I have a payer that feels that using a standard check number in the TRN02 segment for zero-pay checks (both labeled as CHK and NON in the BPR04) is acceptable. For example, they sent us two separate 835s on 8/2/13 (both for $0) that contained the same check number (EO0000000000). We build our software to process files in such a way that if a file does not meet spec, it bombs out. I called them for an explanation of not using a check number repeatedly , and pointed out to them that this is breaking spec, and their response was that "this was their interpretation of the spec." I read the spec and noted that this must be a "unique" number. Thoughts?
This is addressed in 005010X221. The note for the TRN02 states “This number must be unique within the sender/receiver relationship. The number is assigned by the sender. If payment is made by check, this must be the check number. If payment is made by EFT, this must be the EFT reference number. If this is a non-payment 835, this must be a unique remittance advice identification number.”
Also re-iterated in Section 1.10.2.2. "For non-payment transactions, TRN02 is a unique number generated by the transaction set originator as that 835's identification number (e.g., a control number plus a suffix or a date/time stamp)."
The scenario presented would not meet the requirement of being unique with the sender/receiver relationship, so it would not be allowed.