Contactless declined

[Surreytraveller]

If a new card has not been verified by the PIN being entered then it will ot work for any contactless transactions, including transit.

Mine does. New card, first use was on a bus. There seems to be no standardised policy.

 

[najaB]

I was once conned in the railway...

I think you should look up the meaning of the word 'con' in this context. I can't see how a confidence trick was played on you there.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Thankfully the providers of the three cards I carry around- First Direct Debit Card, AMEX Card and Lloyds MasterCard, all issue NON contactless cards.

I very rarely use the AMEX and MasterCard anyway, having used them in a shop zero times this month and have only used my debit card chip and pin maybe 3 times.

I was once conned in the railway whereby I leant on a standalone reader at Kings X without even realising! Wallet in back pocket, beep, TFL mugged me of £5 or so.

Since then I'm 100% contactless-free ! They can keep the dam thing...

So an error on your part means they are a con? Hmmmm. You realise that soon all cards will be contactless. Providing non contactless is an extra cost and at some point the banks will decide that they will stop providing non contactless cards.

 

[danm14]

So an error on your part means they are a con? Hmmmm. You realise that soon all cards will be contactless. Providing non contactless is an extra cost and at some point the banks will decide that they will stop providing non contactless cards.

I'm not sure about in the UK, but in Ireland those under 18 cannot be issued with a contactless card (or even a card which supports offline transactions or a cheque-book) - transactions carried out offline do not check the current balance and can allow someone to go into an unauthorised overdraft. I believe it's illegal here to give credit to someone under 18, and if it's not illegal at the very least the debt's unenforceable. The same applies to those with very poor credit history, though that's the bank's choice not to give them one.

If the same is true in the UK, non-contactless cards (or possibly in future contactless cards with the chip disabled) are here to stay.

(As much as I think hungry's reasoning for wanting a non-contactless card is obscure and absurd, I do feel he has every right to request one so long as they're still available, which I'd say will be for a long, long time)

 

[rmt4ever]

If you'd accidentally leaned against an open fire in a pub and your trousers caught light, would that make fire a con?

If you'd leaned against the same reader with an Oyster card in your back pocket, the same thing would have happened. Does that also make Oyster cards a con?

I don't have an Oyster card anyway so it's irrelevant

 

[jon0844]

Thankfully the providers of the three cards I carry around- First Direct Debit Card, AMEX Card and Lloyds MasterCard, all issue NON contactless cards.

I very rarely use the AMEX and MasterCard anyway, having used them in a shop zero times this month and have only used my debit card chip and pin maybe 3 times.

I was once conned in the railway whereby I leant on a standalone reader at Kings X without even realising! Wallet in back pocket, beep, TFL mugged me of £5 or so.

Since then I'm 100% contactless-free ! They can keep the dam thing...

Talk about a rather obscure reason to hate contactless cards. How likely is such a scenario? But if you regularly lean against card readers, get a wallet with an RFID blocker. Problem solved!

It seems you're missing out on a load of benefits for the sake of a scenario that is really not likely to happen very often.

 

[rmt4ever]

So an error on your part means they are a con? Hmmmm. You realise that soon all cards will be contactless. Providing non contactless is an extra cost and at some point the banks will decide that they will stop providing non contactless cards.

Then I'll open one of those basic accounts that doesn't allow it. Or one of those savings accounts that just provides a book and have my salary paid in there.

 

[najaB]

It seems you're missing out on a load of benefits for the sake of a scenario that is really not likely to happen very often.

I wouldn't waste the time. It seems a mind has been made up, there's no point trying to bother it with facts.

 

[causton]

Do remember that Contactless comes in many forms. For example, we have the facility where I work but it authorises every transaction, which takes away some of the speed of it but it does mean that it comes up as "Declined", which surprises some people and some have commented "I thought I'd get away with it cause it's contactless" or similar!

Also I have seen people buy child tickets (verified with ID) pay with Contactless, on their own card, so I am not sure what individual banks think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Talk about a rather obscure reason to hate contactless cards. How likely is such a scenario? But if you regularly lean against card readers, get a wallet with an RFID blocker. Problem solved!

It seems you're missing out on a load of benefits for the sake of a scenario that is really not likely to happen very often.

And by emailing TfL you'd have got your fiver back, in any case. If you report erroneous charges they generally give you the benefit of the doubt unless you do it too often.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also I have seen people buy child tickets (verified with ID) pay with Contactless, on their own card, so I am not sure what individual banks think.

At present the card can be set to work (transit mode aside) only with authorisation, to allow cards for under 18s to work. In a few months *all* non-transit contactless transactions will require authorisation.

It's also possible to hold an "authorised user" credit card below 18, though I forget how far below 18, probably from 16 I suspect. I know I had one on my Dad's account, strictly only to be used if I got stranded somewhere or with advance permission!

