Debit card declined

[najaB]

Seems like a lot of unnecessary form filling to me! And risks treating passengers who've made a legitimate attempt to pay using an approved method as petty criminals (or at least that's my perception anyway). I have offered payment, the TOC has refused to accept it. There is no legitimate reason for them to take my name and address in this circumstance. The best possible solution would be to issue guards with adequate equipment.

I disagree. They have an unpaid fare - for whatever reason - and an unpaid fare notice is an invoice for that fare.

 

[rs101]

Surely the guard should follow the procedure set down for failures of the ticketing equipment, be than an unpaid fares notice or whatever?
The customer has tried to pay using an advertised method of payment at what may well be their first opportunity - why should they face difficulties because the TOC doesn't have suitable equipment?

 

[crehld]

Have the TOC refused, or has your bank been unable to confirm your payment?

The bank has issued a working card which, with the correct equipment, will allow me to pay the correct fare. There are also ample funds within the account. This card is advertised as an accepted method of payment on board trains. Thus it has nothing to do with the bank refusing / being unable to confirm payment. The TOC (not bank or passenger) has had to refuse payment as a result of its own inability to ensure staff are issued with the appropriate equipment.

 

[Agent_c]

The bank has issued a working card which, with the correct equipment, will allow me to pay the correct fare. There are also ample funds within the account. This card is advertised as an accepted method of payment on board trains.

So what has happened here is you've asked for the bank to pay the amount for you (and subsequently debit the amount your account).

You haven't offered payment. You've indicated that the bank will pay that for you. For whatever reason, either the bank refused payment as the bank have restricted your card such that higher risk transactions, such as those that cannot be immediately verified should be declined, or the railway was otherwise unable to confirm with the bank that they would pay for your travel.

Your card in itself isn't payment.

 

[crehld]

I disagree. They have an unpaid fare - for whatever reason - and an unpaid fare notice is an invoice for that fare.

Fair enough - so long as at no point it is suggested the passenger is as fault - they are not. But I would be very annoyed at having my details taken down when I have offered the correct fare. There's also the admin burden to consider (assume 10 passengers with these so-called offline cards: that's ten attempts to pay on the card, followed down by writing out ten names and addresses on what I assume are special forms). Would all guards be happy to have this extra burden placed on them? And what about the back office costs of processing said forms? Don't they all have to be handled by the 'independent' body which processes penalty fares? There's obviously a costs associated with that. Quite frankly I think it's a rather silly idea, it would be much easier just to put in place suitable equipment. But then I'm no expert.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what has happened here is you've asked for the bank to pay the amount for you (and subsequently debit the amount your account).

We haven't even got to this point because the TOC has failed to put in place equipment which would allow them to ask the bank for payment.

You haven't offered payment.

I have. I have offered an accepted form of payment.

You've indicated that the bank will pay that for you. For whatever reason, either the bank refused payment

No they haven't refused. The TOC hasn't put in place the necessary equipment to actually ask the bank to take the payment in the first place.

as the bank have restricted your card such that higher risk transactions, such as those that cannot be immediately verified should be declined,

If the card works in all other places. I have even had it accepted in taxis which to my knowledge do not have a fixed connection to the internet. The problem does not therefore seem to be with the bank but with the one place where it does not work: the railway. And a single from Hellifield to Skipton is hardly a high risk transaction... is it?

or the railway was otherwise unable to confirm with the bank that they would pay for your travel.

This is a problem of the railway's own making, because they have failed to put in place appropriate equipment to deal with bank cards they themselves state they will accept.

Your card in itself isn't payment.

Of course not. But the fact a passenger has been unable to pay when they have offered an accepted method of payment is not the passenger's fault. So if they are picked up down the line they should not be penalised for this.

 

[najaB]

There's also the admin burden to consider (assume 10 passengers with these so-called offline cards: that's ten attempts to pay on the card, followed down by writing out ten names and addresses on what I assume are special forms). Would all guards be happy to have this extra burden placed on them? And what about the back office costs of processing said forms? Don't they all have to be handled by the 'independent' body which processes penalty fares?

The administrative burden is no different to the current alternative - a penalty fare or report to the prosecutions department. UPFNs are paid online so there is very little back office work required as long as the passengers pay them promptly. There could be a change made to allow UPFNs to be paid at the station, with the TOC reporting payment to ICRAS.

