We used to be able to swipe up to £25. Swiping through the Avantix machine was disabled a while ago now though so we have to use the Thyron which will only accept swiping of foreign cards without a chip. Otherwise for transactions up to £100 we are allowed to force the Theron to accept the payment as long as the pin is right. This is apparently because we were being fined regularly for failing for work to the card security procedures with swiping when payments declined when they came to collect funds.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Swiping debit cards without PIN being needed
- Thread starter TUC
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Correct if you're not asked to sign, and this is the key point for me. The issue isn't whether the company gets the money, the issue is potential card fraud.
When any business is taking payment they should make every effort to ensure that the payment they are taking is genuine. Any company simply swiping some random card and not verifying that the card belongs to the customer making the payment (by getting them to sign and checking the signature against that on the back) is leaving the door wide open.
But, unless my understanding is totally wrong, it is the merchant who is exposed to the risk rather than the bank (and ultimately the account holder).
Let's say you lose your card or have it stolen and someone uses it on the train as spoken about above.
You may get your money back after the fact, if you spot the transaction and also go through the rigmarole of proving that it wasn't you who carried out the transaction (bearing in mind you may well report your card missing or stolen after it has been used in this way, and so might not get reimbursed for that anyway).
And on top of that, in the meantime, even if you do get reimbursed, some thief has debited your account with what could be a considerable sum.
Even if the situation is reversed, you have clearly been exposed to "risk". You might take a laissez faire attitude towards money coming out of your bank account, on the basis of "Hey, I'm sure I'll get it back one day", but I don't.
It's not acceptable to take a verifiable card payment without verifying ownership of the card.
Last edited:
If you accept a card from a bank, then you have always had to accept the possibility of card fraud in the event of theft. Regardless of technologies such as Chip & Pin and contactless, there has always been the possibility that a stolen card could be used to make payments by phone or by post or on French toll roads. The understanding that these risks exist but fraud will be refunded underpins the whole system. If that is unacceptable to you then don't use bank cards.
Strawman "argument". This issue here is that companies should make the straightforward checks that swipe and sign is meant to involve, and thus help mitigate the chances of fraud happening in the first place.
Under your line of "reasoning" why bother with PINs at all... you take your card you take your chances. Supposedly. Not how it works here thankfully, though, where instead mitigation and management of risk are key (hence signatures, PINs, cash limit on contactless, etc, etc).
I would also suggest listening to the many people who have gone through hell and high water to get monies back, including those who didn't get refunded, before resting on such ill-founded views. If the "understanding" is that "fraud will be refunded" and this "underpins the whole system" then the system would be in trouble it would seem.
Fundamentally you're wrong. Security of transactions and deterring and preventing fraud to the maximum extent reasonably possible "underpins the whole system". Banks having to pay back a certain amount is simply a commercial risk balanced against societal acceptability.
Under your line of "reasoning" why bother with PINs at all... you take your card you take your chances. Supposedly. Not how it works here thankfully, though, where instead mitigation and management of risk are key (hence signatures, PINs, cash limit on contactless, etc, etc).
I would also suggest listening to the many people who have gone through hell and high water to get monies back, including those who didn't get refunded, before resting on such ill-founded views. If the "understanding" is that "fraud will be refunded" and this "underpins the whole system" then the system would be in trouble it would seem.
Fundamentally you're wrong. Security of transactions and deterring and preventing fraud to the maximum extent reasonably possible "underpins the whole system". Banks having to pay back a certain amount is simply a commercial risk balanced against societal acceptability.
Last edited:
The thing is, swipe and sign was never intended to protect the account holder, it was to protect the bank/merchant. The only way it could protect the account holder is if they were required to present photo ID along with the card.
I agree that it's a rubbish check for a bygone era, after all who doesn't remember going in a shop signing and having the signature barely even glanced at?
