Debit card declined

[Bletchleyite]

The solution to this is for the banks to reinstate the clear "Solo" and "Electron" branding that made it clear how these cards could and could not be used, IMO.

 

[34D]

As I understand this, the passenger's card is NOT declined by their bank.

The chip of the card is programmed to display a "refer to issuer" or similar message when used 'offline'.

The issue is that, as a matter of policy, all the TOC's have instructed their staff (or 'amended their card processing software', I'm not sure which) to treat this as a 'decline' and not do anything else.

Before I give any other opinion, do those employed in the banking/card merchant/card acquirer world agree that this is an accurate summary of the issue?

Please ignore the practicalities of 'online' software and of making phone calls for now.

 

[maniacmartin]

The solution to this is for the banks to reinstate the clear "Solo" and "Electron" branding that made it clear how these cards could and could not be used, IMO.

I 100% agree. The old branding on the cards made it very clear that the cards were different. However, given its only really airlines and railways and a few other industries that can't do online processing, it seems that this was deemed to be a small enough proportion of merchants that they could 'unify' the brands (despite still using the Electron AID on the chip)

 

[cjmillsnun]

The solution to this is for the banks to reinstate the clear "Solo" and "Electron" branding that made it clear how these cards could and could not be used, IMO.

Definitely agree with this.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Is there a reason they were merged in the first place? Was it to help banks market accounts to children or teenagers?

 

[najaB]

Is there a reason they were merged in the first place? Was it to help banks market accounts to children or teenagers?

I suspect it was because of the negative associations with the Solo and Electron brands as compared to the premium Mastercard and Visa brands.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Is there a reason they were merged in the first place? Was it to help banks market accounts to children or teenagers?

Solo was closed down because it was a "switch" brand, and Switch has gone away, so it was merged into Maestro by MasterCard.

Visa Electron went away, because with very few exceptions, Electron cards are accepted everywhere Visa Debit is accepted.

 

[Flamingo]

As I understand this, the passenger's card is NOT declined by their bank.

The chip of the card is programmed to display a "refer to issuer" or similar message when used 'offline'.

The issue is that, as a matter of policy, all the TOC's have instructed their staff (or 'amended their card processing software', I'm not sure which) to treat this as a 'decline' and not do anything else.

Before I give any other opinion, do those employed in the banking/card merchant/card acquirer world agree that this is an accurate summary of the issue?

Please ignore the practicalities of 'online' software and of making phone calls for now.

We get either "Approved", "Declined", or on rare occasions "Error code" on the screen of the chip and pin, and a message on the avantex to select another method of payment. On having a signal amd ringing for authorisation, probably 90% go through ok for me.

An incorrect PIN gives a specific "incorrect PIN" message.

If the passenger gets the pin right, I will (if possible, and if no other method of paying is available) ring. If they don't know the PIN or give some other reason not to put a PIN in (apart from chip and sign, for the pedants out there - I know who you are!), then I won't process it any further, but treat it as a failure to pay...

 

[island]

As I understand this, the passenger's card is NOT declined by their bank.

The chip of the card is programmed to display a "refer to issuer" or similar message when used 'offline'.

The issue is that, as a matter of policy, all the TOC's have instructed their staff (or 'amended their card processing software', I'm not sure which) to treat this as a 'decline' and not do anything else.

Before I give any other opinion, do those employed in the banking/card merchant/card acquirer world agree that this is an accurate summary of the issue?

Please ignore the practicalities of 'online' software and of making phone calls for now.

This is correct for all intents and purposes.

 

[krus_aragon]

As I understand this, the passenger's card is NOT declined by their bank.

The chip of the card is programmed to display a "refer to issuer" or similar message when used 'offline'.

Moreover, when would the bank have the opportunity to decline a transaction (or not) if the transaction is conducted offline?

(My only experiences of card payment systems are in an online environment, so the above is logic and inference.)

 

[34D]

Moreover, when would the bank have the opportunity to decline a transaction (or not) if the transaction is conducted offline?

(My only experiences of card payment systems are in an online environment, so the above is logic and inference.)

Quite. Hence the phone call would be needed (if railway software wasn't amended to delete the 'phone call' message.

So have passengers suffered as a result of the railway company not undertaking normal card-processing practices?

 

[reb0118]

Moreover, when would the bank have the opportunity to decline a transaction (or not) if the transaction is conducted off-line?

By default. Certain cards are programmed to automatically decline any off line transaction. Where the railway is at fault, in my opinion, is that it does not follow the correct fall-back procedures but, in my experience, automatically treats the incidence as a failure to pay - if no other forms of valid payment are available.

That said a credit/debit card is not itself a valid method of payment it is merely a medium to transfer money from one account to another - if that fails (for whatever reason) then (assuming one has no other forms of payment) one is treated as travelling without sufficient funds to pay the fare due.

In the real world, however, the circumstances of the "decline" are taken fully into consideration.

 

[krus_aragon]

Moreover, when would the bank have the opportunity to decline a transaction (or not) if the transaction is conducted offline?

By default. Certain cards are programmed to automatically decline any off line transaction.