 

[crehld]

The administrative burden is no different to the current alternative - a penalty fare or report to the prosecutions department. UPFNs are paid online so there is very little back office work required as long as the passengers pay them promptly. There could be a change made to allow UPFNs to be paid at the station, with the TOC reporting payment to ICRAS.

Hang on a minute... Why, when I have boarded at an unstaffed station and offered an advertised accepted method of payment for a ticket, would I suddenly find myself being issued a penalty fare or being passed for prosecution? What on planet earth would justify this?

That said I have boarded at unstaffed stations with no ticket issuing facilities before and been issued a PF when approaching the guard for a ticket before (paying by cash as well), so this sort of attitude does not surprise me!

 

[najaB]

Hang on a minute... Why, when I have boarded at an unstaffed station and offered an advertised accepted method of payment for a ticket, would I suddenly find myself being issued a penalty fare or being passed for prosecution? What on planet earth would justify this?

That said I have boarded at unstaffed stations with no ticket issuing facilities before and been issued a PF when approaching the guard for a ticket before (paying by cash as well), so this sort of attitude does not surprise me!

I wasn't limiting discussion to unstaffed stations. If you board at an unstaffed station which either has no TVM or you are unable to purchase from the TVM, then a penalty fare is automatically invalid.

In the case that you have passed an opportunity to pay and boarded a train without the ability to pay, a penalty fare or prosecution would be appropriate.

The OP stated that he didn't attempt to purchase a ticket at the ticket office because he was in a rush.

 

[34D]

as a result of its own inability to ensure staff are issued with the appropriate equipment.

And/or train its staff in the 'telephone authorisation' processes laid down by its merchant.

 

[Flamingo]

What about the small but significant number who board at a station with no facilities they can (or are prepared to use) who offer a card that is declined by their bank when one telephones for authorisation?

Or is that the railways fault for allowing them to board without a ticket?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And/or train its staff in the 'telephone authorisation' processes laid down by its merchant.

Well, I didn't find out how to do it through guesswork, so I would think I got trained in it. But as has already been stated in this thread (and all the others on the same subject) there are many reasons why it is not practicable to do so.

 

[Agent_c]

Fair enough - so long as at no point it is suggested the passenger is as fault - they are not. But I would be very annoyed at having my details taken down when I have offered the correct fare. There's also the admin burden to consider (assume 10 passengers with these so-called offline cards: that's ten attempts to pay on the card, followed down by writing out ten names and addresses on what I assume are special forms). Would all guards be happy to have this extra burden placed on them? And what about the back office costs of processing said forms? Don't they all have to be handled by the 'independent' body which processes penalty fares? There's obviously a costs associated with that. Quite frankly I think it's a rather silly idea, it would be much easier just to put in place suitable equipment. But then I'm no expert.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what has happened here is you've asked for the bank to pay the amount for you (and subsequently debit the amount your account).

We haven't even got to this point because the TOC has failed to put in place equipment which would allow them to ask the bank for payment.



I have. I have offered an accepted form of payment.

The card itself is not payment though.

Firstly, because you don't own the card to offer it as payment, and second because its not retained by the other side.

The payment is the funds transfer from the bank

No they haven't refused. The TOC hasn't put in place the necessary equipment to actually ask the bank to take the payment in the first place.

But they have. The bank has determined that they will not offer you an "offline" service. They are in effect declining your transaction in that circumstance.

If the card works in all other places. I have even had it accepted in taxis which to my knowledge do not have a fixed connection to the internet. The problem does not therefore seem to be with the bank but with the one place where it does not work: the railway. And a single from Hellifield to Skipton is hardly a high risk transaction... is it?

That it is accepted elsewhere is not proof that it should be accepted for that transaction. Individual transactions can be blocked for any reason, such as fraud or simply being unable to authorise it due to lines being down, etc.

This is a problem of the railway's own making, because they have failed to put in place appropriate equipment to deal with bank cards they themselves state they will accept.