However, what we're talking about here is a check, however rubbish, being skipped. Never mind who it was meant to protect, it offers some protection to a part of the financial system and so benefits everyone. And if a check is skipped it's an open goal and anywhere that will just swipe a card without asking for a signature is an open target for any crook who notes that happens (and in turn making some hapless card owner a target).
For the sake of simply saying "Please sign here" and comparing the two signatures momentarily, why on earth is anyone defending this. It's staggering.
However, what we're talking about here is a check, however rubbish, being skipped. Never mind who it was meant to protect, it offers some protection to a part of the financial system and so benefits everyone. And if a check is skipped it's an open goal and anywhere that will just swipe a card without asking for a signature is an open target for any crook who notes that happens (and in turn making some hapless card owner a target).
For the sake of simply saying "Please sign here" and comparing the two signatures momentarily, why on earth is anyone defending this. It's staggering.
Last edited:
WillPS
Established Member
Any criminal who just happens to have a load of convincing cloned cards available to them at that moment?
cf111
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,367
TVMs and Avantix machines are the only places I have problems using my (chip and PIN) debit card. I've no idea why, they work fine everywhere else before and after. It's not an online only card either.
At least there is protection for consumers in the event of a card being lost or stolen. No such protection exists if cash were lost or stolen...
The argument that some toll booths and the like operate by swiping cards doesn't really provide a justification. There's a big difference between a motorway toll booth where there might be another 10 cars backed up behind you within a minute (although that isn't really an excuse for not requiring a PIN) compared to the situations under discussion here.
I always compare sigs, but its amazing how many folks don't sign their cards these-days. Sometimes I ask for other ID, eg driving license.
The other day someones card declined so i went to input the card number for a signed transaction. I was just about the do this when i noticed it was a card belonging to a male. I asked him about this. Seems he was a carer and he had 'permission' to use it. I refused the transaction, and he went off on one. I was explaining as he was not the card holder and thus, could not sign, him saying but the bank says its ok. I told him if the bank thinks its ok, then they should issue him with a card with his name on, but for her account. Tho', TBH I thinks its fishy that a 'carer' would be using their patents card for travel. Buying things for her, yes, ok, but train travel. They left the train at the next station, which was barriered and manned, so....
The other day someones card declined so i went to input the card number for a signed transaction. I was just about the do this when i noticed it was a card belonging to a male. I asked him about this. Seems he was a carer and he had 'permission' to use it. I refused the transaction, and he went off on one. I was explaining as he was not the card holder and thus, could not sign, him saying but the bank says its ok. I told him if the bank thinks its ok, then they should issue him with a card with his name on, but for her account. Tho', TBH I thinks its fishy that a 'carer' would be using their patents card for travel. Buying things for her, yes, ok, but train travel. They left the train at the next station, which was barriered and manned, so....
I used the station in question today for the first time in a few weeks and was interested to note that the staff used Chip and Pin for my ticket, for the same fare they swiped my card for in the past. Another example of key TOC staff reading this forum and it making a difference?
WillPS
Established Member
Or their Chip and Pin technology was borked the previous time? Or a lot of other possible explanations?
Some cards decline all the time, the worse is a Spanish bank, even business cards issued by them decline. The problem is a declined card will take time to sort out, time which on gaps between stations in the 2-3 mins you just dont have, esp when you have a queue, so you see certain cards and just swipe. Sometimes you do get the odd surprise and one will work you were never expecting too. Whats not helping is banks now giving debit cards to kids.
Child single, £1.25, debit card, declined.
Card not signed, no id.
I'm looking forward to the new system and it supposed online ability. It also might shock a few passengers who try and fleece the system.
Child single, £1.25, debit card, declined.
Card not signed, no id.I'm looking forward to the new system and it supposed online ability. It also might shock a few passengers who try and fleece the system.
WillPS
Established Member
Banks have given debit cards to children with Visa/Maestro (specifically Electron and Solo) markings since the mid-90s.
- Status