Debit card declined

[WillPS]

Upload a picture of the card and we will believe you

I think the cause of my confusion is the Halifax card Gem has is a 'Cardcash' account, rather than an Easycash one.

Still puzzles me why Halifax would rebrand all but one of their cards.

 

[island]

I think the cause of my confusion is the Halifax card Gem has is a 'Cardcash' account, rather than an Easycash one.

Still puzzles me why Halifax would rebrand all but one of their cards.

That's probably it.

Makes no sense to me either, as the interchange income on Electron scheme is lower as well.

 

[najaB]

The whole point of the Visa acceptance mark is that it works as exactly that - the railways should either accept Visa or not.

They do. It's not the railway's fault that the card issuer requires online authorisation of the transaction.

 

[WillPS]

They do. It's not the railway's fault that the card issuer requires online authorisation of the transaction.

That is part and parcel of accepting Visa cards; just as the expectation that they use Chip (& PIN).

 

[Agent_c]

That is part and parcel of accepting Visa cards; just as the expectation that they use Chip (& PIN).

No, it isn't. Visa cards can be accepted without live authorisation, presuming the bank chooses to permit that customer to use that feature.

 

[WillPS]

No, it isn't. Visa cards can be accepted without live authorisation, presuming the bank chooses to permit that customer to use that feature.

Sure, the same as a Visa card can exist without a Chip.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Sure, the same as a Visa card can exist without a Chip.

Indeed, as those people in the US know only too well.

 

[Llanigraham]

I get the impression that WillPS is always going to blame the railway for these problems, no matter what he is told about the banks.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Of course, the difference, in a customer service sense, is that the vendor 'loses' a sale, although he could probably sell the same goods later on - so no real loss.

On the railways it's quite possible that if you fail some kind of "attitiude test", or if you're travelling quite innocently on a line with a lot of people with this sort of card (and who "try it on" all the time) that you're asked to pay more than twice the fare or reported for prosecution because you have one of these cards.

And that is why the banks need to tell the customer that this is an online authorisation card.

I agree with WillPS that it is probably not the customers fault (some customers try it on deliberately as the likes of Flamingo and others have said on here before). I agree that the railway could do more (and may well will be doing more when the replacement for Avantix comes out), but it IS down to the banks to tell the customer honestly about their card, and if the terms of the card change, the customer should be told about that too. An auto generated text message can be sent. Our company uses software by Essendex to contact our engineers by text, so it must be possible for banks to do it.

"Yes it is a Visa card, yes it can be used where you see the Visa sign, but be warned that if the machine cannot contact the bank, the funds will not be authorised and the transaction will decline."

Honesty, it's not much to ask for is it.

 

[island]

That is part and parcel of accepting Visa cards; just as the expectation that they use Chip (& PIN).

This isn't correct either I'm afraid. When one may be ignorant of/on a subject, it is best to keep one's silence, rather than opening one's mouth and removing all doubt.

 

[rs101]

I get the impression that WillPS is always going to blame the railway for these problems, no matter what he is told about the banks.

And there are others on here who seem to place all the blame on the card issuers.

Yes, issuers should communicate that the card requires online authorisation, but the TOCs surely have a duty to inform customers that online cards cannot be processed onboard (but can in TVMs).

 

[Llanigraham]

And there are others on here who seem to place all the blame on the card issuers.

Yes, issuers should communicate that the card requires online authorisation, but the TOCs surely have a duty to inform customers that online cards cannot be processed onboard (but can in TVMs).

But the railway aren't the only people unable to take these cards. As said I've had a problem with one at an exhibition, and there are plenty of events like Fairs and Festivals where they don't work either.
The Banks should warn all those that have these cards, or the cards should be obviously marked as "On Line Only".

 

[Via Bank]

But the railway aren't the only people unable to take these cards. As said I've had a problem with one at an exhibition, and there are plenty of events like Fairs and Festivals where they don't work either.
The Banks should warn all those that have these cards, or the cards should be obviously marked as "On Line Only".

Just because others also have trouble accepting online only cards, why should the railway not advertise they can't accept these cards on the train? It's all well and good to argue that the banks should have this responsibility, but it's surely basic courtesy on the TOC's part to warn passengers about this.

 

[WillPS]

This isn't correct either I'm afraid. When one may be ignorant of/on a subject, it is best to keep one's silence, rather than opening one's mouth and removing all doubt.

Respectfully I disagree. "The Banks" (as they keep being referred to here) expect card-present transactions in the UK to use the chip, exceptions being made for when there is no chip (e.g. American cards, Azure cards) or in some cases when the chip isn't functioning. I very much doubt I'd obtain a merchant agreement unless I agreed to have chip & PIN equipment, and if I didn't use it there would be no protection should a chargeback occur.

I'd be interested to know how you consider accepting Visa (card present) and being expected to use Chip (& PIN/Sign) as not part and parcel...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the railway aren't the only people unable to take these cards. As said I've had a problem with one at an exhibition, and there are plenty of events like Fairs and Festivals where they don't work either.
The Banks should warn all those that have these cards, or the cards should be obviously marked as "On Line Only".