Its not purely of the railways making as they are not the sole determiner of if a card will be accepted. By making this argument you end up in the absurd situation that any visa card should be accepted even if its clearly out of date, or not that users card because "its a valid form of payment and they havent stated they wouldnt take it"

Of course not. But the fact a passenger has been unable to pay when they have offered an accepted method of payment is not the passenger's fault. So if they are picked up down the line they should not be penalised for this.

They may have "offered" it, but that "offer" has as much value as me offering to pay cash when I have 2p in my pocket because some theif stole my wallet - I am unable to complete that offer.

Is it the passenger's fault? No. Its not the railways fault however that your bank has determined that the card they have issued you cannot be used in that situation, and they're unwilling to cover the fraud risk of that transaction.

 

[Clip]

Fair enough - so long as at no point it is suggested the passenger is as fault - they are not. But I would be very annoyed at having my details taken down when I have offered the correct fare. There's also the admin burden to consider (assume 10 passengers with these so-called offline cards: that's ten attempts to pay on the card, followed down by writing out ten names and addresses on what I assume are special forms). Would all guards be happy to have this extra burden placed on them? And what about the back office costs of processing said forms? Don't they all have to be handled by the 'independent' body which processes penalty fares? There's obviously a costs associated with that. Quite frankly I think it's a rather silly idea, it would be much easier just to put in place suitable equipment. But then I'm no expert.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So what has happened here is you've asked for the bank to pay the amount for you (and subsequently debit the amount your account).

We haven't even got to this point because the TOC has failed to put in place equipment which would allow them to ask the bank for payment.



I have. I have offered an accepted form of payment.



No they haven't refused. The TOC hasn't put in place the necessary equipment to actually ask the bank to take the payment in the first place.



If the card works in all other places. I have even had it accepted in taxis which to my knowledge do not have a fixed connection to the internet. The problem does not therefore seem to be with the bank but with the one place where it does not work: the railway. And a single from Hellifield to Skipton is hardly a high risk transaction... is it?



This is a problem of the railway's own making, because they have failed to put in place appropriate equipment to deal with bank cards they themselves state they will accept.



Of course not. But the fact a passenger has been unable to pay when they have offered an accepted method of payment is not the passenger's fault. So if they are picked up down the line they should not be penalised for this.

Or what you could say is that it is also the banks fault for having so many differing cards and if they made it so all cards were able to be used offline and it was at their risk rather than the railways for making sure they got the money then that would be far quicker and easier solution to the problem.

 

[crehld]

I wasn't limiting discussion to unstaffed stations. If you board at an unstaffed station which either has no TVM or you are unable to purchase from the TVM, then a penalty fare is automatically invalid.

In the case that you have passed an opportunity to pay and boarded a train without the ability to pay, a penalty fare or prosecution would be appropriate.

The OP stated that he didn't attempt to purchase a ticket at the ticket office because he was in a rush.

Fair dos... given we've past post 100 I'd forgotten the original situation
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The card itself is not payment though.

Firstly, because you don't own the card to offer it as payment, and second because its not retained by the other side.

The payment is the funds transfer from the bank


But they have. The bank has determined that they will not offer you an "offline" service. They are in effect declining your transaction in that circumstance.


That it is accepted elsewhere is not proof that it should be accepted for that transaction. Individual transactions can be blocked for any reason, such as fraud or simply being unable to authorise it due to lines being down, etc.


Its not purely of the railways making as they are not the sole determiner of if a card will be accepted. By making this argument you end up in the absurd situation that any visa card should be accepted even if its clearly out of date, or not that users card because "its a valid form of payment and they havent stated they wouldnt take it"


They may have "offered" it, but that "offer" has as much value as me offering to pay cash when I have 2p in my pocket because some theif stole my wallet - I am unable to complete that offer.

Is it the passenger's fault? No. Its not the railways fault however that your bank has determined that the card they have issued you cannot be used in that situation, and they're unwilling to cover the fraud risk of that transaction.

The nub of this seems to come down to the fact that we're talking about so-called offline cards. The railway industry, when advertising valid methods of payment makes no distinction here. It says all Visa cards (yes, of course we can apply the common sense rule that those out of date are not valid, that much is obvious). If I see a notice that says Visa cards are accepted I should be able to rely on that as a form of payment (subject to card being in date, funds in the account etc).

