Using Visa Debit Cards On Train

[WillPS]

Flexibility? Fine if its consistent and transparent. Not if its ad hoc and unclear.

The aim of this is consistency: a single Visa scheme of acceptance; if you have a Visa card you can use it anywhere that accepts Visa. Like I said, this hasn't just been sprung on the rail industry, and they were pretty foolish for not future-proofing Avantix Mobile when it was specified (not that this necessarily needs major amends to improve the situation).

The cardholder is a winner under this scheme, they are both confident in the legitimacy of their payment and unable to spend beyond their means.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . they were pretty foolish for not future-proofing Avantix Mobile when it was specified . . . .

straying a bit off topic now, but I know a little about this . . . the Avantix machines were designed, along with their host software, in a great hurry to prepare the industry for privatisation. We can all be critical with hindsight, and using that hindsight its easy to find features (such as the Avantix printer) which was not designed to be "future-proof" (though it did include Bluetooth, which was at the time a decent punt on emerging technology). I don't want to be an apologist for Avantix nor for any of the other IT burdens of rushed privitisation, but I will protest on principle against any accusation of a failure to anticipate what the future will bring.
I'll even go as far as saying that tomorrow, I will still protest against an accusation of a failure to anticipate what the future will bring. [But tomorrow, I might not]

 

[sheff1]

I can't say that's the case in other parts of continental Europe.

I agree. My point was that the technology is available, but operators choose not to adopt it.

 

[WestCoast]

I agree. My point was that the technology is available, but operators choose not to adopt it.

££££s being the reason. Debit cards are reasonably cheap to process, but I can't see the case for sub-£5 transactions with a credit card as they are considerably more expensive to process.

 

[WillPS]

straying a bit off topic now, but I know a little about this . . . the Avantix machines were designed, along with their host software, in a great hurry to prepare the industry for privatisation. We can all be critical with hindsight, and using that hindsight its easy to find features (such as the Avantix printer) which was not designed to be "future-proof" (though it did include Bluetooth, which was at the time a decent punt on emerging technology). I don't want to be an apologist for Avantix nor for any of the other IT burdens of rushed privitisation, but I will protest on principle against any accusation of a failure to anticipate what the future will bring.
I'll even go as far as saying that tomorrow, I will still protest against an accusation of a failure to anticipate what the future will bring. [But tomorrow, I might not]

Are you inferring that online authorisation did not exist at the time of privatisation? Because as long as it's existed it has been intended to become standard.

 

[island]

££££s being the reason. Debit cards are reasonably cheap to process, but I can't see the case for sub-£5 transactions with a credit card as they are considerably more expensive to process.

Quite the opposite in fact. Debit cards have a fixed processing fee (perhaps 30p) whereas credit cards charge a percentage (maybe 3%). Debit cards are more expensive to process for transactions under £10.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you inferring that online authorisation did not exist at the time of privatisation? Because as long as it's existed it has been intended to become standard.

Privatisation was mid-90s, right? Online authorization was relatively uncommon then, with most merchants having a floor limit of £100 or so.

 

[WillPS]

It certainly existed and was being heavily promoted.

 

[island]

straying a bit off topic now, but I know a little about this . . . the Avantix machines were designed, along with their host software, in a great hurry to prepare the industry for privatisation. We can all be critical with hindsight, and using that hindsight its easy to find features (such as the Avantix printer) which was not designed to be "future-proof" (though it did include Bluetooth, which was at the time a decent punt on emerging technology). I don't want to be an apologist for Avantix nor for any of the other IT burdens of rushed privitisation, but I will protest on principle against any accusation of a failure to anticipate what the future will bring.
I'll even go as far as saying that tomorrow, I will still protest against an accusation of a failure to anticipate what the future will bring. [But tomorrow, I might not]

Avantix Mobile came out in 2002. It was SPORTIS that was used at privatization, no?

 

[sheff1]

££££s being the reason. Debit cards are reasonably cheap to process, but I can't see the case for sub-£5 transactions with a credit card as they are considerably more expensive to process.

Fine, but if the TOCs want a policy along those (or any other) lines they need to make it clear in their Notices. At present the implication is that cards are acceptable for payment. Passengers who board on this understanding are then, apparently, being 'hoyed off'.

 

[WestCoast]

Quite the opposite in fact. Debit cards have a fixed processing fee (perhaps 30p) whereas credit cards charge a percentage (maybe 3%). Debit cards are more expensive to process for transactions under £10.

I didn't know that, but why do certain 'low cost' shops say no to credit cards under £10/£5?

 

[island]

I didn't know that, but why do certain 'low cost' shops say no to credit cards under £10/£5?

Low-volume merchants or merchants with poor negotiating power may be charged the percentage plus the fixed fee.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Are you inferring that online authorisation did not exist at the time of privatisation? Because as long as it's existed it has been intended to become standard.

