauthorised? (in 68% of the cases). 

It is indeed impossible to know before analysis if the transaction is unauthorised or not? (And from then on of course immediate reimbursement with the original value date.)

If however the refund would always be immediate -as well for authorised as unauthorised transactions- we do not understand why in the Directive a difference has been made between both status?

During the first 8 weeks a Sepa Direct Debit –Core scheme collection can be refunded immediately on a 'no question asked' basis.

After 8 weeks -until 13months- a collection can only be refunded in case of an unauthorised collection (=no valid mandate).

Mandates are stored by the Creditor.

The EPC SDD scheme rules have put in place a strict procedure on exchanging copies of mandates allowing the PSP of the payer to analyse the 'unauthorised' character of the transaction. This procedure has a maximum timeline of 1 month but is mostly faster. After 1 month maximum the client is reimbursed (62% of the cases) or informed about the decision. After analysis on average 68% of these refund requests are valid and 32% are invalid (in this last case the client should not be credited) The PSD2 Art73§1 imposes to reimburse clients always immediately for both reasons authorised and unauthorised transactions.