Contactless Cards

[BecontreeD]

Is it possible to have a valid touch in with a contactless card, and then later during a journey if checked by a revenue inspection device the inspection results in a "declined by issuer", "blocked by TfL" or "unaccepted card type" ie are the devices regularly updated with this information? If this is the case what should be the course of action of the revenue inspector?

 

[XAM2175]

Why are you asking?

 

[Watershed]

Is it possible to have a valid touch in with a contactless card, and then later during a journey if checked by a revenue inspection device the inspection results in a "declined by issuer", "blocked by TfL" or "unaccepted card type" ie are the devices regularly updated with this information? If this is the case what should be the course of action of the revenue inspector?

Revenue inspectors' devices are generally updated with the latest list of blocked devices/cards overnight or at the start of their shift.

This sort of incident has happened before (ISTR @MikeWh has encountered such a case before). It can happen if a card was blocked a long time ago, and is thus not on the barrier/validator's list of recently used blocked cards. The barrier/validator accepts the card for touch in, as it's not in the list of recently used blocked cards. But it won't be accepted if there is a revenue inspection en-route, as inspectors' devices carry the full list of blocked cards. And it likely won't be accepted to touch out, as the backend system will include the card in an updated list of recently used blocked cards, which may well be sent to barriers/validators before the journey is completed.

 

[BecontreeD]

Why are you asking?

That question can be asked about any question on this forum!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Why are you asking?

That question can be asked about any question on this forum!

Fair point - but if this relates to a real issue, there's people here who would like to offer advice, and for advice to be useful it helps to know the facts of the particular events.

 

[MikeWh]

Is it possible to have a valid touch in with a contactless card, and then later during a journey if checked by a revenue inspection device the inspection results in a "declined by issuer", "blocked by TfL" or "unaccepted card type" ie are the devices regularly updated with this information? If this is the case what should be the course of action of the revenue inspector?

I'm not aware of this happening. When the process was explained to me by a director at TfL before the launch it was clearly stated that any card which had failed the authorisation after an entry touch would be allowed to touch out. With this in mind I don't think a revenue device will act on a declined by issuer. I will ask the question in the near future.

Blocked by TfL will only happen if the issuer has refused an end of day payment request. My understanding is that blocks like this are placed overnight so it is likely that the card will not have been validated on touch in. I suppose that it is possible with 24 hour services on a few lines for this to potentially cause a problem, but it would be extremely rare. Again I'll ask the question.

I don't believe a card would become an unaccepted card type after successfully validating on touch in.

Revenue inspectors' devices are generally updated with the latest list of blocked devices/cards overnight or at the start of their shift.

This sort of incident has happened before (ISTR @MikeWh has encountered such a case before). It can happen if a card was blocked a long time ago, and is thus not on the barrier/validator's list of recently used blocked cards. The barrier/validator accepts the card for touch in, as it's not in the list of recently used blocked cards. But it won't be accepted if there is a revenue inspection en-route, as inspectors' devices carry the full list of blocked cards. And it likely won't be accepted to touch out, as the backend system will include the card in an updated list of recently used blocked cards, which may well be sent to barriers/validators before the journey is completed.

I think you're confusing this with a remotely cancelled Oyster card which avoided the kill signal by not being used for six months. My understanding of the case in question is that it has prompted changes in the handling of the kill list which mean it shouldn't happen again.

Fair point - but if this relates to a real issue, there's people here who would like to offer advice, and for advice to be useful it helps to know the facts of the particular events.

Indeed. If you, or someone you know, has been affected by this scenario then I would very much like to assist if I can.