No. But I'll stick with my generalised response about the inability to predict the future.
The brief at the time included the vague requirement to provide as much connectivity as possible (at the hardware level). There was no Wi-Fi and still patchy mobile phone connectivity (the payphone in the buffet). The intention was NOT to specify how systems worked and certainly not to provide a model for the future, but simply something that could 'carry on as normal' in terms of on-board transactions, could interface with the new LENNON system of processing each day's transactions off-line (by downloading data at the end of a shift), and building in some future connectivity (such as Bluetooth) for unknown future requirements.
The focus was on being ready for privitisation, not on looking at what the Banking sector would or would not do. And to put that last point in perspective, European Banks have been offering walk-up personal customers instant payments, transfer and 'clearing' since about 1980 (so the capability was known about) but the UK's High Street Banks only seem to have got there in the past few weeks. How could any of that differential have been anticipated?

I'll repeat, I'm no apologist for the specifications which were agreed, but even with hindsight, and in the context of other technology which has moved on in those years, then I'd say that Avantix hasn't done too badly.

 

[Oswyntail]

......and again we have your spurious assumption that all passengers are innocent as per your frequent previous postings on various topics.

Yes, I believe "innocent until proved guilty" is still a basic tenet of British law.
I realise that thee are some fraudsters around. But it cannot be beneficial to the industry if the front line staff are seen as assuming that fraud is the default. It isn't. In the situation under discussion - having one's card declined, though it could be any unexpected circumstance - the passenger will be upset and confused. Handling people in such circumstances is surely one of the basic tasks of front-line staff in any organisation, and assuming they are fraudulent is not helpful.

 

[WestCoast]

Fine, but if the TOCs want a policy along those (or any other) lines they need to make it clear in their Notices. At present the implication is that cards are acceptable for payment. Passengers who board on this understanding are then, apparently, being 'hoyed off'.

I understand what you're saying but I am of the opinion that the banks are also at fault here for not making a clear distinction between "online only" and regular debit cards. Generally, if the NRCoC was to say that "online only cards" were not accepted onboard, many people probably wouldn't understand what that meant, they'd probably think it involved the internet.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In the case of a passenger only having their card rejected by the offline machine I agree with you, it is unfair on the passenger but I see no reason why a valid card with sufficient funds would be declined by the authorisation line, therefore when a card is rejected by the authorisation line it is probably dodgy.

My friend has had his card totally blocked for pretty much no reason a few times. His banks reason? He spent a week in Devon (he lives in South Wales). So if he had tried to pay for a train ticket on his card, it would have been rejected through n fault of his own, and if it was only just after his card was blocked, without him knowing at all.
So you cannot assume that the person is trying to get away without paying if the authorisation is rejected.

Yes, it's a problem, but if there are card accepting ticket outlets (TVM/offices) at the passenger's origin, then they should be used as per the NRCoC.

But very often though, there are not ticket outlets at the origin.

 

[clagmonster]

My friend has had his card totally blocked for pretty much no reason a few times. His banks reason? He spent a week in Devon (he lives in South Wales). So if he had tried to pay for a train ticket on his card, it would have been rejected through n fault of his own, and if it was only just after his card was blocked, without him knowing at all.
So you cannot assume that the person is trying to get away without paying if the authorisation is rejected.

I such a case, the card is not valid for use, admitadly with no knowledge of the fact or responsibility laying with the cardholder. It would be the same if (s)he tried to pay for something in a shop with the card, it would not be a valid form of payment. That said, assuming no 'big' transactions were made, it does seem a very cautious card cancellation.

 

[WestCoast]

But very often though, there are not ticket outlets at the origin.

Although, it completely depends on which area of the country you are in of course...

 

[WelshBluebird]

I such a case, the card is not valid for use, admitadly with no knowledge of the fact or responsibility laying with the cardholder. It would be the same if (s)he tried to pay for something in a shop with the card, it would not be a valid form of payment. That said, assuming no 'big' transactions were made, it does seem a very cautious card cancellation.

The difference is, in most shops you would know the card would not work before "buying" the goods.
The railways are different (and indeed are similar to things like petrol pumps where you can use the service before paying).
In that case, it really isn't the persons fault at all, so I fail to see why the should be punished for it.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if that happened when filling up your car? I understand the law is something like it is classed as theft if you do not have the means to pay for the petrol, but when filling up, the person would not have known they did not have the means.

 

[tannedfrog]

......and again we have your spurious assumption that all passengers are innocent as per your frequent previous postings on various topics.

Wikipedia says:

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Although, it completely depends on which area of the country you are in of course...

Yep of course.
But the thing is, because you can travel from one part of the country to another easily by trail, it can be hard to see the differences.

