Used physical card on outward but Applepay on return journey

[realaledrinker]

As the title says, I used my physical card for several journeys last Saturday but inadvertently used the Applepay version of the same debit card for a single journey. I got charged for an incomplete journey on the latter. Seems like this scenario is treated as two separate cards unless I have misinterpreted what went on?

 

[Lewisham2221]

As the title says, I used my physical card for several journeys last Saturday but inadvertently used the Applepay version of the same debit card for a single journey. I got charged for an incomplete journey on the latter. Seems like this scenario is treated as two separate cards unless I have misinterpreted what went on?

Correct.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, correct. Quite clearly says use same card or device.

 

[trebor79]

Yep, it is effectively two separate cards. Even though the Apple Pay card links to the same account, it's not the same card number as the physical card. I know not why, something to do with security.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yep, it is effectively two separate cards. Even though the Apple Pay card links to the same account, it's not the same card number as the physical card. I know not why, something to do with security.

Or to stop two people sharing one cap? Which would quickly get very messy if journeys overlapped in time.

 

[rebmcr]

Or to stop two people sharing one cap? Which would quickly get very messy if journeys overlapped in time.

No it's nothing to do with TfL, it's just how [Handset] Pay systems work.

 

[Taunton]

Yes, correct. Quite clearly says use same card or device.

Unfortunately whenever something is said to be 'quite clearly', it generally follows incidents that show that it isn't.

If you know TfL-speak you can work out from various notices that, for a given journey, if you don't use the same card to touch in and out on the same journey, you are charged, not one but two incomplete journeys, one for the inward card that didn't touch out, and one for the outward card that didn't touch in. This is not stated anywhere.

 

[androom8]

Unfortunately whenever something is said to be 'quite clearly', it generally follows incidents that show that it isn't.

If you know TfL-speak you can work out from various notices that, for a given journey, if you don't use the same card to touch in and out on the same journey, you are charged, not one but two incomplete journeys, one for the inward card that didn't touch out, and one for the outward card that didn't touch in. This is not stated anywhere.

Contactless and mobile pay as you go

Use a contactless bank card or mobile device to pay as you go on all our transport services

tfl.gov.uk

"Use the same payment method​

Always use the same device or contactless card to touch in and out - this will help you pay the right fare. For example, don’t touch in with an iPhone and touch out with an Apple Watch or contactless card."

This is a very clear description with a great example.

 

[Lockwood]

Yep, it is effectively two separate cards. Even though the Apple Pay card links to the same account, it's not the same card number as the physical card. I know not why, something to do with security.

Iirc virtualizing the card number means there is no duplicate card. A stolen phone would not reveal the real card details. It shows which payment method did which transaction.

 

[Buzby]

Always use the same device or contactless card to touch in and out - this will help you pay the right fare. For example, don’t touch in with an iPhone and touch out with an Apple Watch or contactless card."

My watch uses the same ‘virtual’ card for Apple Pay - and I’ve tapped in/out with whatever is handy and not had issues with either device. Strangely, and not transport relaTed, I’ve used Apple Pay as contactless in ‘Spoons and IKEA. When asking for a refund, both asked for ‘the card’ and I showed the Watch. Both said they needed a physical card (to tap) so they got a non virtual alternative of the same card - with a different number. I think they make it up as they go along!

 

[jon81uk]

My watch uses the same ‘virtual’ card for Apple Pay - and I’ve tapped in/out with whatever is handy and not had issues with either device. Strangely, and not transport relaTed, I’ve used Apple Pay as contactless in ‘Spoons and IKEA. When asking for a refund, both asked for ‘the card’ and I showed the Watch. Both said they needed a physical card (to tap) so they got a non virtual alternative of the same card - with a different number. I think they make it up as they go along!

Are you sure that TfL is charging you correctly? That is unusual for the Watch and iPhone Apple to have the same code, mine don't and subsequently I have three cards on my TfL account for the same card.

