Introduction
To support the introduction of SD20 APPR (Authorised push payment Scam reimbursement) policy on October 7, 2024, Pay.UK and the industry undertook significant work to design, implement and operationalise new systems, services and processes. Reflecting on this period of change, we want to take a moment to review the project and understand from your perspective what went well, and what we should keep doing, and what could be improved.
 
The Survey
This survey includes a series of statements where you can rate your level of agreement, covering key areas from scope and objectives to contracting, onboarding, and implementation. Additionally, each question provides space for comments should you wish to expand on your responses.
 
Thank you for your feedback
 
 
Your engagement with the project
 
Q1. Which forum(s) were you engaged with?*
 
Legal WG
FSDG
Technical & Service WG
Advisory Group
Product WG (top 25 issues)
Readiness WG
None of the above
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Project scope and objectives
 
Q2. The scope and objectives of the APPR directives and policy led by the PSR were clearly articulated during the delivery of RCMS release 1 and 2.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
Q3. The scope, objectives, and outcomes of the APPR project led by Pay.UK were clear.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Engagement on rules and compliance monitoring
 
Q4. We were sufficiently engaged in the development of the Rules and Compliance Monitoring regime by Pay.UK.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Rules and guidance
 
Q5. It was easy to access/locate the relevant documentation and associated guidance/interpretations to help you operationalise the APPR Rules within the FPS rules.
(E.g. Best Practice Guide)*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Delivery approach
 
Q6. Pay.UK was open, collaborative and transparent in how it worked with the Industry to jointly drive towards the regulatory deadline.
For example by jointly working through design challenges and operational issues.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Project plan
 
Q7. The APPR delivery plan was clear and helpful to understanding the 2024 roadmap, critical dates and decisions, and what was expected of you and when.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Provision of information
 
Q8. Pay.UK provided the relevant information/customer facing documentation at the right time, and to the right level of detail, to allow you to plan and organise your activities.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Requirements
 
Q9. Pay.UK provided the relevant product-related information and artefacts for you to understand how the APPR product and service would operate.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q10. You were sufficiently engaged during the evolution of the initial product and service design to ensure it met your operational needs.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Industry engagement and governance
 
Q11. The Product Working Group that discussed the 25 key industry issues, was an effective and useful meeting series.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Product and service design
 
Q12. Pay.UK provided you with a clear and simple understanding of the how the Reimbursement Claims Management System (RCMS) would work and how you could access and use the service.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Technical design
 
Q13. Pay.UK provided you with enough detail to ensure clarity on the technical design, including access, interfaces, data flows, resilience, and data security, to provide assurances to your firm which allowed you to proceed with the delivery of the APPR regime.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Legal engagement process
 
Q14. The Legal Working Group was effective in ensuring that the industry was properly engaged and consulted to help shape the RCMS Core and RCMS Core+Claims contractual suite, ahead of it being issued to industry on 1 August 2024. .*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Contracting
 
Q15. There was sufficient collaboration between industry and Pay.UK in the development of the two options in the contracting framework (RCMS Core or RCMS Core+Claims).*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q16. Pay.UK provided all the relevant engagement and information required to enable the contract, issued to industry on 1 August 2024, to be governed and approved by your organisation.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Registration (via Pay.UK website) and onboarding (via RCMS platform)
 
Q17. Pay.UK provided you with clear and relevant information / documentation to support your online registration with Pay.UK via the web site?*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
Q18. Pay.UK provided you with clear and relevant information and support to assist your onboarding onto the RCMS platform?*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Industry engagement / governance
 
Q19. Pay.UK’s multi-channel engagement approach (including forums, webinars, email, newsletters and website content) ensured that you had access to the right information and people when needed.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q20. Datasite was an easy to use and effective means of sharing customer artefacts and other supporting information.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q21. The dedicated fraud section of the Pay.UK public website was helpful and made it easier for PSPs to access information.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q22. The Technical and Service Working Group was an effective and useful meeting series.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q23. The Readiness and Change Working Group was an effective and useful meeting series.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
 
Industry testing
 
Q24. The scope and objectives of the RCMS Release 1 (R1) industry test (directory and claims platform) were clear.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q25. The RCMS R1 industry test phase duration was long enough to complete all required testing.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
 
Q26. The RCMS R1 industry test plan was easy to understand with a clear start date.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation
 
Q27. The Pay.UK helpdesk was able to resolve my issues.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
Q28. Pay.UK provided enough detail and clarity to enable you to implement and transition to RCMS.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Outcomes
 
Q29. RCMS release 1 (directory availability and claims management) met your expectations in terms of the targeted outcomes.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
Q30. RCMS release 2 (Reporting Standard A functionality) met your expectations in terms of the targeted outcomes.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Collaboration
 
Q31. The industry, Pay.UK and the PSR worked collaboratively to support meeting the regulatory deadline.*
 
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
N/A
 
Please provide any additional comments
 
 
 
 
Final thoughts
 
Q32. If you had the opportunity is there anything you would like to have seen done differently to have achieved a better outcome?
 
 
Please enter your organisation name*
 
 
Email*