Card-on-file vs direct debit for recovery — what works?
Card-on-file via Stripe vs direct debit via NPP — which actually recovers more reliably, and where the trade-offs sit.
Card-on-file vs direct debit for recovery — what works?
For recovery on payment plans, you have two practical mechanisms in Australia: card-on-file via Stripe (or similar), or direct debit via the New Payments Platform / BECS. Both work; they're suited to different debtor profiles and different debt sizes.
Card-on-file (Stripe)
Pros:
- Fast setup — debtor enters card details once via the portal.
- Good failure-recovery — Stripe Smart Retries reattempt on bank-side declines.
- PCI burden sits with Stripe, not with you.
- Works for short-term plans (3-6 months) where card expiry is less of an issue.
Cons:
- Card expiry kills longer plans unless you ask for re-auth.
- Higher per-transaction cost.
- Disputed-charge mechanism (chargebacks) can pull recovered funds back.
Direct debit (NPP / BECS)
Pros:
- Lower per-transaction cost.
- No expiry — works for long plans.
- Bank-account number is more stable than card details.
- Better suited to larger amounts.
Cons:
- Onboarding friction — debtor needs BSB/account.
- Reversal window — debtor can claim unauthorised debit retroactively.
- Failure recovery (insufficient funds) is slower.
When to use which
- Plans under 6 months, balance under $2k: card-on-file wins on simplicity.
- Plans 6-24 months, balance $2k+: direct debit wins on durability.
- High-risk debtors with disputed history: direct debit avoids chargeback risk.
- First-time / unsure debtors: card-on-file lowers psychological commitment.
Adeva Plus default
We default to card-on-file via Stripe for the recovery itself (single payment or short-plan first-payment), with optional direct debit setup for longer plans. The portal lets debtors pick — most pick card.