BT-REQ-3972 PSD3 Impacts v6(without crop marks) RL - Flipbook - Page 14
14
HL | PSD3 Impacts
7. Access for PSPs to
payment systems
and services
(PSR Arts 31–32)
Overview
The detailed access requirements are now
addressed in the proposed PSR, and so will
have direct effect, which should limit the
scope for divergence between member states.
Grounds for refusing access to payment
services are significantly limited.
The proposed PSR requires increased
transparency around the requirements/
assessment process for access to payment
systems.
What is changing?
The proposed PSR clarifies the requirements around
access to payment systems and seeks to level the
playing field even further:
In addition to being objective, nondiscriminatory, and proportionate, rules must be
transparent and can be imposed to guard against
credit and liquidity as well as other risks (such as
settlement or business risk).
The rules and procedures for admission to the
payment system, as well as the criteria and the
methodology used for the risk assessment of
applicants, must be publicly available.
A system operator can only refuse access where
an applicant poses risks to the system.
The proposals go somewhat further in the changes
it makes to the rules requiring ASPSPs to provide
access to payment accounts.
Access requirements will be extended to agents and
distributors (to conduct payment services on behalf
of APIs) and to entities applying for authorisation
under PSD3.
The proposed PSR also seeks to limit the grounds
on which an ASPSP can refuse or withdraw services,
restricting such reasons to:
where there are serious grounds to suspect
defective AML controls or illegality by the
applicant or its customers;
breach of contract;
failure to provide insufficient information when
applying to open an account; and
risk profile or a disproportionately high
compliance cost for the credit institution.
The proposals changes the process of refusal too,
with notice being required to go to the applicant,
who can then appeal to the NCA as a court of
appeal.
The EP Text softens this slightly, reverting to
‘reasons justified on objective, nondiscriminatory
and proportionate grounds’ and providing the
grounds listed above as examples (although
requiring a breach of contract to be a material
breach and removing disproportionately high
compliance costs for the credit institution asa
reason). However, this would still involve a raising
of the bar.
The EP Text also proposes to require closure to
be subject to 4 months’ notice, reintroduces the
need to notify an NCA of refusal/closure, and
proposes EBA guidelines to specify permitted
grounds for refusal.
The Council Text proposes yet another formula:
Providing that APIs or their agents or
applicants for a licence as an API shall have
access on an objective, nondiscriminatory
and proportionate basis and that refusal is
only permitted where opening or maintaining
an account would breach the AMLR, there
has been a substantive breach of contract, or
insufficient information or documents have
been received by the ASPSP;
Removing excessive risk and compliance
costs as grounds for refusal;
Imposing a 1-month response time for the
ASPSP to revert to the applicant PSP;
where the applicant presents an excessive
Imposing a 3-month notice period for closure.