 

[jon0844]

And by emailing TfL you'd have got your fiver back, in any case. If you report erroneous charges they generally give you the benefit of the doubt unless you do it too often.

Email? EMAIL? That con? Where you give away personal details and then get swamped with spam?

 

[danm14]

Do remember that Contactless comes in many forms. For example, we have the facility where I work but it authorises every transaction, which takes away some of the speed of it but it does mean that it comes up as "Declined", which surprises some people and some have commented "I thought I'd get away with it cause it's contactless" or similar!

Also I have seen people buy child tickets (verified with ID) pay with Contactless, on their own card, so I am not sure what individual banks think.

Perhaps the rules regarding this have changed or are being interpreted more loosely, as even in Ireland, at least one bank (Permanent TSB) is now issuing contactless cards to those under 18. I know a couple of years ago it was a clear cut "no contactless till you're 18" policy (at least with the four major banks in Ireland)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the rules regarding this have changed or are being interpreted more loosely, as even in Ireland, at least one bank (Permanent TSB) is now issuing contactless cards to those under 18. I know a couple of years ago it was a clear cut "no contactless till you're 18" policy (at least with the four major banks in Ireland)

https://www.gohenry.co.uk/

There are loads of these pre-paid cards actively designed for kids.

 

[cmovcc]

depends what the software on the chip has been programmed to do, might very well vary between issuer

they are not bug free either, there was that rather infamous bug where the contactless floor limit didn't apply to any transactions in a foreign currency... whoops

 

[najaB]

....there was that rather infamous bug where the contactless floor limit didn't apply to any transactions in a foreign currency...

That's not a bug, that's by design. It's so that different limits can apply in different currencies. Some banks simply neglected to to set any limits.

 

[cmovcc]

That's not a bug, that's by design. It's so that different limits can apply in different currencies. Some banks simply neglected to to set any limits.

what a defensive response! was that your oversight? (jk)

a bug is the incorrect resultant behaviour

the fact that causal factor might be the configuration rather than the implementation doesn't mean that it isn't a bug

specifications can also contain bugs, if they don't match the desired business behaviour

if foreign currencies were missing from the floor limit spec that would be an example of a bug in the spec, because letting people buy $10000 handbags contactlessly without authorisation is certainly not the desired business behaviour

 

[WelshBluebird]

what a defensive response! was that your oversight? (jk)

a bug is the incorrect resultant behaviour

the fact that causal factor might be the configuration rather than the implementation doesn't mean that it isn't a bug

specifications can also contain bugs, if they don't match the desired business behaviour

if foreign currencies were missing from the floor limit spec that would be an example of a bug in the spec, because letting people buy $10000 handbags contactlessly without authorisation is certainly not the desired business behaviour

User error (a bank not setting the limits on other currencies) is not the same as a bug. You could argue that it is user unfriendly design, but I don't see how it is a bug if it works as expected from a design and development point of view (which it does, you set a limit for a currency and that works for that currency). Sorry for being pedantic but part of my job is to know when I have a bug in some of my work and when I need to push back on the user for not following instructions!

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't have an Oyster card anyway so it's irrelevant

Soon, you won't need one, as your card will be contactless!

Or are you going to pay £4.90 single for a cash fare on the Tube while the rest of us pay less than half the price?

 

[najaB]

a bug is the incorrect resultant behaviour.

A bug is when something doesn't work per design. Much like WelshBluebird, a large part of my day consists of determining if there's a bug in our product or if the customer is just using it wrong.

 

[ethernet22]

I know Santander, Nationwide and Barclays offer contactless debit cards to under 18s. This is because banks/card issuers are now able to force authorisation for all contactless transactions. I think Visa and AMEX are going to soon start forcing authorisation for all contactless transactions anyway, regardless of your age, because of the potential for fraud even when the card is cancelled or blocked (as contactless is mostly done offline the transaction can still go through).
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ne...-bid-to-tackle-contactless-card-security-flaw

I'm under 18 and have a contactless debit card. On one of the occasions where I have had to pay on the train and I used contactless, it was declined, presumably because of no signal to authorise it (I had plenty of money in the account).

 

[GaryMcEwan]

It looks like MasterCard have are already starting to force authorisation for contactless transactions on debit cards issued by them.

When I used my old debit card a contactless transaction would approve almost instantly, my replacement debit card on the other hand appears to go online and seek authorisation before it's approved.

