Would You Raise the Card Contactless Limit? What To?

[whhistle]

Obviously this question is aimed at those who use contactless payments.

Watched someone today try to buy a ticket that was over £150 using their contactless card.
Got me thinking whether the limit could almost be individually set by the user (and easy to change whenever) - a bit like blocking or unblocking your card can now be done very quickly through banking apps.

There might be times where I don't mind the limit being £100, others the £30 is better.

I understand phone payments seemingly have no limit, but they're not under discussion here :P

So would you raise the card contactless limit?
To what?

 

[AM9]

Obviously this question is aimed at those who use contactless payments.

Watched someone today try to buy a ticket that was over £150 using their contactless card.
Got me thinking whether the limit could almost be individually set by the user (and easy to change whenever) - a bit like blocking or unblocking your card can now be done very quickly through banking apps.

There might be times where I don't mind the limit being £100, others the £30 is better.

I understand phone payments seemingly have no limit, but they're not under discussion here :P

So would you raise the card contactless limit?
To what?

Currently, fraud on contactless transactions is underwritten by the banks unless they have a suspicion that the holder is responsible. The banks might insist that cardholders bear the cost of fraudulent transactions above £30. Who would accept that?

 

[Puffing Devil]

It is over £30 if you use a phone, which will have some security on board.

£30 seems to be a fair limit which balances security and convenience.

 

[Harpers Tate]

In reality, it's not the means by which the card communicates with the machine (mag-strip, chip, contactless) that's material. It just so happens that we have chosen to associate contactless with no PIN. However, what is material is what authorisation occurs - by the customer and then between the machine and the card acquirer - and where any associated risk is borne.

This is what (IMO) it should do:
- very small amounts; (I'd suggest <£10); no PIN, and no need for online authorisation - in other words, authorised by default. (Would work perfectly well in a railway tunnel, and would be practically instantaneous). Buy a newspaper, a pint, a local train fare, etc..... Quicker than cash.
- small amounts; (I'd suggest >£10<£30); no PIN, requires online authorisation.
- large amounts >£30; PIN plus online authorisation

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is over £30 if you use a phone, which will have some security on board.

£30 seems to be a fair limit which balances security and convenience.

Agreed. Using a phone to authenticate extends the limit (except for rubbish TVMs[1]) and solves the issue without increasing risk.

[1] Scheidt & Bachmann TVMs don't activate the contactless pad if the price is over £30, which is annoying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In reality, it's not the means by which the card communicates with the machine (mag-strip, chip, contactless) that's material. It just so happens that we have chosen to associate contactless with no PIN. However, what is material is what authorisation occurs - by the customer and then between the machine and the card acquirer - and where any associated risk is borne.

This is what (IMO) it should do:
- very small amounts; (I'd suggest <£10); no PIN, and no need for online authorisation - in other words, authorised by default. (Would work perfectly well in a railway tunnel, and would be practically instantaneous). Buy a newspaper, a pint, a local train fare, etc..... Quicker than cash.
- small amounts; (I'd suggest >£10<£30); no PIN, requires online authorisation.
- large amounts >£30; PIN plus online authorisation

The problem with no authorisation is that means no way to stop a stolen card.

 

[Harpers Tate]

No need for authorisation isn't the same as no authorisation. Authorised by default means - in the absence of a rapid response (eg by lack of signal).........

 

[muz379]

In reality, it's not the means by which the card communicates with the machine (mag-strip, chip, contactless) that's material. It just so happens that we have chosen to associate contactless with no PIN. However, what is material is what authorisation occurs - by the customer and then between the machine and the card acquirer - and where any associated risk is borne.

That is one thing that has puzzled me with the roll out of contactless . As you say it is perfectly possible to have the card communicate with the card reader contactless but still require the pin to be entered . The result is unless you have plenty of transactions over £30 you seldom use the chip and then when you do come to use it you find it wont work because the contacts have got dirty .