The point is if you're going to go to the trouble of advertising a method of payment as valid and accepted then you had better make sure you have the equipment in place to actually accept it. Otherwise don't say you'll accept it and don't plaster it all over the website and on posters at stations. To say you will accept it when you know you won't be able to is misleading at best. This is a well known problem which I imagine the railway industry has been aware of for several years, but has done anything to remedy the situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about the small but significant number who board at a station with no facilities they can (or are prepared to use) who offer a card that is declined by their bank when one telephones for authorisation?

Or is that the railways fault for allowing them to board without a ticket?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well, I didn't find out how to do it through guesswork, so I would think I got trained in it. But as has already been stated in this thread (and all the others on the same subject) there are many reasons why it is not practicable to do so.

This seems to be a different situation, where one does not have the capacity to pay.

In the scenario we are discussing the passenger does have the capacity to pay using one of the advertised approved methods of payment, but is unable to through no fault of their own. It's effectively the same as offering up cash as payment and being told "we cannot accept £20 notes" or something similar.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or what you could say is that it is also the banks fault for having so many differing cards and if they made it so all cards were able to be used offline and it was at their risk rather than the railways for making sure they got the money then that would be far quicker and easier solution to the problem.

True, but I can't see the banks changing the way they do things for the sake of one industry which seems incapable of adapting to this very simple problem.

 

[cjmillsnun]

True, but I can't see the banks changing the way they do things for the sake of one industry which seems incapable of adapting to this very simple problem.

With the railway you have a unique situation in that payments could be processed in the middle of a tunnel or in a cutting. These areas do not give a good mobile signal. For that reason the railways have to cater to something that does not require a link to the bank when they are on-train. The system not only has to process payments but also must be ATOC approved to sell train tickets, and hold the database of fares in its memory.

The Avantix Mobile system used by the railways is now 13 years old and a replacement is being developed. At that time online only cards were referred to as Visa Electron or Solo, and many places didn't accept them.

It is not known whether this new system will allow online payments where a signal is available. If so, then it will work the same way as everywhere else (i.e. if it can get through to the bank, then it'll process it, but if not, it'll decline) However the only people in the know are those developing and testing the system. When it is in public test, then we'll know.

 

[Agent_c]

Fair dos... given we've past post 100 I'd forgotten the original situation
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The nub of this seems to come down to the fact that we're talking about so-called offline cards. The railway industry, when advertising valid methods of payment makes no distinction here. It says all Visa cards (yes, of course we can apply the common sense rule that those out of date are not valid, that much is obvious). If I see a notice that says Visa cards are accepted I should be able to rely on that as a form of payment (subject to card being in date, funds in the account etc).

The point is if you're going to go to the trouble of advertising a method of payment as valid and accepted then you had better make sure you have the equipment in place to actually accept it. Otherwise don't say you'll accept it and don't plaster it all over the website and on posters at stations. To say you will accept it when you know you won't be able to is misleading at best. This is a well known problem which I imagine the railway industry has been aware of for several years, but has done anything to remedy the situation.

But even an online visa card will not be accepted 100% of the time due to downtime or network errors, even in the most ideal of situations... Would you accept a visa card to be accepted then? Even if there was a visa sign? Even if it was the olympics where visa is the only non cash payment?

Of course not. And that wouldn't be your fault either. But that doesn't mean you're going to get free stuff either.

Your card issuer chose to restrict your card so that it wouldnt work in that situation. I suggest you ask them why.

 

[Clip]

In the scenario we are discussing the passenger does have the capacity to pay using one of the advertised approved methods of payment, but is unable to through no fault of their own. It's effectively the same as offering up cash as payment and being told "we cannot accept £20 notes" or something similar.
.

Hmm - I see where you are coming from but wasn't it you a while back who was saying that a card only TVM and having a card to pay does not constitute the first opportunity to pay along with others?

True, but I can't see the banks changing the way they do things for the sake of one industry which seems incapable of adapting to this very simple problem.

But the industry is trying to adapt but there are many obstacles which are in the way and as such they are dealt with by an unpaid fares notice - a simple way to deal with the problem until the very costly roll out of nationwide solidwillnotfail mobile data network. But this is something that you seem unable to accept with the spurious claim that it makes you feel like a criminal.

