NetSuite Electronic Bank Payments – Doesn’t Support CPA – 005

Sharing is Caring

Out of the box, you would think that the NetSuite Electronic Bank Payments module would support the CPA-005 file format because it’s mentioned in the NetSuite Electronic Bank Payments brochure.

If you are dealing with Canadian Banks CPA-005 is pretty much the only file format that will work. Unfortunately, the NetSuite stock Electronic Bank Payments module doesn’t actually support the CPA-005 format.

Why Doesn’t NetSuite Work With CPA-005?

This is because it is missing the various account fields that are required when a payment gets returned (Account Number, Institution, etc).

There is a pending enhancement request which is #229869 which you should mention when creating a case.

Known Workarounds

Most banks have added support to manually create electronic fund transfers in their web applications which could be an option for companies that aren’t sending a large number of payments every month.

The only known workaround in the NetSuite platform is to purchase the Advanced Payments module.

Sharing is Caring

One Response to “NetSuite Electronic Bank Payments – Doesn’t Support CPA – 005”

  1. Brian, the issue is that NetSuite developed the CPA-005 file to RBC’s specifications. You’d think a universal file would be universal, but unfortunately it’s not.
    For BMO the issue was that we needed to define the return account, RBC doesn’t need it.

    There’s more about this on this blog under “Inconsistencies in Official Docs”:

    http://www.antradar.com/blog-pad-cpa-005-format-canadian-eft-documentation

    A work around is to create an excel file with one cell that has 9 0’s and 12 spaces

    Like this:

    ‘000000000 ‘

    And another cell with your bank routing number (4 digit institution + 5 digit transit or branch) + 12 digit account number (zeros in front if needed to get to 12.

    Then we opened the export file from NetSuite in wordpad and did a find a replace the zeros and spaces field with the routing and account field.

    Not ideal obviously, but worked perfectly every time.

    Easier than my current work around for Intacct!

    Cheers