 

[AM9]

That is one thing that has puzzled me with the roll out of contactless . As you say it is perfectly possible to have the card communicate with the card reader contactless but still require the pin to be entered . The result is unless you have plenty of transactions over £30 you seldom use the chip and then when you do come to use it you find it wont work because the contacts have got dirty .

They are gold plated so just give them a rub.

 

[DarloRich]

I would go to £50 but i am not sure it needs to go to £50!

 

[Clip]

I would go to £50 but i am not sure it needs to go to £50!

That all depends how big the round is down the pub

 

[Ken H]

is typing in the PIN so hard? I really dont think about it. I often shove my card in the slot and do pin without thinking of contactless.

 

[Bletchleyite]

is typing in the PIN so hard? I really dont think about it. I often shove my card in the slot and do pin without thinking of contactless.

I think phone payments are the killer app, really, rather than cards (other than on things like TfL). Removing your phone from your pocket, looking at it/putting your finger on the fingerprint sensor while simultaneously bringing it up to the touch pad is much, much quicker than opening your wallet, retrieving a card from it, inserting it and entering a PIN, and just as secure - actually in some ways more so, because you never enter your PIN/fingerprint on a foreign device which could have been tampered with.

TBH I wouldn't mind if contactless cards were abolished provided (the much more secure) phone option remained.

 

[najaB]

So would you raise the card contactless limit?
To what?

No, because of the liability shift that will likely follow. As others have said, if you want to use contactless for higher amounts then a phone or other device that requires a second authentication factor is ideal.

 

[Busaholic]

No, I'd like to see them abolished. In time they'll abolish themselves. Chip and PIN were developed for a reason, which remains as valid today as when they were introduced.

 

[najaB]

No, I'd like to see them abolished. In time they'll abolish themselves. Chip and PIN were developed for a reason, which remains as valid today as when they were introduced.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. Having to enter your PIN for low-value purchase is something I don't want to go back to.

 

[GaryMcEwan]

I would hate if I would need to go back to using my card full stop in shops. Can't remember the last time I used my card either chip and pin or contactless. Everything I do is via Google Pay.

Would definitely not want to go back to the dark ages and having to enter my pin for everything.

 

[Giugiaro]

We got contactless through MB Way rather than NFC cards. I have set 200€ max at the moment and I do need to type in a 6 digit PIN on the phone before confirming the transaction. It happens for payments above 20€.

 

[MidlandsChap]

is typing in the PIN so hard? I really dont think about it. I often shove my card in the slot and do pin without thinking of contactless.

100% this.

It seems that we are replacing safe and secure with easy and convenient. Contactless cards and keyless entry and a triumph of technology over common sense. We made the logical step to replace easily forged signatures with a pin code and now we have regressed back to a less secure method than we had to start with.

I have no prolem with other people having whatever limit they want, but I would personally like the option of opting out altogether. I am perfectly happy entering my pin number.

 

[najaB]

I have no prolem with other people having whatever limit they want, but I would personally like the option of opting out altogether. I am perfectly happy entering my pin number.

Non NFC-enabled cards will continue to be available for the foreseeable future, and even where they are not banks can set the limit to zero if you want.

 

[Busaholic]

Non NFC-enabled cards will continue to be available for the foreseeable future, and even where they are not banks can set the limit to zero if you want.

Nat West have already stopped issuing non-contactless debit cards. I was perturbed to receive a contactless debit card just before Christmas, when I'd made clear to Nat West that I didn't want this, so my previous two were the old type. Went into my bank branch on New Year's Eve afternoon, saw the teller who told me 'yes, as you're applying for an old one before the end of the year, we can still do it. I'll order it now and you'll get it by the end of the week. In the meantime, use the contactless one with pin.' True to his word, I received my new card on the Saturday, with a note to cut up the contactless one. It's valid for four years too!

