Would You Raise the Card Contactless Limit? What To?

[Busaholic]

True. But unlikely isn't a synonym for impossible.

I've learned in my time that nothing is impossible: Donald Trump might yet turn out to be a useful and humane person, but I don't hold my breath.

 

[TurbostarFan]

I would just leave it as it is. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

 

[shadowman]

I hate the contactless payment system, to the point I have hole punched the wires around the edges of both my cards with it in. I hate the idea that my card could be stolen and used continuously with the possibility the bank could refuse to reimburse me for any fraudulent payments and leave me footing the bill. It also feels (to me at least) like a further step towards getting rid of physical cash.

If the limit has to be increased higher than say £50, then I feel the banks should be forced to give the account holder the option of having a card without the contactless inside because I know I couldn't stomach a £150 loss from a fraudulent charge against my card that the bank refuses to reimburse becuase they suspect it was me.

 

[najaB]

I hate the idea that my card could be stolen and used continuously with the possibility the bank could refuse to reimburse me for any fraudulent payments and leave me footing the bill.

If you haven't been negligent - e.g. given your card to someone else to use - then the bank will reimburse transactions that you report as fraudulent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you haven't been negligent - e.g. given your card to someone else to use - then the bank will reimburse transactions that you report as fraudulent.

And then will simply charge them back to the retailer, so no skin off the bank's nose either, so there's no reason for them to get awkward about it. Acceptance of contactless is at retailer risk. C&P is at bank risk provided an authorisation was carried out.

 

[Howardh]

For those of us who have power of attourney; having to use a PIN comes in very handy, both mum's card and my card are identical (save for the account number) ie. they both have my name on; so when I take it out of the wallet I forget which is which, but they both have different PIN numbers, so if I buy something for me it won't accept mum's PIN number (and vice-versa) which is handy!!

Anyhow that's an aside, I think you should be able to set your own limit, and have the power to block your card if you lose it or think you won't need it for a while; and that could be done so easily on-line or on your mobile, and I think some banks allow that anyway.

For security one day I'm sure we will be swiping our card AND inputting a fingerprint; as you aren't supposed to use someone else's card even with their permission.

 

[gordonthemoron]

all contactless payments have been through real time authorisations since 2017 as VISA (and then Mastercard) mandated it by setting the floor limit to zero. That being the case, I can't see any reason not to raise it to say £50, at the moment anything more is a stretch to justify

 

[najaB]

Anyhow that's an aside, I think you should be able to set your own limit, and have the power to block your card if you lose it or think you won't need it for a while; and that could be done so easily on-line or on your mobile, and I think some banks allow that anyway.

Indeed, several banks let you do that - both challenger (e.g. Revloute) and legacy (e.g. Barclays).

 

[Hadders]

A few things:

The contactless limit was £20 until a few years ago when it was raised to £30. I suspect it will go up to £50 in due course.
Contactless cards cannot be used an unlimited number of times. Every set number of consecutive contactless transactions (think it's either 6 or 10) it will ask for your PIN number. This is why you sometimes see a contactless terminal read a card OK but ask you to enter your card and PIN. This effectively limits the loss in the event of fraud.

 

[headshot119]

A few things:

The contactless limit was £20 until a few years ago when it was raised to £30. I suspect it will go up to £50 in due course.
Contactless cards cannot be used an unlimited number of times. Every set number of consecutive contactless transactions (think it's either 6 or 10) it will ask for your PIN number. This is why you sometimes see a contactless terminal read a card OK but ask you to enter your card and PIN. This effectively limits the loss in the event of fraud.

Except cards which don't do this. I have one that is only used for contactless spending, and for which I've not used the pin in years.

 

[najaB]

I have one that is only used for contactless spending, and for which I've not used the pin in years.

Do you use it in an ATM at all?

 

[Ken H]

The banks will have to consider the risk on this. How many transactions are over £30? Is chip and pin such a problem for their customers for these higher value transactions, especially as it proves the card for contactless?

 

[Hadders]

Do you use it in an ATM at all?

Using the card at an ATM with the PIN will reset the count, so to speak.

 

[headshot119]

Do you use it in an ATM at all?

No, like I said I haven't used the pin in anyway for years now.

All it gets used for is contactless spending when I'm travelling, or in the pub.

 

[najaB]

No, like I said I haven't used the pin in anyway for years now.

All it gets used for is contactless spending when I'm travelling, or in the pub.

That's interesting. Was the card issued by a high street bank?

 

[headshot119]

That's interesting. Was the card issued by a high street bank?

It was. Lloyds TSB originally, but it's been changed to a Lloyds card since.

 

[najaB]

Even more interesting, I wasn't aware that any high street banks were issuing cards that don't require PIN verification.

 

[Howardh]

Went to my local electronics shop yesterday to buy an item over £400; at the point of sale my debit card was declined. So was my credit card. Returned home empty-handed and found two texts from the bank on the mobile phone that they had declined as they didn't recognise the transaction/thought it was fraudulent, and I had to reply "yes" to the text to allow the transaction. If I'd done that in the shop it would have taken a good 10 minutes to clear and I'd be in the back of the queue again.

