Enhancing Corporate Payment Security with PayPoint and AccessPay

Table of Contents

PayPoint and AccessPay enhance payment security measures

  • PayPoint has partnered with bank integration provider AccessPay to embed Confirmation of Payee (CoP) into AccessPay’s payments automation suite.
  • CoP—also known as Account Name Verification (ANV)—checks payee details before money is sent, helping reduce fraud and payment errors.
  • The move comes amid rising losses from authorised push payment (APP) fraud, with £258 million lost in the first half of 2025.
  • The integrated service is already available to customers and has been positively received since the companies began working together in 2025.

Reducing APP Fraud Risk
– Why this matters now: UK Finance reported £258m lost to APP fraud in H1 2025 (Half-Year Fraud Report 2025), a period that includes both consumer and business cases.
– CoP vs. ANV (same idea, different label): Confirmation of Payee (CoP) is commonly referred to as Account Name Verification (ANV)—a check that the account name aligns with the sort code/account number before funds are sent.
– Where it shows up in corporate life: These checks are most valuable when payment volumes spike (e.g., payroll runs, supplier payment cycles, seasonal peaks) because that’s when manual verification is most likely to be inconsistent.

Partnership Overview: PayPoint and AccessPay Collaboration

PayPoint has announced a partnership with AccessPay, a bank integration provider focused on payments automation for modern finance teams. The core of the collaboration is the integration of PayPoint’s Confirmation of Payee (CoP) capability into AccessPay’s payments automation suite—bringing account name verification directly into the workflows finance teams use to create and send payments.

The timing reflects a broader pressure on corporate finance operations: payment volumes are growing, automation is accelerating, and fraud tactics are evolving alongside that shift. In that environment, controls that once sat outside the payment process—manual checks, call-backs, spreadsheet validations—can become bottlenecks or weak points. The partnership positions CoP as a built-in control rather than an optional, separate step.

AccessPay framed the integration as reinforcing its role “at the centre of a growing ecosystem of technologies” designed to automate and de-risk the Office of the CFO. In practice, that means connecting businesses securely to their banks while embedding safeguards that reduce the likelihood of misdirected payments—whether caused by fraud, human error, or outdated supplier details.

For PayPoint, the partnership extends its CoP capability to AccessPay’s customer base—described as thousands of finance teams—at a moment when corporate payment security is increasingly judged by how well it scales. The companies are effectively betting that verification needs to happen where payments are initiated, not after an incident has already occurred.

Integrated Payee Verification Workflow
– AccessPay’s role: Bank connectivity + payments automation for finance/treasury teams (the layer where payment files, approvals, and releases typically happen).
– PayPoint’s role: Provides the CoP/ANV capability that performs payee-name checks before execution.
– What “integration” means here: CoP results can be surfaced inside the same payment workflow teams already use—so verification happens during payee setup and/or payment instruction, not as a separate tool.

The Importance of Confirmation of Payee in Fraud Prevention

Confirmation of Payee (CoP)—also referred to as Account Name Verification (ANV)—is designed to answer a deceptively simple question before a payment is sent: do the payee’s account details match the name the payer expects? By checking the accuracy of payee details ahead of execution, CoP helps prevent funds being routed to the wrong account—whether the error is accidental or engineered.

Its value is clearest in authorised push payment (APP) fraud scenarios, where the payer is tricked into approving a transfer to an account controlled by a fraudster. In these cases, the payment is “authorised” by the victim, which makes prevention far more important than recovery. CoP is positioned as a practical anti-fraud measure because it can flag mismatches at the moment a payment is being set up or released.

PayPoint’s CoP capability can be used at multiple points in the payment lifecycle: at the point of collection, when creating a payment instruction, or both. That flexibility matters for corporate environments, where payee data can enter systems through different routes—new supplier onboarding, payroll updates, or changes to existing beneficiary details.

The broader implication is that CoP shifts verification from being a best-effort manual task to a repeatable control. For finance teams trying to automate “high-volume, high-value payments,” the promise is not just fewer fraud losses, but fewer operational disruptions caused by incorrect details—payments that bounce, need resubmission, or trigger exception handling.

Payee Verification Workflow Steps
1. Payee details enter the workflow (new supplier, amended bank details, employee payroll update).
2. CoP/ANV check runs against the provided sort code + account number + account name.
3. Result returned in-line (commonly: match, close match, or no match).
4. Checkpoint — what teams typically do next:
– Match: proceed with setup/payment.
– Close match: review the suggested name and confirm whether it’s an expected variation (e.g., trading name vs. legal entity) before proceeding.
– No match: pause and re-validate details via an independent channel (e.g., verified supplier master data) before releasing funds.
5. Payment instruction created/released with the verification outcome recorded as part of the workflow.

Impact of Authorised Push Payment Fraud on Businesses

APP fraud has become a defining risk for payment operations because it exploits trust and process rather than technical vulnerabilities alone. Fraudsters persuade staff to send money—often urgently, often with plausible context—making it difficult for traditional controls to catch in time. The scale of the problem is stark: £258 million was lost to authorised push payment fraud in the first half of 2025 alone, according to UK Finance’s Half-Year Fraud Report 2025—a figure frequently referenced in industry discussions about why payee verification is moving into standard payment workflows.