What I mean is someone can start off in an area where stations without any ticketing facilities are very common, and travel to someone where every single station has a method of buying a ticket. And as the NRCoC say you do not have to delay yourself in order to buy a ticket during your journey, it is easily possible that someone could end up travelling from somewhere without any way of buying a ticket, not have chance to buy a ticket on route (as they do not have to delay themselves) and find themselves with a member of staff who does not understand why they do not have a ticket and assumes they are trying to travel for nothing.

 

[WestCoast]

What I mean is someone can start off in an area where stations without any ticketing facilities are very common, and travel to someone where every single station has a method of buying a ticket. And as the NRCoC say you do not have to delay yourself in order to buy a ticket during your journey, it is easily possible that someone could end up travelling from somewhere without any way of buying a ticket, not have chance to buy a ticket on route (as they do not have to delay themselves) and find themselves with a member of staff who does not understand why they do not have a ticket and assumes they are trying to travel for nothing.

That's the problem with a fragmented ticketing system, inconsistent policies with differences between operators and areas that cause passengers to encounter difficulties when they are simply following the NRCoC.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That's the problem with a fragmented ticketing system, inconsistent policies with differences between operators and areas that cause passengers to encounter when they are simply following the NRCoC.

Then it is not the fault or problem of the passenger and so they should not be judged or punished because of it.

 

[WestCoast]

Then it is not the fault or problem of the passenger and so they should not be judged or punished because of it.

I quite agree, but I am not hopeful for change.

 

[IanXC]

The retailers are the BANKS customers. Why have the banks introduced a system that their CUSTOMERS are not able to use, for the banks own convenience?

Surely the banks have some responsibility in all of this?

The relationship is much more complex than that. For the purposes of card acquiring the retailer does not have a direct relationship with a bank, but with a Card Acquiring Company (eg Global Payments Inc) who then pass the transaction via a Card Network (eg Visa) and then onto the consumer's bank.

The long and the short of it is that, if online only cards did not exist probably 30% of people who currently have a debit card would not have one as they would not be sufficiently credit worthy. As others have said this onboard train situation is pretty unusual, Visa and Mastercard are hardly going to design their global card issuance standards to fit in with the UK Rail industry which has failed to equip itself with up to date equipment.

Question, NRN would appear to have pretty good coverage being put in place, and card acquiring for onboard train would seem to be a very much rail industry use, could this network not be used to ensure online authorisations are available?

I such a case, the card is not valid for use, admitadly with no knowledge of the fact or responsibility laying with the cardholder. It would be the same if (s)he tried to pay for something in a shop with the card, it would not be a valid form of payment. That said, assuming no 'big' transactions were made, it does seem a very cautious card cancellation.

The size of a transaction doesn't really tell you much. Fraudsters often use a particular pattern of transactions, which of course can happen by chance anyway. In addition if lets say a card is pretty much only used in retailer type A, in region 1, for purchases between £10-30, and then all of a sudden its being used for retailer type B, in region 2, for purchases of £50-80, then that *could* suggest that someone other than the intended cardholder is using the card. Its a developing science!

 

[island]

Out of curiosity, what would happen if that happened when filling up your car? I understand the law is something like it is classed as theft if you do not have the means to pay for the petrol, but when filling up, the person would not have known they did not have the means.

The customer leaves his name/address and comes back to pay within a short period (a week or less). Same in restaurants. Some petrol stations are now subscribed to identity verification services for this purpose.

If of course you know there are no funds available you're committing the offence of obtaining goods by deception.

 

[bicbasher]

Next time you get a receipt when you use your card see if it has an Application Identifier number on it (Usually stated as AID) - this will identify what type of Visa Debit card you have. I'm not sure if the AID is stated on all receipts but I know that Asda/Tesco certainly include them. I assume the majority of major chains would include this information.

If the number is A0000000031010 then it should be classed as a full Visa debit card, with both online and offline authorisation. If it does state this on the receipt then I'd query with your bank why it won't work on the train.

If the number is A0000000032010 then the card is basically the equivalent of a rebranded Visa Electron card which would normally be online or electronic use only. Word of caution with this particular type of card, not all banks state electronic use only on these cards. My father banks with the Co-op and his card looks like a normal Visa Debit card, but still identifies as a rebranded Electron card.

My card AID ends in 31010, yet my bank used to issue me with a Solo and was told at the time of conversion that it'd work exactly the same as it, yet I haven't purchased a ticket from a guard as I live in London which is a penalty fares zone, so can't confirm it it works offline or not.

Also, I thought part of the number on the card confirms if the Visa works as an ex-Solo or not, which may also stop offline transactions?

If it makes any difference, if I purchase from a London Overground ticket office (and the vast majority of retailers), the receipt will say "VISADEBIT" yet from LUL it's "VISA DELTA".

 

[Flamingo]

The relationship is much more complex than that. For the purposes of card acquiring the retailer does not have a direct relationship with a bank, but with a Card Acquiring Company (eg Global Payments Inc) who then pass the transaction via a Card Network (eg Visa) and then onto the consumer's bank.