Dunno whether to be delighted, or angry that I had to go through all that embarrassment. Note - I was using chip-and-pin, not contactless (obviously).

 

[najaB]

Dunno whether to be delighted, or angry that I had to go through all that embarrassment.

It was the lesser of two evils. You'd be a lot less happy had your bank account been £400 lighter.

 

[Ken H]

It was the lesser of two evils. You'd be a lot less happy had your bank account been £400 lighter.

My sister went to france for a week. She hadnt been for a while. but the first transaction in FR was declined. She had to call the bank and explain she had gone on holiday to france, which the bank considers to be unusual behaviour.
I have a credit card issued by another bank i carry when abroad. But now i use a fairfx card abroad which saves me a shedload of cash. As its a preload card its never declined.

 

[najaB]

She had to call the bank and explain she had gone on holiday to france, which the bank considers to be unusual behaviour.

Going on holiday isn't unusual, but a random transaction in a foreign country can be. I don't know about other banks, but mine suggests using your card in an ATM at the airport (even just checking your balance) as that will normally stop the subsequent overseas transactions from being flagged.

 

[Ken H]

Going on holiday isn't unusual, but a random transaction in a foreign country can be. I don't know about other banks, but mine suggests using your card in an ATM at the airport (even just checking your balance) as that will normally stop the subsequent overseas transactions from being flagged.

since then my bank has a thing on the online banking site where you can flag a trip abroad.

 

[Howardh]

It was the lesser of two evils. You'd be a lot less happy had your bank account been £400 lighter.

If that was the case then the PIN would have failed (and I'd get my money back - I hope) so basically we need a better effort than a 4-number PIN. Maybe this; years ago if you were going abroad you told the bank via their website. Maybe we can log on to our on-line banking and "clear" the amount we wish to spend, so if the item's £450 I can clear £500 for any purpose I like within the next (how many) hours. One could put down the shop you intend to go to, but if they don't have what you want it stops you going to the next shop I suppose.

 

[najaB]

If that was the case then the PIN would have failed (and I'd get my money back - I hope)...

Not automatically on an in-person debit card transaction - the presumption would be that you let someone know your PIN or had otherwise been negligent. It would be up to you to prove that you were blameless.

 

[Howardh]

Not automatically on an in-person debit card transaction - the presumption would be that you let someone know your PIN or had otherwise been negligent. It would be up to you to prove that you were blameless.

Well, I suppose I would still have the card in my possession! Funny how shopping in real life isn't as safe as internet shopping, where someone DID use my card (three flagged purchaces) which the bank flagged up as fraud and I got my money back.

 

[najaB]

Funny how shopping in real life isn't as safe as internet shopping, where someone DID use my card (three flagged purchaces) which the bank flagged up as fraud and I got my money back.

Because, in theory at least, in-person card fraud requires the miscreant to have access to both your card and your PIN. Online they only need your card data.

The thinking is that for someone to get your card and PIN you would have to have been negligent, but someone could get your card data (no matter how careful you are) through a third-party data breach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was the lesser of two evils. You'd be a lot less happy had your bank account been £400 lighter.

Would have been even better if the shop had telephoned their merchant and asked for a manual authorisation. But these days many shops are too lazy/ignorant to do this, and I suppose some merchants may not offer that service any more.

Of course there's a clue in the phrase "mobile phone" as to where the OP should have had it rather than it sitting at home It's even used for security on some of the challenger banks - Monzo check the location of your phone in relation to where the card is being used, and are far more likely to "refer" if the phone isn't where the card is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

since then my bank has a thing on the online banking site where you can flag a trip abroad.

Some banks do this and some don't. Monzo does it based on where your phone is physically located, on the basis that it's unlikely you will have both card and phone nicked and not notice to report it.

 

[najaB]

Monzo does it based on where your phone is physically located, on the basis that it's unlikely you will have both card and phone nicked and not notice to report it.

Although, being able to report it does rather depend on your ability to make a phone call after your phone is stolen (possibly along with your wallet/purse).

 

[Killingworth]

I think you might find all the banks have developed security monitoring systems to identify potentially fraudulent transactions. They aren't all the same but as time mo es on they tend to be very similar. Far more is being stopped but there are a lot of attempts. As the banks are potentially going to be asked to refund such transa tions it's in their interest to prevent as many as possible.

A friend was recently contacted to confirm a transaction. His card had been blocked and within minutes of the first attempt others were made and rejected. He didn't lose a penny. What the bank may have lost he doesn't know, but he was impressed.

The number of transactions before a PIN may be required is probably variable. There used to be a limit to the amount and/or the number of card transactions in a month without further security . I knew of someone who regularly triggered that and had to get his account reset nearly every month. From what I knew about him I wasn't surprised his bank thought his activities were suspicious! The controls will be more sophisticated today.