For businesses, the impact is not limited to the immediate financial loss. APP fraud can disrupt payroll runs, delay supplier payments, and create cascading operational issues when funds don’t reach the intended recipient. In high-volume environments, even a small number of compromised or misdirected payments can generate significant follow-on work: investigations, reconciliations, and urgent remediation with banks and counterparties.

There is also a structural challenge: corporate payments are often both high-value and time-sensitive. Payroll deadlines, supplier terms, and seasonal spikes can compress decision-making windows—conditions that fraudsters exploit. When teams are under pressure to “get payments out,” manual verification steps may be skipped or performed inconsistently.

That is why the PayPoint–AccessPay integration is framed around controls that “scale with operations.” The goal is to reduce reliance on manual intervention and instead embed checks into the workflow itself. In this view, fraud prevention is not a separate compliance exercise; it is part of operational resilience for the finance function.

The partnership’s emphasis on reducing payment errors also reflects a reality of APP fraud: not every misdirected payment is criminal, but the operational cost of fixing mistakes can resemble the cost of responding to fraud—especially when exceptions pile up during peak payment periods.

Operational Impact Before Loss Confirmation
– Operational fallout often shows up before the loss is even confirmed:
– Payroll disruption: urgent re-runs, employee queries, and time pressure around cut-offs.
– Supplier delays: missed delivery windows, strained terms, and expedited remediation.
– Reconciliation load: tracing payments, correcting ledgers, and documenting what changed (and when).
– Exception queues: more holds, more resubmissions, more manual approvals—especially during peak runs.
– Why the £258m figure changes behaviour: When losses are this visible (UK Finance, H1 2025), finance teams tend to prioritise controls that work inside the payment workflow—where mistakes and social-engineering attempts can be stopped before release.

Enhancing Payment Workflows with CoP Integration

The practical promise of integrating CoP into AccessPay’s payments automation suite is that verification becomes a native step in how finance teams execute payments—rather than an external tool or a manual checklist. PayPoint’s CoP offering enables AccessPay customers to verify payee account details as part of their payment workflows, aligning fraud prevention with automation rather than treating them as competing priorities.

PayPoint has positioned its CoP capability as enterprise-ready for peak usage scenarios. Corporate payment operations are not steady-state: payroll runs can create predictable surges, supplier payment cycles can concentrate volume into specific days, and seasonal spikes can push systems to their limits. PayPoint says its capability is designed to handle these peak-usage scenarios and is recognised for processing exceptionally high transaction volumes.

Access options are another key part of the integration story. PayPoint’s CoP provides flexible routes for adoption, including APIs, a user interface, and bulk processing. That matters because organisations sit at different stages of automation maturity. Some will want deep API integration into existing treasury or ERP-linked workflows; others may need a UI-led approach; and many corporate teams still rely on bulk files for payment initiation and beneficiary management.

The operational benefits described by AccessPay include reducing payment resubmissions, exception handling, and manual intervention. Those are not abstract efficiencies: resubmissions can delay critical payments, exception queues can consume staff time, and manual checks can become inconsistent under pressure. By embedding account name verification into the process, the integration aims to reduce both fraud risk and the everyday friction that slows finance teams down.

Ultimately, the workflow argument is straightforward: if verification is easy to run at the moment decisions are made—when payees are created or payments are instructed—it is more likely to be used consistently, even at scale.

Pre-Release Validation Impacts
– Upsides (what teams usually gain):
– Fewer misdirected payments (fraud and error) because checks happen before release.
– Lower resubmission and exception-handling workload when payee details are validated earlier.
– More consistent controls during peak runs (payroll/supplier cycles) versus ad-hoc manual checks.
– Trade-offs (what to plan for):
– False mismatches / close matches: legitimate variations (legal entity vs. trading name) can create review work.
– Added checkpoint in the flow: if not tuned, it can feel like friction for urgent payments.
– Operational design needed: teams must decide who can override a mismatch, what evidence is required, and how outcomes are logged for auditability.

Statements from Leadership: Insights from Anish Kapoor and Jo Toolan

Leaders from both companies have framed the partnership as a response to what finance teams are asking for: automation without sacrificing control.

Anish Kapoor, chief executive officer of AccessPay, said customers want to automate “high-volume, high-value payments with confidence,” and emphasised that safeguards need to be “built directly into their processes.” He also pointed to PayPoint’s scale, describing it as “recognised for delivering payment and fraud services at a national scale.”

“Our customers want to automate high-volume, high-value payments with confidence, knowing robust safeguards are built directly into their processes.”
Anish Kapoor, CEO, AccessPay

Kapoor linked the integration to operational outcomes as well as risk reduction, saying the partnership strengthens fraud and error protections while improving efficiency.

Jo Toolan, managing director of payments at PayPoint, positioned AccessPay as central to “modern finance operations,” highlighting its role in securely connecting businesses to their banks and enabling automated payment flows at scale.

