Chip and PIN nightmare

[Deleted User]

impy78 wrote:

But if it is a chip and signature card, you wouldn't know until it had been put through epos, and it printed off a receipt.

Yes, then I will have to press F3 on the till to decline signature, explain to the customer that it is company policy not to accept signatures anymore and void the transaction if they have no other way to pay.

miller

Customers of 3 Total Petrol Stations in our local area have all had their accounts emptied recently. And the BBC reported a BP station in Redhill has also been targeted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/6334671.stm

How the crime was committed was never reported, but I believe it goes beyond traditional "skimming" and probably involves compromised Chip and PIN terminals (pure speculation, but if you can have a fake front on an ATM...).

Why are petrol stations the main targets? I would suggest that harvesting card details at Petrol Stations would produce large numbers of distinct card details in any one day due to the high frequency of purchases and usage of cards in these outlets.

And of course - in the old days you couldn't empty an ATM with just a forged signature.

To be honest, I don't really care if its not 100% secure, but when things go wrong - as it did for the lady on Watchdog - the money should be refunded immediately.

masonic

MPH80 wrote:

Then it *must* have been a debit card...

From the OP: "Long and the short of it, she is an A&L customer who had her account emptied via her debit card and A&L refused to give the money back. Now she has no money to pay her bills."

allycat999

My DH had his credit card skimmed, it was a morgan stanley one, all the money was refunded, no questions, no problems. I felt so sorry for that pensioner, why the bank can not refund her money is beyond me

MPH80

masonic wrote:

From the OP: "Long and the short of it, she is an A&L customer who had her account emptied via her debit card and A&L refused to give the money back. Now she has no money to pay her bills."

Thank you for pointing that out - I missed it. This is then almost certainly the problem.

Let me quote again from the financial ombudsman:

The meaning of ‘credit-token’ is set out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The definition is broad and open-ended, but it includes the use of a credit card or a debit card on an account which is overdrawn (up to the extent of its agreed limit) or which is taken overdrawn (up to the extent of its agreed credit limit) by the disputed transaction.

and ...

So because the Act says that liability for unauthorised use of a credit-token is limited to £50, a firm cannot use the cardholder’s negligence in caring for the card and security information as its grounds for seeking to make the cardholder liable for more than £50.

Cardholders are only liable for losses of more than £50 if they:
# made the transaction; or
# authorised someone else to make it.

Taken from:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

That means that, even if the customer has been negligent, providing the card is being used as a credit token, the customer is only liable for £50 providing they did not authorise the transaction or authorise someone else.

In this case - the customer must not have had an overdraft facility which would remove the provision of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

I'm not saying its fair - I think that's pretty bad - but it would explain how, given what the FO say and what has been said here about her case that they came to the conclusion she was liable.

M.

M_Thomson

marcellep wrote:

I dont think that is an option these days as many retailers do not accept debit cards unless you have Chip and Pin which is a pain in the rear.

Any that do this are very silly. Lots of blind and disabled people have non chip and pin cards and the retailer is covered against fraud if they accept these. Also, what about cards from countries like America which don't have chip and pin? They should accept these as well. They are losing millions of pounds in custom.

M_Thomson

Deleted_User wrote:

In the shop where I work it is company policy not to accept signatures anymore for card payments - PIN only.

Are you sure your store manager is not misinterpreting the rules? What about payments from people who only have chip and signature cards? Or customers from non chip and pin countries like America and Australia? Your company is really silly to turn millions of pounds of revenue down. They are covered in event of fraud if a signature card is used. They would only lose money if you accepted a signature when it is a chip and pin card, and the transaction turned out to be fraudulent.

Alfie_E

Deleted_User wrote:

Yes, then I will have to press F3 on the till to decline signature, explain to the customer that it is company policy not to accept signatures anymore and void the transaction if they have no other way to pay.

You probably ought to ask a more senior member of staff what exactly your company’s policy is, because I suspect you’ve got it wrong. Refusing to let a customer sign because they’ve forgotten their PIN is a world away from refusing a Chip and Signature card that has no PIN. With the introduction of Chip and PIN , Chip and Signature became the alternative for those with a disability that would make using Chip and PIN difficult or impossible. By refusing to accept Chip and Signature cards your company would be effectively discriminating against those with a disability. This would make the policy illegal.

[Deleted User]

Alfie_E wrote:

You probably ought to ask a more senior member of staff what exactly your company’s policy is, because I suspect you’ve got it wrong. Refusing to let a customer sign because they’ve forgotten their PIN is a world away from refusing a Chip and Signature card that has no PIN. With the introduction of Chip and PIN , Chip and Signature became the alternative for those with a disability that would make using Chip and PIN difficult or impossible. By refusing to accept Chip and Signature cards your company would be effectively discriminating against those with a disability. This would make the policy illegal.

I don't think we have had a customer trying to pay with a Chip & Signature card as of yet. Just customers who have 'forgotten' their pin or their pin has been blocked (due to entering it so many wrong times in other shops). I will raise this with the store manager tomorrow.

impy78

MPH80 wrote:

Thank you for pointing that out - I missed it. This is then almost certainly the problem.

Let me quote again from the financial ombudsman:



and ...



Taken from:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

That means that, even if the customer has been negligent, providing the card is being used as a credit token, the customer is only liable for £50 providing they did not authorise the transaction or authorise someone else.

In this case - the customer must not have had an overdraft facility which would remove the provision of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

I'm not saying its fair - I think that's pretty bad - but it would explain how, given what the FO say and what has been said here about her case that they came to the conclusion she was liable.

M.

Ah, but A&L are holding her responsible for £2k, and when she went to the ombudsman, they found in the bank's favour, as they said because a pin had been used she was negligent. Which does seem to contradict the code that you have linked to. Now what you're saying are the rules is what should happen, but in the instances shown, it wasn't.

But if someone has used the device used on watchdog, how can she been negligent?