 

[cmovcc]

A bug is when something doesn't work per design. Much like WelshBluebird, a large part of my day consists of determining if there's a bug in our product or if the customer is just using it wrong.

keep reading... let me quote it for you:

specifications can also contain bugs, if they don't match the desired business behaviour

if foreign currencies were missing from the floor limit spec that would be an example of a bug in the spec, because letting people buy $10000 handbags contactlessly without authorisation is certainly not the desired business behaviour

as a software engineer who works for a bank: if I had authored a spec that omitted the rather significant detail that people may attempt to use their contactless cards to make large purchases abroad, which was then implemented, then a few months later watched as the story blow up in the media (costing my bank a significant amount)... and then attempted to defend the resultant, obviously flawed behaviour as "not a bug" because "the spec we agreed didn't say anything about that"... I would probably be asked to resign!

a specification in itself is a solution to a business problem. if an oversight in a specification doesn't solve the business problem (e.g. "we require floor limits on all transactions"): it is a bug, regardless of whether it is a bug in the spec itself, or in the implementation -- the effect is the same

 

[najaB]

...as a software engineer who works for a bank: if I had authored a spec that omitted the rather significant detail that people may attempt to use their contactless cards to make large purchases abroad...

Again, it's *meant* to work that way precisely so that people can have different limits when travelling. The fact that some banks neglected to set a limit and so the cards simply use the default limit doesn't make it a bug in the contactless payment standards. And the default limit has to be a high number of currency units because of differing exchange rates. It wouldn't get you very far if you could only spend 30 Yen or 30 Rupees at at time.

If there's a bug it is in the individual bank's systems.

(Possibly poor) analogy: If I forget to lock my door and I come home and the house is empty, does that mean there's a bug in the design of the lock?

 

[cmovcc]

The fact that *some* banks neglected to set a limit doesn't make it a bug in the contactless payment standards.

never said it was (though, as someone who has actually read the rather large EMV spec, there's probably quite a few lying in there )

If there's a bug it is in the individual bank's systems.

yes! that was my original point:

depends what the software on the chip has been programmed to do, might very well vary between issuer

(and by bank you mean card issuer)

 

[Bletchleyite]

a specification in itself is a solution to a business problem. if an oversight in a specification doesn't solve the business problem (e.g. "we require floor limits on all transactions"): it is a bug, regardless of whether it is a bug in the spec itself, or in the implementation -- the effect is the same

The effect is the same but the contractual situation is not, hence why those of us in the industry will tend to differentiate.

A code defect - a bug - is the developer company's fault and they will need to fix it or possibly pay compensation depending on the contract.

A specification defect / missed requirement may well, in some circumstances, require additional payment from the customer if it is to be corrected, as the price quoted will have been on the basis of the specification which was signed off.

 

[tsr]

I have quite a lot to do with passengers using contactless cards on trains.

There are quite a few recent cases where I have come across kids in their early teens with contactless cards. In the cases I found, I had no reason to doubt that those cards belonged to them. Most of these cards have been issued well within the last year or so. Some of them seem to specifically use them as a cash-free way for their parents to pay for their train ticket.

(Interestingly, quite some time ago when I was a young teenager and got my first bank account, I was issued with an offline-authorised debit card straight away. There was some complication because a member of my family already banked not just with that institution, but the same branch, and my account was linked to theirs for a few years. This was pretty much before anyone had even heard of contactless payment!)

I also find that the vast majority of contactless payments via the "Envoy" (or whatever it's called this month) ticket software, used by a lot of onboard staff on trains these days, require authorisation. I'd say only about 10-15% of sales will be processed without a data connection and authorisation. Sometimes refunds / cancelling transactions can also be quite complex if the systems fail half way through the transaction! Lastly, it's interesting that even with full updates of blacklisted cards and valid authentication, Envoy still needs to set itself up and process its first transaction in an area with mobile data signal (or wifi), before it can take any card payments. Cash payment is unaffected by this.

 

[najaB]

yes! that was my original point.

In which case I apologise for misreading your post.

 

[cmovcc]

The effect is the same but the contractual situation is not, hence why those of us in the industry will tend to differentiate.

A code defect - a bug - is the developer company's fault and they will need to fix it or possibly pay compensation depending on the contract.

A specification defect / missed requirement may well, in some circumstances, require additional payment from the customer if it is to be corrected, as the price quoted will have been on the basis of the specification which was signed off.

depends on what part of the industry... if you are one of a large firm's internal software development teams you obviously have a very different relationship to the "customer" to that of an external firm that has work outsourced to it

In which case I apologise for misreading your post.

no worries!

 

[Sprinter153]

I also find that the vast majority of contactless payments via the "Envoy" (or whatever it's called this month) ticket software, used by a lot of onboard staff on trains these days, require authorisation. I'd say only about 10-15% of sales will be processed without a data connection and authorisation. Sometimes refunds / cancelling transactions can also be quite complex if the systems fail half way through the transaction! Lastly, it's interesting that even with full updates of blacklisted cards and valid authentication, Envoy still needs to set itself up and process its first transaction in an area with mobile data signal (or wifi), before it can take any card payments. Cash payment is unaffected by this.

Since 7th August Visa have required all contactless transactions to be authorised online, which has affected Star Mobile users too. The advice given to us has been to use Chip and PIN instead if there is poor mobile coverage.

Apparently Mastercard and Amex are not affected, yet.