 

[crehld]

Hmm - I see where you are coming from but wasn't it you a while back who was saying that a card only TVM and having a card to pay does not constitute the first opportunity to pay along with others?

I probably would have said this if it was a card only TVM and the passenger had cash (another advertised payment method) or if the TVM failed to offer a full range of appropriate tickets, as many do.

But the industry is trying to adapt but there are many obstacles which are in the way and as such they are dealt with by an unpaid fares notice - a simple way to deal with the problem until the very costly roll out of nationwide solidwillnotfail mobile data network. But this is something that you seem unable to accept with the spurious claim that it makes you feel like a criminal.

But it's not that spurious is it? I am told my card will not be accepted despite being informed it is a valid form of payment. It is in date and there are sufficient funds in the account. My personal details, including name and address and no doubt some form of id, are then demanded from me. I am informed that failure to provide this information will lead to prosecution and a criminal record. All of this in front of my fellow passengers.

It's embarrassing, paints an otherwise legitimate passenger actively trying to pay their fare as a fare dodger, and a demonstration of poor customer service.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Hmm - I see where you are coming from but wasn't it you a while back who was saying that a card only TVM and having a card to pay does not constitute the first opportunity to pay along with others?

That's perfectly consistent. The railway claims to accept cash, so customers should be permitted to pay their fares in cash. The railway claims to accept Visa debit cards, so customers should be permitted to pay their fares with Visa debit cards.

 

[Clip]

That's perfectly consistent. The railway claims to accept cash, so customers should be permitted to pay their fares in cash. The railway claims to accept Visa debit cards, so customers should be permitted to pay their fares with Visa debit cards.

Indeed we do - however it is the banking industry who have a myriad of different visa cards and dont let their customers own an offline card isnt it? And ill tell you why they dont - because they dont want the risk of losing their money should the person holding the card doesnt have sufficient funds.

Its really rather that simple im afraid. The railway covers such a large geographical area that it does indeed take time and money to install such equipment so that all cards can be read and payment taken or not.

So what we do is issue unpaid fares notices for the passenger to pay at a later date - such a simple and cost effective concept isnt it until everything is rolled out nicely.

Or banks could take the risk of their customers themselves rather than passing that risk to another industry and lets face it the amount of stories you hear on here from my colleagues about those who try it on would actually drop as they wouldnt want their bank piling charges on to them.

Of course maybe we should do away with UPFN which are there to assist passengers who cant pay right now and go on to the banking model of penalising them and adding daily interest to that debt until its paid, you know just like the banking industry does?

Whats good for them, and you abide by their rules dont you, surely is good enough for us?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I probably would have said this if it was a card only TVM and the passenger had cash (another advertised payment method) or if the TVM failed to offer a full range of appropriate tickets, as many do.

No it was a discussion about whether if you have a card and a card only TVM is there but you would prefer to pay by cash would it constitute a failure to pay - you said no. But you want it both way s now. Mint.

But it's not that spurious is it? I am told my card will not be accepted despite being informed it is a valid form of payment. It is in date and there are sufficient funds in the account. My personal details, including name and address and no doubt some form of id, are then demanded from me. I am informed that failure to provide this information will lead to prosecution and a criminal record. All of this in front of my fellow passengers.

It's embarrassing, paints an otherwise legitimate passenger actively trying to pay their fare as a fare dodger, and a demonstration of poor customer service.

Paying something at a later date is nothing to be embarrased by - thats what happens with credit and people ask for that every single day in the form of loans or down the DIY shop for a new kitchen - why is it now poor customer service to be asked to do so on the railway?

Lets be honest here theres no more point in discussing this - you lot will never change your mind even when you are being told the reality of the situation in hand as it is now and will constantly dig and poke holes where there arent any just to satisfy your personal offence and with ludicrous claims of being made to feel like a criminal.

Im off to tell Flamingo to take some cotton wool with him to work from now on because some people need to be wrapped up in it.

 

[Flamingo]

The railway will accept cards subject to their authorisation by the issuing bank.

The TOC is using equipment that is authorised by the bank clearing system.

If the bank refuses to authorise the card, why is that the TOC's fault?

 

[cjmillsnun]

And/or train its staff in the 'telephone authorisation' processes laid down by its merchant.