Yes. My earlier response was poorly phrased. I should have said something along the lines of: "how would the bank be consulted during a transaction that is being conducted offline".

 

[WillPS]

Solo was closed down because it was a "switch" brand, and Switch has gone away, so it was merged into Maestro by MasterCard.

Visa Electron went away, because with very few exceptions, Electron cards are accepted everywhere Visa Debit is accepted.

The Switch/MaestroUK scheme (incorporating Solo) was all-but-abandoned in the UK well before the Switch/MaestroUK scheme was dropped entirely (only Clydesdale/Yorkshire and some very small banks continued to issue Maestro beyond ~2009). I'm not sure how many Solo cards were actually active still in Feb 2011 but it can't have been very many at all.

Merging the Delta/Electron schemes means card providers can ad-hoc adjust a card's status with regards to offline payments. This has allowed, amongst other things, the Current Account Switch Guarantee (the 'losing' bank will send an online-only instruction to the debit card at the beginning of the switch process to ensure all transactions are logged in real-time and none 'go under the radar' until after the account has closed).

The solution to this is for the banks to reinstate the clear "Solo" and "Electron" branding that made it clear how these cards could and could not be used, IMO.

I disagree. The move has been a positive one, particularly for young people and people with poor credit ratings. There previously was an element of discrimination against people with these cards (for example, you weren't able to buy booze/knives on Ocado). It's also served to force the hand of the retailers who couldn't be bothered to get their systems online (or just didn't take Electron/Solo because "thems the rules"), despite no infrastructural reason why they couldn't (not least railway ticket offices and fixed machines).

There are a number of things the railways could have done to improve things for customers with Online Only debit cards. The argument against on here (and seemingly the one that has resonated up to now within the industry) has always been "no point since it wont sort the problem completely"; which frankly says a lot about the railways in general.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree. The move has been a positive one, particularly for young people and people with poor credit ratings. There previously was an element of discrimination against people with these cards (for example, you weren't able to buy booze/knives on Ocado).

Except now it's penalising them silently, as they get PFs and Byelaw prosecutions for boarding without a means to pay (at stations with no ticket machine/ticket office) completely unwittingly.

 

[WillPS]

Except now it's penalising them silently, as they get PFs and Byelaw prosecutions for boarding without a means to pay (at stations with no ticket machine/ticket office) completely unwittingly.

They do have a means to pay. The railways' inability to take a form of payment which is advertised as accepted is absoultely no fault of the customer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They do have a means to pay. The railways' inability to take a form of payment which is advertised as accepted is absoultely no fault of the customer.

No, they don't have a means to pay, as it is not one accepted by the railway. Because the banks insisted on removing the separate markings, this is completely unwitting, too.

They wouldn't have a means to pay for a merchant using an emergency imprint machine, either.

 

[WillPS]

They wouldn't have a means to pay for a merchant using an emergency imprint machine, either.

Not true, except for *some* Santander-issued cards. All the other banks issue cards with raised digits, in most cases identical to their offline-enabled counterparts. As I said before, the whole point of the merger was to allow banks the flexibility to add/remove the online-only instruction ad-hoc. Imprint machines are used at the merchant's risk, regardless of what the card has written on it (if the card doesn't have embossed lettering the merchant is free to record the relevant details manually - again all at their own risk).

No, they don't have a means to pay, as it is not one accepted by the railway. Because the banks insisted on removing the separate markings, this is completely unwitting, too.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/45185.aspx#credit
These customers have Visa cards.

 

[DeeGee]

They wouldn't have a means to pay for a merchant using an emergency imprint machine, either.

How would the merchant know? The cards are indistinguishable from the offline variant, even down to having raised numbers.

I had an Electron card for a business I once ran. It had inset numbers and wouldn't have worked with a click-clack machine. It had "ONLINE USE ONLY" in big letters on the front.

It was also absolutely useless.

The new-style online only cards have nothing outwardly different about them. I have a prepaid Mastercard for travel. It has raised numbers and the Mastercard logo and everything.

 

[34D]

How would the merchant know? The cards are indistinguishable from the offline variant, even down to having raised numbers.

I had an Electron card for a business I once ran. It had inset numbers and wouldn't have worked with a click-clack machine. It had "ONLINE USE ONLY" in big letters on the front.

It was also absolutely useless.

The new-style online only cards have nothing outwardly different about them. I have a prepaid Mastercard for travel. It has raised numbers and the Mastercard logo and everything.

Those cards ARE valid for zip zap machines (at the merchants own risk). Anything with raised numbers is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, they don't have a means to pay, as it is not one accepted by the railway. Because the banks insisted on removing the separate markings, this is completely unwitting, too.

They wouldn't have a means to pay for a merchant using an emergency imprint machine, either.

Incorrect. The TOC's do advertise that they accept their payment method.

It's their lack of infrastructure that is the issue.

 

[WillPS]

Those cards ARE valid for zip zap machines (at the merchants own risk). Anything with raised numbers is.

I'm not sure Solo cards were; but in any case it's a moot point since the scheme has finished, and even without raised numbers a merchant can record the details by hand.