 

[hexagon789]

Personally I think £30 is a good compromise, I've never felt that it was unduly low or that, for more expensive transactions, entering a PIN was any hassle.

 

[najaB]

Nat West have already stopped issuing non-contactless debit cards.

I'm reasonably confident that they can still issue regular cards if they want to. Failing that, they can set the limit to zero.

 

[Killingworth]

Limits in most of Europe are lower than in the UK, but they're higher in North America. China and Japan are highest where you'd be able to pay over the equivalent of £100 contactless, see; https://merchantmachine.co.uk/contactless-limits/

If fraud in those countries is found to be commercially acceptable I feel sure £50 will come here before long.

The first cheque cards were for only £10 in 1965 (issued on a folding card) before rising to £30 when most banks were issuing plastic cards in 1969, and finally to £50. I see contactless evolving in a similar way, the use of smartphones possibly rendering them out of date within 10 years!

 

[Giugiaro]

Limits in most of Europe are lower than in the UK, but they're higher in North America. China and Japan are highest where you'd be able to pay over the equivalent of £100 contactless, see; https://merchantmachine.co.uk/contactless-limits/

MB Way in Portugal has a maximum daily value of 5.000€... Holy Blimey!

Though, it's not the "traditional" contactless used everywhere else...
https://www.mbway.pt/perguntas/comp...ompras-quem-o-define-o-banco-ou-o-utilizador/

 

[Springs Branch]

I've always been a bit wary of the security risks with contactless cards, but was slightly reassured by a recent incident when my sister-in-law's purse was stolen.

My S-I-L inadvertantly left her purse on the counter of a garage, from where it was promptly stolen by another customer.
She hadn't realised her mistake until around two hours later when she got a phone call from her bank, asking whether she had lost her credit card and informing her they had just frozen it.

Seems the thief (later identified by police from CCTV as a regular female "client") immediately took the card to the nearest discount jeweller, Smokemart* and bottle shop* to stock up on purchases, each just below the card's limit of AU$100 (about £55).

According to the bank representative, a concentrated purchasing spree at these types of establishments will immediately flag something's wrong and halt further contactless transactions.

Not sure whether every bank has this built into their software - this example was the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

* Translation: In Australia - Smokemart is a chain of stores selling discounted ciggies in bulk, and a bottle shop is basically a booze-only off-licence without any of the grocery / convenience store lines.

 

[Busaholic]

I've always been a bit wary of the security risks with contactless cards, but was slightly reassured by a recent incident when my sister-in-law's purse was stolen.

My S-I-L inadvertantly left her purse on the counter of a garage, from where it was promptly stolen by another customer.
She hadn't realised her mistake until around two hours later when she got a phone call from her bank, asking whether she had lost her credit card and informing her they had just frozen it.

Seems the thief (later identified by police from CCTV as a regular female "client") immediately took the card to the nearest discount jeweller, Smokemart* and bottle shop* to stock up on purchases, each just below the card's limit of AU$100 (about £55).

According to the bank representative, a concentrated purchasing spree at these types of establishments will immediately flag something's wrong and halt further contactless transactions.

Not sure whether every bank has this built into their software - this example was the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

* Translation: In Australia - Smokemart is a chain of stores selling discounted ciggies in bulk, and a bottle shop is basically a booze-only off-licence without any of the grocery / convenience store lines.

Nevertheless. that's c£150 of goods that wouldn't have been able to be purchased with a chip and pin card.

 

[najaB]

Nevertheless. that's c£150 of goods that wouldn't have been able to be purchased with a chip and pin card.

Not necessarily so...

 

[Busaholic]

Not necessarily so...

In the circumstances described, with an opportunist thief, including the time factor, almost certainly no fraud would have been appropriated. What do the card companies care, it's those of us who pay their excessive fees who pay for it all?

 

[najaB]

In the circumstances described, with an opportunist thief, including the time factor, almost certainly no fraud would have been appropriated.

True. But unlikely isn't a synonym for impossible.