I think your problem at the festival could have been a different one. As I understand it, and as proven in this thread I can be wrong, those 3G/4G chip and PIN machines will normally seek online authorisation at all times - if they have no signal, they wont accept anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Honesty, it's not much to ask for is it.

Exactly. The Delta/Solo brand achieved that, and if it was dropped in any way on a basis of "social inclusion" that was the wrong thing to do, as it moved from knowing where you stood to possible embarrassment. I'd rather know I had limits than find them by accident, possibly costing me a load of money on a PF or fine from prosecution that I couldn't afford.

Or if they aren't going to do that, merchants (including the railway) should be required by their contract with the payment processor to accept the cards via telephone authorisation if necessary, and prohibited from treating "refer" as "decline". Then the merchant has to make a choice - accept ALL Visa cards via the due process, or accept none and make on-board payment cash only, with a large rollout of telephone-connected TVMs for card payment. Inconvenient, but everyone would know where they were.

 

[WillPS]

Or if they aren't going to do that, merchants (including the railway) should be required by their contract with the payment processor to accept the cards via telephone authorisation if necessary, and prohibited from treating "refer" as "decline". Then the merchant has to make a choice - accept ALL Visa cards via the due process, or accept none and make on-board payment cash only, with a large rollout of telephone-connected TVMs for card payment. Inconvenient, but everyone would know where they were.

I agree in principal with this.

 

[island]

Respectfully I disagree. "The Banks" (as they keep being referred to here) expect card-present transactions in the UK to use the chip, exceptions being made for when there is no chip (e.g. American cards, Azure cards) or in some cases when the chip isn't functioning. I very much doubt I'd obtain a merchant agreement unless I agreed to have chip & PIN equipment, and if I didn't use it there would be no protection should a chargeback occur.

I'd be interested to know how you consider accepting Visa (card present) and being expected to use Chip (& PIN/Sign) as not part and parcel...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think your problem at the festival could have been a different one. As I understand it, and as proven in this thread I can be wrong, those 3G/4G chip and PIN machines will normally seek online authorisation at all times - if they have no signal, they wont accept anything.

I don't know where you're getting all this from, but whilst some of what you post is correct, a lot is are so far off piste that I don't know where to start.

A merchant is not obliged to use chip & PIN equipment. (For example, a merchant all of whose sales are cardholder not present, a merchant who only deals with trusted customers of whose identity and entitlement to use their cards he is certain, or a merchant who only accepts card payments by contactless.) There are also several accommodations available for very small merchants.

Each individual merchant agreement will specify the amount of a transaction which that merchant might accept without seeking online authorisation. This is not "part & parcel of accepting Visa cards".

Each individual chip card will specify the amount of a transaction, or a cumulative amount, which can be accepted without seeking online authorisation.

Either of the above two amounts may be zero, or they may not. The more restrictive amount will apply.

I repeat my entreaty to stop posting in an authoritative manner information on a topic about which you have made it clear you are not knowledgeable.

 

[WillPS]

I don't know where you're getting all this from, but whilst some of what you post is correct, a lot is are so far off piste that I don't know where to start.

A merchant is not obliged to use chip & PIN equipment. (For example, a merchant all of whose sales are cardholder not present, a merchant who only deals with trusted customers of whose identity and entitlement to use their cards he is certain, or a merchant who only accepts card payments by contactless.) There are also several accommodations available for very small merchants.

Each individual merchant agreement will specify the amount of a transaction which that merchant might accept without seeking online authorisation. This is not "part & parcel of accepting Visa cards".

Each individual chip card will specify the amount of a transaction, or a cumulative amount, which can be accepted without seeking online authorisation.

Either of the above two amounts may be zero, or they may not. The more restrictive amount will apply.

I repeat my entreaty to stop posting in an authoritative manner information on a topic about which you have made it clear you are not knowledgeable.

I am very happy to be put right and the knowledge which you put forward is of benefit. I don't believe I've mislead anyone; the fact remains that if *any merchant* in the UK wants to accept Visa cards without prejudice, here, now, they have to have a facility in place for cards which for whatever reason require online authorisation. Technicalities aside, I also think it's fair to say that it is required for merchants to use chip & PIN equipment wherever possible for non-contactless in-person transactions in the vast majority of cases.

 

[island]

That last post is correct, please try to stay that way as previous posts contained a lot of sweeping generalizations without the specific qualifiers or details needed.

 

[martynbristow]

I don't know where you're getting all this from, but whilst some of what you post is correct, a lot is are so far off piste that I don't know where to start.

A merchant is not obliged to use chip & PIN equipment. (For example, a merchant all of whose sales are cardholder not present, a merchant who only deals with trusted customers of whose identity and entitlement to use their cards he is certain, or a merchant who only accepts card payments by contactless.) There are also several accommodations available for very small merchants.

Each individual merchant agreement will specify the amount of a transaction which that merchant might accept without seeking online authorisation. This is not "part & parcel of accepting Visa cards".

Each individual chip card will specify the amount of a transaction, or a cumulative amount, which can be accepted without seeking online authorisation.

Either of the above two amounts may be zero, or they may not. The more restrictive amount will apply.