 

[34D]

I'm not sure Solo cards were; but in any case it's a moot point since the scheme has finished, and even without raised numbers a merchant can record the details by hand.

Thinking back 10+ years to when I worked with cards and was a designated liaison person with my then-employer's Acquirer, I always remember the manual voucher instructions specifically excluded Electron (only).

But my point above was saying that online-only cards can still be zip zapped.

So returning to the subject of this thread, what advice do we have for people who's card wasn't accepted by a TOC, when no other factors are in play, and where that person can prove their account balance on the day was sufficient?

 

[crehld]

So returning to the subject of this thread, what advice do we have for people who's card wasn't accepted by a TOC, when no other factors are in play, and where that person can prove their account balance on the day was sufficient?

I fail to see what more a passenger can do (and in this scenario they have gone well beyond their obligations by proving the balance of their account, which really isn't anyone else's business!).

National Rail Enquiries states that:

The following are accepted as methods of payments at National Rail stations and retail outlets. They also apply to paying on-train when no opportunity to purchase beforehand existed

...

Credit/Debit/Charge Cards
All National Rail train companies accept the major cards such as Visa, Visa Delta, MasterCard, Maestro and Amex. Some train companies also accept Diners Club International, Solo and Electron

.

If it says Visa at the top it is a Visa card (whether a TOC, or for that matter the bank, decides to call it something different from what is clearly stated on the front is totally irrelevant). Thus a Visa card presented to a guard on the train is a valid form of payment, which the TOC has failed to put in place the necessary facilities to accept. To be clear this is not the passenger's fault. A guard could politely ask if the passenger has cash or another card available they are willing to pay with. But if not I can't see any option but to let the passenger continue their journey until they get to the first available opportunity to pay, which may well be the destination.

On this matter I was on a train from Chester to Knutsford on Thursday. The guard was unable to issue around ten tickets in my carriage because his equipment was not fit for purpose. The guard was very apologetic about it all and all he could really do was suggest those passengers pay at their destination!

Could there not be an option on the portable ticket machines to issue a ticket / permit to travel for £0.00 for such circumstances, to demonstrate the passenger has attempted to pay but has been unable to through no fault of their own?

 

[PermitToTravel]

I can't really see the point - would that make it the passenger's fault if the guard didn't come round?

 

[alxndr]

I can't really see the point - would that make it the passenger's fault if the guard didn't come round?

Should you not go looking for the guard if you haven't paid, unless you're intending to fare dodge? I've had a talking to for not finding the guard before after being unable to pay at the machine (it wouldn't accept cash and that's all I had)

 

[WillPS]

No, aside from it being an annoyance for the genuine customer, there isn't a problem so to speak which requires a workaround (unless anybody has actually been issued with a penalty fare or by-law prosecution as Neil Williams alleged earlier in the thread - I've seen no evidence but then I wouldn't be surprised either).

 

[34D]

I fail to see what more a passenger can do (and in this scenario they have gone well beyond their obligations by proving the balance of their account, which really isn't anyone else's business!).

National Rail Enquiries states that:

.

If it says Visa at the top it is a Visa card (whether a TOC, or for that matter the bank, decides to call it something different from what is clearly stated on the front is totally irrelevant). Thus a Visa card presented to a guard on the train is a valid form of payment, which the TOC has failed to put in place the necessary facilities to accept. To be clear this is not the passenger's fault. A guard could politely ask if the passenger has cash or another card available they are willing to pay with. But if not I can't see any option but to let the passenger continue their journey until they get to the first available opportunity to pay, which may well be the destination.

I agree 100%

On this matter I was on a train from Chester to Knutsford on Thursday. The guard was unable to issue around ten tickets in my carriage because his equipment was not fit for purpose. The guard was very apologetic about it all and all he could really do was suggest those passengers pay at their destination!

Could there not be an option on the portable ticket machines to issue a ticket / permit to travel for £0.00 for such circumstances, to demonstrate the passenger has attempted to pay but has been unable to through no fault of their own?

Allow me to tweak: guards issued with pre-printed tickets (think raffle tickets, so with a security code that can be verified) saying:

-this passenger tried to buy a ticket but was unable due to equipment malfunction. Authorised for full range of tickets at next suitable opportunity.

 

[najaB]

Allow me to tweak: guards issued with pre-printed tickets (think raffle tickets, so with a security code that can be verified) saying...

Or, as a suggestion, an unpaid fare notice.

 

[crehld]

Or, as a suggestion, an unpaid fare notice.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary form filling to me! And risks treating passengers who've made a legitimate attempt to pay using an approved method as petty criminals (or at least that's my perception anyway). I have offered payment, the TOC has refused to accept it. There is no legitimate reason for them to take my name and address in this circumstance. The best possible solution would be to issue guards with adequate equipment.

 

[Agent_c]

Seems like a lot of unnecessary form filling to me! And risks treating passengers who've made a legitimate attempt to pay using an approved method as petty criminals (or at least that's my perception anyway). I have offered payment, the TOC has refused to accept it. There is no legitimate reason for them to take my name and address in this circumstance. The best possible solution would be to issue guards with adequate equipment.

Have the TOC refused, or has your bank been unable to confirm your payment?