Belgian banks outperform Dutch banks on UX and Process Excellence
When the Instant Payments Regulation (IPR) came into force on the 9th of October 2025, together with the updated SCT Inst Rulebook introduced four days earlier, European banks faced a fundamental shift. Instant payments became mandatory for institutions in scope of the IPR, and Verification of Payee (VOP) became a compulsory security measure across the SEPA zone. With these obligations, regulators aimed to reduce fraud and misdirected payments, strengthen customer trust in digital transactions and position instant payments as an accessible standard service.
To assess how these requirements have reshaped the customer journey, Projective Group revisited its earlier research conducted in April 2025. The study again examined both successful (‘happy’) and failed (‘non-happy’) instant payment flows, this time across sixteen leading retail banks spanning Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Research Approach
The assessment focused on two core dimensions of instant-payment performance:
Process: how effectively banks handle failed transactions and guide customers toward resolution.
User experience (UX): how clearly and transparently instant payments are processed and communicated in banking apps.
Four scenarios were tested at each bank to ensure a consistent and comparable assessment of instant‑payment performance. These included a fully successful instant payment, the “happy flow,” and three types of unsuccessful transactions: a payment to a non‑existing IBAN, a payment to a closed IBAN, and a payment rejected for functional reasons such as fixed counter‑account restrictions. Together, these scenarios provided a uniform basis for comparing user experience, error handling, and the degree of regulatory alignment across banks.
Our latest research shows that progress since the IPR deadline varies significantly by country and by bank. While some banks have made significant strides in improving both process and user experience, others remain largely unchanged. The scoring matrix can be reviewed here.
Chart: the scores from the previous and the current assessment are plotted along the Process and UX axes. ‘1’ represents the score from April, and ‘2’ represents the score from October
Belgian Banks lead in post-IPR progress
Belgian institutions show the most significant improvement since last year. All banks have VOP fully operational now, and several have enhanced their failure‑handling flows and communication:
KBC now offers more transparent messaging and alternative SCT guidance when instant payments fail.
ING Belgium has improved both process flows and UX, better emphasizing instant payments capabilities.
Belfius and BNP Paribas Fortis strengthened their error messaging.
Argenta stands out with context‑specific failure messages and transparent success screens, marking the largest improvement across all evaluated banks.
Belgian banks appear to have used the regulatory changes as a catalyst for broader modernization of their payment journeys.
Before: Argenta only indicates that a transfer is pending in March 2025.
After: Argenta confirms that the money was credited in October 2025.
Best practice: KBC gives clear advice in case of a transfer to a functionally incorrect account and offer the option to resend the payment as a non-instant (SCT classic) payment.
Argenta also give clear advice in case of a transfer to a functionally incorrect account and offer the option to resend the payment as a non-instant (SCT classic) payment.
Belfius nicely provides different responses for non‑happy‑flow scenarios. Here, a payment to a closed account triggers an error stating the account number is invalid and the payment cannot be processed
While here, a payment to an incorrect but valid IBAN advises retrying the payment as a non‑instant transfer.
Netherlands, UK & German Banks remain largely unchanged
The majority of the Dutch banks (ABN AMRO, Bunq, ING, Knab, Rabobank) show little change. As early adopters of instant payments and VOP, it is understandable that the most visible improvements have already been made earlier in the past ; however, their handling of exception flows has not evolved substantially since then.
ASN introduced better timestamps and more visible failure notifications. Triodos improved the communication for non-happyflows, although the overall progress remains limited.‑‑flow
A further regulatory gap appears to remain unresolved at several banks. According to the the European Commission’s Q&A(Question 27, Article 5a(1)), banks offering both SCT Instant and SCT Classic may not unilaterally convert a failed instant payment into an SCT Classic, as this does not align with the original choice. Yet at ABN AMRO, a rejected instant payment is at times automatically forwarded as an SCT Classic without customer consent, contrary to regulatory guidance.
Other concerns surfaced as well:
Knab still provides no response when an instant payment cannot be executed, a situation observed in the 2025 assessment and unchanged in the current research.
At Bunq, it remains unclear what happens to customer funds during an unhappy flow, as payments to invalid beneficiary accounts are still initiated, no failure notification is provided within seconds as expected, and the funds are only returned after one day- raising the question of where the money resides in the meantime. Payments to invalid beneficiary accounts are still initiated, no failure notification is provided within seconds as expected, and funds are only returned after one day, leaving customers uncertain about how their money is handled during that period.
In the UK, Revolut introduced Verification of Payee (VOP) and now provides clear user guidance during failed transactions, though some instant‑payment indicators previously present in the app appear to have been removed. N26 in Germany shows minimal change: instant and classic SCT are now visually separated, but the removal of toast notifications reduces clarity during failures.
ASN displays a credit entry that corresponds to a debit entry in case of a rejected transaction
Revolut gives a Resend option in case of a rejected transaction
ING NL also gives the option to try again as a SCT Classic Payment
N26 indicates the instant payment in the transaction overview, but only indicates one timestamp
Recommended Best Practice
Based on the findings, Projective Group identifies several best-practice principles for banks aiming to deliver a consistent instant payment experience.
Banks should present both SCT Inst and SCT Classic at the initiation stage, with instant payments pre‑selected to establish them as the default. Successful transactions should be confirmed immediately, and the transaction overview should clearly show whether a payment was processed as SCT Inst or SCT Classic, supported by both debit and credit timestamps.
When an instant payment fails, customers should be notified without delay. The transaction overview should clearly show that the payment was unsuccessful, ideally including the reason for the failure and a striked through or cancelled debit entry. Scenario specific messaging and in-app guidance help customers understand what happened and how to proceed.
Based on the returned error code (such as AC01 for an invalid account, AC05 for a non-existent account, AG01 for an administrative restriction or RR04 for a regulatory reason), the most appropriate next step should be presented to the user. Customers should only be explicitly offered the option to resend the payment as SCT Classic when it is genuinely unclear whether the original SCT Classic payment would fail.
Conclusion
The post‑IPR landscape reveals uneven progress across Europe. Belgian banks emerged as the strongest performers, leveraging regulatory changes to modernize processes and strengthen user experience. Dutch banks, despite early adoption, show limited improvements and continue to struggle with exception handling and regulatory consistency.
All evaluated banks technically support instant payments and VOP. However, the quality of implementation varies. Some provide clear, customer-centric journeys; others introduce friction, unclear messaging, or partial non-compliance with IPR and Rulebook requirements.
While regulatory checkboxes may have been ticked, the customer experience remains highly inconsistent. Significant opportunity remains to make instant payments truly seamless, transparent and user-friendly across the SEPA zone.
About Projective Group
Established in 2006, Projective Group is a leading Financial Services change specialist.
We are recognised within the industry as a complete solutions provider, partnering with clients in Financial Services to provide resolutions that are both holistic and pragmatic. We have evolved to become a trusted partner for companies that want to thrive and prosper in an ever-changing Financial Services landscape.