The long and the short of it is that, if online only cards did not exist probably 30% of people who currently have a debit card would not have one as they would not be sufficiently credit worthy. As others have said this onboard train situation is pretty unusual, Visa and Mastercard are hardly going to design their global card issuance standards to fit in with the UK Rail industry which has failed to equip itself with up to date equipment.

As I said, this is something that the banks have introduced for their convenience. What up-to-date equipment do we not have? And when in the parts of the network where mobile phone signals don't work, will that then be the TOC's fault as well, and should we start putting up mobile phone masts?

Question, NRN would appear to have pretty good coverage being put in place, and card acquiring for onboard train would seem to be a very much rail industry use, could this network not be used to ensure online authorisations are available?

NRN is a radio system, not a "mobile phone" type system. Apart from everything else, it only allows one "message" at a time on the system.

Maybe the solution should be that TOC's should stop accepting cards on-board, and issue UFN's that the passenger has 10 days to pay in all cases. (publicised, of course). When issuing a UFN, all discretion goes out the window, it has to be for a full ticket if appropriate, no excessing up for missing railcards, wrong advance train etc.

 

[lookapigeon]

My card AID ends in 31010, yet my bank used to issue me with a Solo and was told at the time of conversion that it'd work exactly the same as it, yet I haven't purchased a ticket from a guard as I live in London which is a penalty fares zone, so can't confirm it it works offline or not.

Also, I thought part of the number on the card confirms if the Visa works as an ex-Solo or not, which may also stop offline transactions?

If it makes any difference, if I purchase from a London Overground ticket office (and the vast majority of retailers), the receipt will say "VISADEBIT" yet from LUL it's "VISA DELTA".

If it's the blue Natwest/RBS one then it is unlikely to work offline. Just because RBS/Natwest have changed their card systems from Solo/Maestro > Visa it is unlikely to change your type of card unless the bank considers you to be of less risk or your account type changes.

Since the removal of the distinction between Visa and Visa Electron (which had different AIDs - Visa Credit/Debit being 31010 and Electron being 32010 all of the 'rules' for allowing online and offline transactions are now stored on the chip and magstripe and terminal config. It's not just the AID alone that will cause the card to be declined when working offline, there are a load of other factors too...

It's a little harder to detect the differences between offline and full online cards just by looking - but in general cards which allow offline auth have more features, such as cheque guarantee (no longer used but it's a reasonable benchmark) or contactless.

The thing you mention with "VISADEBIT" is just purely cosmetic. A lot of retailers choose to use what is called the "Application Label" off the card to print on the receipt - that is, the cosmetic name that the issuer of the card has chosen to give the Visa Debit application on the card.

In Natwest's case, they forgot to press the space bar when naming it. HSBC's label for Visa Debit is just 'Visa', whilst others choose to write it all in capitals or in a normal format.

Obviously in LUL's case they have chosen to use the names that are pre loaded into their system. "Delta" hasn't been around for ages (branding-wise) and it shows how old the systems may be...

 

[bicbasher]

If it's the blue Natwest/RBS one then it is unlikely to work offline.

It's a blue Natwest card.

Obviously in LUL's case they have chosen to use the names that are pre loaded into their system. "Delta" hasn't been around for ages (branding-wise) and it shows how old the systems may be...

Exactly, when I purchase an Oyster product online from the TfL site, the only way my transaction is processed is to use the Delta option from the drop down menu. Verified by Visa confirms this transaction to be to London Underground.

Even my local authority has updated theirs to say "Visa Debit (Delta)"

 

[island]

My card AID ends in 31010, yet my bank used to issue me with a Solo and was told at the time of conversion that it'd work exactly the same as it, yet I haven't purchased a ticket from a guard as I live in London which is a penalty fares zone, so can't confirm it it works offline or not.

Solo cards were the MasterCard-issued equivalent of Visa Electron. However, if your credit score had improved by the time the cards were changed over, you could have been given a full-function Visa debit cards instead.

Also, I thought part of the number on the card confirms if the Visa works as an ex-Solo or not, which may also stop offline transactions?

I'm afraid it doesn't. The first six digits of a card can specify the card scheme, issuer, and some characteristics, but that is all.

If it makes any difference, if I purchase from a London Overground ticket office (and the vast majority of retailers), the receipt will say "VISADEBIT" yet from LUL it's "VISA DELTA".

As you probably know, Visa debit cards used to be called Delta or Visa Delta, so any card where the first six digits correspond to cards that were historically Delta may still come up as such on older POS equipment. If anything, it tends to suggest that you have a full functionality card. But you may be a long time finding out.

I should have tested this this morning because I was buying a ticket on arrival from a gateline, but didn't think to try the green Lloyds card.