#julian-ach-mandate

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

severe coyoteBOT
#

Hello! We'll be with you shortly. Below are links to other discussions we've had with you in the past week in case you want to review that information. If your question is related to one of these previous discussions, please provide a comprehensive summary of the current state and what you need help with now. We help many users simultaneously, so a summary allows us to resolve your issue as soon as possible.

hollow kite
#

@cinder helm we can't reopen threads but I'm happy to help if you have a clear summary of your overall ask that you need help with

cinder helm
#

All good. I'll copy the messages here for context.

Looking for a bit clarification around how ACH mandates are managed with Platform & Connect accounts, in particular when you're not using direct charges.

With our Stripe integration currently
We store customers & payment methods on the platform account
We create payment intents on the platform account setting the on_behalf_of to the appropriate connect account.
We create transfers for the balance to connect accounts after payments are processed. We don't use direct charges on the connect accounts.
We have an existing credit card integration, and are introducing the Stripe Payment Element to enable ACH (and other) payment methods.

With this setup we expected mandates to be linked to our platform account since that's where the customer, payment method and intent are all created. However it looks like the mandate confirmation email is going out referencing the connect account, and the payment method rightly can't be used for payments against other connect accounts.

Ideally, we would like to allow our users to set up a single ACH payment method that can be used across multiple connect accounts. Since we expected the mandate and charges to all be against our platform account we originally thought this would be ok without mandate cloning (the docs mention this is required for direct charges). However, even with mandate cloning we're not sure whether it's possible if the mandate is linked to the connect account in the first place.

Would be great to get some guidance on how we might enable this with our current setup or if there's something we might have missed to get this working!

And to answer the followup question, we're creating payment intents with setup_future_usage set up. But we'll also want to eventually use setup_intents for ACH as well.

hollow kite
#

With this setup we expected mandates to be linked to our platform account since that's where the customer, payment method and intent are all created. However it looks like the mandate confirmation email is going out referencing the connect account, and the payment method rightly can't be used for payments against other connect accounts.
yes that's expected if you use on_behalf_of in your PaymentIntent. It'll create a Mandate that only works for that connected account

cinder helm
#

Is there a way we can capture a saved ach payment method that could be used by other connected accounts while using on_behalf_of on the payment intent? Would it work with mandate cloning?

hollow kite
#

Mandate cloning does not exist so no that wouldn't work.

There are some ways because we made some exceptions with ACH but it would never work with other payment methods that also require Mandates unfortunately

#

Mandates are often tied to really strict rules for the scheme where if you use on_behalf_of, you're really collecting an agreement for that merchant

cinder helm
#

hmm. Yeh I hadn't really considered the impact of the on_behalf_of value with mandates. Was focusing more on the payment intent/charge origin - but it makes. Thanks.

hollow kite
#

julian-ach-mandate

#

There are some potential alternatives I can think of but they would only work for ACH Debit and not future other payment methods

#

For example after the fact you can use the SetupIntent API and pass mandate_data to get a new Manate that works for all your accounts. Though technically it's not following the official rules

#

Or you could collect bank account details first with a SetupIntent and no on_behalf_of, get the bank account saved as pm_123 with a Mandate that will work for you and all your connected accounts (but only for ACH Debit)

cinder helm
#

As a workaround I think we'll look at having customer set up new payment methods per connect account they want to authorise. Shouldnt be too much of a burdon since most people will only need a single one. We'll want to set up BACS and BECS too so it should hopefully work there as well. Best to stick by the book if we can

When it comes to setting up an ACH payment with a SetupIntent through elements. These wont have an on_behalf_of set. Do you think it will be likely we'll need the user to select the connect account first to set the on_behalf_of value?

hollow kite
#

I don't fully grasp what you said in the last sentence

cinder helm
#

All good. Its probably a little specific to our product UX, and I think you kind of answered it with your mention of SetupIntents.
But just to confirm, we should be fine using a SetupIntent with on_behalf_of and it'll save a payment method for that specific connect account. The same as a payment intent?

#

While I've got you too, is there a way to see mandates in the Stripe console? I found a mandate id linked to the payment method under the customer view. But I cant see what account its for, when it was created/accepted etc. Is that info anywhere?

hollow kite
#

yes to the first question

#

kind of no for the second. Mandates are not really well surfaced in the Dashboard (I assume that's what you called the "console") unfortunately. We usually recommend keeping track of those in your code but there's a lot we don't surface (I'll flag as a feature request)

cinder helm
#

Ahh nice. Yeh I guess the PaymentElement component is just kind of taking care of it for us, so it feels a little invisible - especially the relationship between the mandate and the specific account its linked to 😅

hollow kite
#

yeah, only a few months go we didn't even surface on_behalf_of on Mandates. Someone on my team fixed it because we were a bit tired to have that question

#

But didn't realize we didn't show it in the Dashboard

cinder helm
#

Sounds like a pretty reasonable way of prioritising work 😁 I think that's me sussed on mandates for now. Thanks for answering my questions - i've got a much better picture about what's going on. I think we've got a path forward, and good to be able to clarify that mandate cloning wouldnt work before going down that route too!

Hope you have a great day 🍻

hollow kite
#

you too 🙂