Telephone authorisations do not guarantee payment as the risk of fraud is transferred from the banks (done through a straight Chip and PIN) to the merchant (the TOC), as a telephone authorisation counts as a swipe and sign. As such many TOCs specifically instruct their staff NOT to use it, or to use it up to a small limit (usually £10)

And Flamingo put it perfectly. If the bank refuses to authorise offline payments that is NOT the TOCs fault. Admittedly it may not be the customer's fault (although normally banks have very valid reasons for restricting to online only transactions). It is a conversation that you should have with your bank.

Could ATOC do more? Well possibly, but again I come back to the original problem. Trains are vehicles that operate in areas that commonly have no signal of any kind. Not all trains have on-board WiFi (even those that do regularly have an awfully slow service) and currently there is no access to GSM-R for revenue purposes (whether that changes or not is down to Network Rail). About the only thing they could do is to say that not all cards are accepted on trains. But then you come down to the problem of telling the customer which ones and how to identify them.

 

[Anvil1984]

The usual caveat is that some TOCs mainly Northern do not allow a swipe after a card has been declined. The Avantix bocks a swipe attempt Their on train staff cant call for authorisation as they dont have the number to ring due to it being the TOC policy not to go down that route

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How much of the GSM-R spectrum is needed for "operational" reasons? If there is some of the spectrum not used then could that slice be used for "online" transactions?

 

[cjmillsnun]

How much of the GSM-R spectrum is needed for "operational" reasons? If there is some of the spectrum not used then could that slice be used for "online" transactions?

GSM-R is 2G. So there isn't a lot of spectrum to begin with.

 

[najaB]

How much of the GSM-R spectrum is needed for "operational" reasons? If there is some of the spectrum not used then could that slice be used for "online" transactions?

As touched on previously, it's not a technical restriction but rather a legal one. My understanding is that NR got around a number of planning and licencing restrictions in the implementation and roll out of the GSM-R network as they are the infrastructure operator and it is used to operate the railway.

Selling tickets is a train operator function, so they aren't allowed to use it for that purpose.

 

[Llanigraham]

As touched on previously, it's not a technical restriction but rather a legal one. My understanding is that NR got around a number of planning and licencing restrictions in the implementation and roll out of the GSM-R network as they are the infrastructure operator and it is used to operate the railway.

Selling tickets is a train operator function, so they aren't allowed to use it for that purpose.

Correct.
The licence is specifically Network Rail ONLY

 

[rs101]

I can happily pay for a taxi in Sweden using an online card - they manage to have systems which work (and presumably gave a procedure in place for dealing with areas of no signal).

I still don't understand why no TOC appears not to find it necessary to advertise that only a subset of credit/debit cards may be used on board.

 

[najaB]

I still don't understand why no TOC appears not to find it necessary to advertise that only a subset of credit/debit cards may be used on board.

The reason is because the TOC has no way to determine which cards can/cannot be used - this is due to the payment card industry's helpful decision to withdraw the Solo/Electron brands.

 

[Delta558]

I still don't understand why no TOC appears not to find it necessary to advertise that only a subset of credit/debit cards may be used on board.

It's no longer a specific type of card (solo/electron). There are certain cards you look at and think "this could be one that needs to be signed for" - the green Lloyds card, the white one from HSBC that looks like it's had paint flicked at it. Yet plenty of these work on the chip and pin with no problems at all.

The banks have taken away the ability of the TOCs to specify cards that will work and cards that won't, is that really the TOCs' fault?

 

[35B]

It's no longer a specific type of card (solo/electron). There are certain cards you look at and think "this could be one that needs to be signed for" - the green Lloyds card, the white one from HSBC that looks like it's had paint flicked at it. Yet plenty of these work on the chip and pin with no problems at all.

The banks have taken away the ability of the TOCs to specify cards that will work and cards that won't, is that really the TOCs' fault?

And the point about other suppliers ability to handle these issues?

It's no longer a specific type of card (solo/electron). There are certain cards you look at and think "this could be one that needs to be signed for" - the green Lloyds card, the white one from HSBC that looks like it's had paint flicked at it. Yet plenty of these work on the chip and pin with no problems at all.

The banks have taken away the ability of the TOCs to specify cards that will work and cards that won't, is that really the TOCs' fault?