 

[Buzby]

As I said - NOT transport related (Wetherspoons & IKEA). It would appear for these retailers, the ‘same card’ is an aspiration not an actual requiremen. But at TfL, their system appears to be built on number matching only, with no customer reference used as a look up for matching. Perhaps it’s showing it’s age?

 

[trebor79]

As I said - NOT transport related (Wetherspoons & IKEA). It would appear for these retailers, the ‘same card’ is an aspiration not an actual requiremen. But at TfL, their system appears to be built on number matching only, with no customer reference used as a look up for matching. Perhaps it’s showing it’s age?

How else could it possibly work, given you don't have to register as a customer with tfl in order to use your card, phone or watch to tap in and out?

 

[rebmcr]

It would appear for these retailers, the ‘same card’ is an aspiration not an actual requiremen.

The 'same card for a refund' is a stipulation by the card processors (Mastercard; Visa; AmEx) in their Merchant Agreement contracts. It combats money laundering, and prevents 'fencing' the value from a stolen card.

 

[Buzby]

As I recall this is related to the refunding of commission paid for servicing the transaction (not simply the customer’s payment) even so, the card processors equipment will be able to reject said refund if it does not recognise the card - in each of my physical card tapa the message “Refund Approved“ on the screen. Lastly. I would suggest that as my transactions were all under £15 it was a non issue.

 

[crablab]

But at TfL, their system appears to be built on number matching only, with no customer reference used as a look up for matching. Perhaps it’s showing it’s age?

TfL is able to reverse lookup PANs associated with DPANs and vice versa. So when you add your physical card on the TfL website it'll also show you the 'child' virtual cards you've travelled with.

(As can Ticketer these days, apparently)

As I recall this is related to the refunding of commission paid for servicing the transaction (not simply the customer’s payment) even so, the card processors equipment will be able to reject said refund if it does not recognise the card

It's partly interchange, partly AML and partly to avoid fraud against the merchant. The Transaction Processing Rules generally require refunds to the same PAN as the original transaction, and it's supposed to contain the various Data Elements to link to the First Presentment (and original authorisation)

But since it's possible to submit a First Presentment without an authorisation, a merchant can technically "refund" to any PAN, although I believe some acquirers heavily restrict this. It starts to get a bit messy when they want improperly processed refunds sent back...

 

[Lockwood]

Retailers can refund to other cards - I've had to return an item that was purchased on one card and refunded to that card's successor. The original card was no longer a valid card.

There must be situations as well where someone purchases an item, switches bank, then needs to return the item. Not a hugely common issue, but it can't be a purely hypothetical scenario

 

[crablab]

Retailers can refund to other cards - I've had to return an item that was purchased on one card and refunded to that card's successor. The original card was no longer a valid card

They can also refund to expired (cancelled/closed/lost/stolen etc) cards Unfortunately some issuers fail to handle that gracefully on their end.

There must be situations as well where someone purchases an item, switches bank, then needs to return the item.

What's supposed to happen is it's refunded to the original card, cleared by the issuer and then forwarded to the account holder (automatically, if they used CASS). In practice...it depends.

 

[Lockwood]

But if Bob has changed bank, destroyed the old card, then finds he needs a refund...

 

[crablab]

...it can still be refunded to the original card, as I explained above.

 

[Lockwood]

I might be missing a logical step there?

If Bob goes back to Tesco and asks for a refund, he is asked for the card he paid for it on. That card is no longer in his possession. How is he able to present that card for the refund?

I'm usually asked to insert the card for refund now, so I am curious how it would work in the situation where the original card is lost/stolen/destroyed and unable to be presented.

 

[crablab]

There's no requirement for the card to be present or tapped/inserted for a refund - that's just a convenient method of doing it in most cases.

The merchant will have the PAN on the merchant copy of the receipt or in their settlement data. It can be keyed into the terminal to issue a refund.