I repeat my entreaty to stop posting in an authoritative manner information on a topic about which you have made it clear you are not knowledgeable.

I don't think he was wrong as you state here. The discussion was about card present transactions.
Chip and Pin is required, by financial penalty. You can accept card not presents or signature verification but you receive a liability shift, where the retailer is liable for the chargeback and will pay a higher merchant fee.
Merchants have no "trusted" customer policy and the transaction is either card present or not present. If a retailer wants to risk a charge back fair enough but there extra fees to pay which vary from industry to industry.
Most small businesses card payments are determined by the merchant services worldpay/barclaycard etc, there are workarounds such as worldpay zinc but they still require a pin.
Most small transaction will seek authorisation but this is just going to the acquirer.
Contactless however can stay off-line.
But it depends on the risk analysis in the respective business.

 

[island]

The takeaway is that merchants can do non chip&Pin customer present transactions, they just suffer a higher interchange fee and chargeback liability. It is perfectly possible.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Or if they aren't going to do that, merchants (including the railway) should be required by their contract with the payment processor to accept the cards via telephone authorisation if necessary, and prohibited from treating "refer" as "decline". Then the merchant has to make a choice - accept ALL Visa cards via the due process, or accept none and make on-board payment cash only, with a large rollout of telephone-connected TVMs for card payment. Inconvenient, but everyone would know where they were.

That sadly is not possible. Merchants do not get the fraud protection on a telephone authorisation that they get with their machines. To refuse cards from everybody is effectively saying that you're now going to decline the majority of people who have offline capable cards from using them, right when we're trying to move away from cash in society.

Long term what needs to happen is for the technical aspects to be got around so that the railway and others can process online with portable equipment. Hopefully that is coming with the new systems being implemented.

But the banks also need to be honest with their customer base, they're the ones saying that the card is accepted everywhere in their literature, they are the ones knowingly lying to their customer base.

 

[martynbristow]

That sadly is not possible. Merchants do not get the fraud protection on a telephone authorisation that they get with their machines. To refuse cards from everybody is effectively saying that you're now going to decline the majority of people who have offline capable cards from using them, right when we're trying to move away from cash in society.

Long term what needs to happen is for the technical aspects to be got around so that the railway and others can process online with portable equipment.

But the banks also need to be honest with their customer base, they're the ones saying that the card is accepted everywhere in their literature, they are the ones knowingly lying to their customer base.

1. The banks need to be honest about your cards functionality - I think this is valid.
2. The railway should go online to process cards - I think this is valid but my understanding is someone signed up to a big infrastructure system which is not modular and basically you can't. This is a procurement problem. You'd need machines that could force a dial out, which would cost you a lot to implement with someone making a huge chunk.

More practically why can't cards have balance allocations allowing you to spend limited amounts on cards with a reserved balance for card present transactions. Of course this would prevent people from spending everything but thats the only logical solution I think would work with the setup.

 

[cjmillsnun]

More practically why can't cards have balance allocations allowing you to spend limited amounts on cards with a reserved balance for card present transactions. Of course this would prevent people from spending everything but thats the only logical solution I think would work with the setup.

They do. Offline cards have limits as you suggest. Online only cards don't have limits and are online only for clear reasons (bad credit risk, under 18, changing bank accounts)

 

[Deerfold]

More practically why can't cards have balance allocations allowing you to spend limited amounts on cards with a reserved balance for card present transactions. Of course this would prevent people from spending everything but thats the only logical solution I think would work with the setup.

Are you planning on having an amount that can only be spent on cards?

The you're going to have to explain to people why there wasn't enough money in their account to pay their rent direct debit of £400 when there was £410 in the account because £20 of it is reserved for card transactions.

If not then you're allowing people with poor credit history to spend more than they can afford.

 

[martynbristow]

Are you planning on having an amount that can only be spent on cards?

The you're going to have to explain to people why there wasn't enough money in their account to pay their rent direct debit of £400 when there was £410 in the account because £20 of it is reserved for card transactions.

If not then you're allowing people with poor credit history to spend more than they can afford.

I'm not suggesting it's perfect but I think this is the only solution to permitting such customers to purchase 'offline'.

 

[island]

It is not straightforward to update such an amount "on the fly" if a customer wanted to change their card reserve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the banks also need to be honest with their customer base, they're the ones saying that the card is accepted everywhere in their literature, they are the ones knowingly lying to their customer base.

True. I still think in the end it was better when there were the two distinct products, a regular card and an online only card. More honest to everyone, and easier for merchants to state which they accepted.

 

[najaB]

I'm not suggesting it's perfect but I think this is the only solution to permitting such customers to purchase 'offline'.

Or, and it's just a suggestion, we can go back a week in this thread and give any passenger whose card doesn't work an UPFN to pay the fare when they arrive at their destination, or later within 10 working days.

But only the first time.

 

[martynbristow]

Or, and it's just a suggestion, we can go back a week in this thread and give any passenger who's card doesn't work an UPFN to pay the fare when they arrive at their destination, or later within 10 working days.

But only the first time.

That works for the railway and yes a very good idea.