“Partnering with AccessPay allows us to extend our CoP capability to thousands of finance teams that are actively transforming how they manage payments.”
Jo Toolan, Managing Director of Payments, PayPoint

Toolan’s comments focus on reach and impact: extending CoP to a large base of finance teams, helping organisations reduce fraud risk, minimise payment errors, and deliver “more secure, trusted payment experiences.” Together, the statements underline a shared thesis: corporate payment security improves when controls are embedded into the systems teams already use, at the scale they operate.

Customer Reception and Feedback on the New Service

While detailed customer metrics were not disclosed, AccessPay has said the integrated service has been “positively received” since the companies began working together in 2025; beyond that statement, no specific adoption, accuracy, or exception-rate figures were provided in the announcement. That matters because payment controls can fail in practice if they add friction, slow down processing, or create too many false exceptions. Positive reception implies the verification step is fitting into real-world finance operations without becoming a blocker.

The appeal is easy to understand in the context AccessPay and PayPoint describe: finance teams are increasingly expected to automate, but they are also accountable for preventing misdirected payments—whether due to fraud or error. A CoP check embedded into the payment workflow offers a way to strengthen controls without reverting to manual processes that don’t scale.

AccessPay’s emphasis on reducing operational rework also hints at where customers may be feeling the benefit. In many finance teams, the cost of a payment issue is not only the money at risk; it is the time spent untangling what happened, correcting records, and re-running processes under deadline pressure. If CoP reduces the number of payments that need to be stopped, repaired, or resent, the operational impact can be immediate.

PayPoint’s focus on peak-usage scenarios—payroll runs, supplier payments, seasonal spikes—also aligns with when customers are most likely to notice whether a control works. If verification holds up under volume, it becomes a dependable part of the process rather than a feature that is quietly bypassed when things get busy.

Key CoP/ANV Implementation Questions
If you’re evaluating (or rolling out) CoP/ANV inside a corporate payment workflow, ask for clarity on:
– Coverage: Which payment types and banks are in-scope for checks in your setup?
– Where checks run: Payee onboarding, payment creation, payment release—or all three?
– Outcomes & handling: How are match/close match/no match routed, and who can override?
– Exception volume: What’s the expected mismatch rate for your supplier base (especially trading-name heavy sectors)?
– Performance at peak: What happens during payroll day or end-of-month supplier runs (latency, timeouts, retries)?
– Bulk-file behaviour: If you use bulk payments, how are results returned and reconciled back to the file?
– Audit trail: Can you export verification outcomes for investigations and internal controls testing?

Enhancing Corporate Payment Security Through Strategic Partnerships

The Importance of Fraud Prevention in Corporate Payments

The PayPoint–AccessPay partnership reflects a broader shift in corporate payments: fraud prevention is increasingly being treated as a design requirement for payment automation, not an add-on. With APP fraud losses reaching £258 million in the first half of 2025, the case for preventative controls is no longer theoretical. The challenge for finance teams is to reduce risk while maintaining speed and scale—especially for high-volume, high-value flows like payroll and supplier payments.

Embedding CoP into payment workflows is one way to align those goals. By verifying payee details before funds are sent, organisations can reduce exposure to both fraud and costly errors. Just as importantly, they can reduce the operational drag that comes from exceptions and rework—issues that compound when payment volumes spike.

Integrating Advanced Technologies for Secure Transactions

The integration also illustrates how security capabilities can be delivered through ecosystems rather than standalone tools. AccessPay provides bank connectivity and payment automation; PayPoint contributes CoP capability designed for high transaction volumes and flexible deployment via APIs, user interfaces, and bulk processing. Combined, the proposition is a workflow-level control that can be adopted by organisations at different stages of automation maturity.

In a finance function increasingly tasked with doing more with less—more payments, more automation, more scrutiny—partnerships like this aim to make secure execution the default. The strategic bet is that the most effective fraud controls are the ones that are easiest to use, hardest to bypass, and built into the systems where payment decisions actually happen.

This perspective reflects how payment teams typically evaluate controls in practice—especially around high-volume runs, exception handling, and dispute/chargeback pressure—based on Martin Weidemann’s work building and scaling payment and automation systems in regulated environments across the Americas.

Evaluating Payment-Security Partnerships
A quick way to evaluate payment-security partnerships like this one:
1. Control placement: Does verification happen where decisions are made (payee setup + payment release), or after the fact?
2. Scale readiness: Can it handle predictable peaks (payroll/end-of-month/seasonal spikes) without teams bypassing it?
3. Integration paths: API, UI, and bulk options—so adoption matches your operating model today.
4. Exception design: Clear handling for mismatches (routing, overrides, evidence) so “security” doesn’t become “queue backlog.”
5. Measurable outcomes: Ability to track resubmissions, exception rates, and prevented misdirects—not just “enabled.”

This article reflects publicly available information at the time of writing. Product capabilities, coverage, and performance may vary depending on bank connectivity, payment type, and how a finance team configures its processes. Some details remain uncertain and may change as the service evolves and additional metrics are published.

Related Posts

Scroll to Top