FOS remit excludes complaint handling

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:
Personally think a better solution in this day and age for those without the dexterity etc to use a pin pad is the likes of ApplePay and GooglePay etc which are uncapped, unlike contactless, and in my experience at least dont have the "after x contactless payments there must be an insert the card" which is the most common point of failure on contactless.

Perhaps a bit of a semantic point, but the requirement to occasionally chip-verify a contactless card isn't a failure as such, it's a fundamental feature of the implementation of contactless cards!

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
Personally think a better solution in this day and age for those without the dexterity etc to use a pin pad is the likes of ApplePay and GooglePay etc which are uncapped, unlike contactless, and in my experience at least dont have the "after x contactless payments there must be an insert the card" which is the most common point of failure on contactless.

Perhaps a bit of a semantic point, but the requirement to occasionally chip-verify a contactless card isn't a failure as such, it's a fundamental feature of the implementation of contactless cards!

Unfortunately I cannot complain about someone arguing on semantics.

I'd argue it depends on what you are talking relative to/ your angle... the contactless payment does fail to go through so is a failure in that sense however its by design rather than by a failure of the system. 

lincroft1710

Birdsnest451 said:

lincroft1710 said:

That may soon be nigh on impossible, judging by the ongoing mass closure of many bank branches

The banks are moving to an online only service which is a result of the significant loss of high street retailers.  Their closure reduces the footfall in the banks and libraries allowing that to be used as the reason to close them for economic reasons.

This is accepted by the younger generation whose lives revolve around their smartphones and walk around oblivious to anyone not on their screen.  I run a session at my local library helping the pensioners struggling with their smartphones that their family have bought them.  This week my client couldn't even type numbers on the touch screen in order to login in.

I am well aware of why  banks are closing, my own bank having unsuccessfully tried to persuade me many times to embrace online banking. My point was that you are going to find it more and more difficult to find a bank branch if you don't live near a big town.

Andy_L

DullGreyGuy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

400ixl said:

...

Not sure how Chip & Sign is supposed to work, or why Chip and Pin does not work for you so can't comment on that.
...

I assume the OP's long term disability combined with major head surgery means that they are unable to use a PIN but can sign a card "receipt" or voucher or whatever they are called.

But if shops and traders no longer have the facilities to accept a signature I'm not sure what the OP does - or if it warrants a complaint about the bank.

Does the bank have a duty to provide to people with a disablity a method with which they can use their account?  I assume there is such a duty, but that it is limited by reasonableness and practicality?

Is it an Equality Act issue?

[Edit:  Like other posters i'm not entirely sure what the substance of the OP's complaint is or was.  Perhaps the OP's disability makes it difficult for them to articulate it]

The bank has provided a facility, its the merchant that has decided to have kit that doesnt support chip and sign. The DDA etc only requires that reasonable adjustments are made and so you are probably in merky territory...  not sure there any mobile based systems like Zettle support chip and sign and have a battery powered printer. Zettle dont support them and even if they did their printer requires mains power which probably wont be available for 60% of market stalls etc.

Personally think a better solution in this day and age for those without the dexterity etc to use a pin pad is the likes of ApplePay and GooglePay etc which are uncapped, unlike contactless, and in my experience at least dont have the "after x contactless payments there must be an insert the card" which is the most common point of failure on contactless. With FaceID or other biometric options I'd imagine most that are capable of independent shopping would be capable of using it. 

All card readers can handle chip & sign - they print out a receipt that the card holder can sign. AIUI the problem is either head office have decided to reject them (which is prob a breach of the DDA) or staff are poorly trained/unused to chip & sign and that they refuse themselves

born_again

DullGreyGuy said:

I'd argue it depends on what you are talking relative to/ your angle... the contactless payment does fail to go through so is a failure in that sense however its by design rather than by a failure of the system. 

It is a security feature of the contactless system. As we all know. Every so many transactions you will be asked to verify the card. So it is a bit surprising that the Op has never come across this issue before. If they have, then maybe the retailer were aware of having to print out a slip to be signed. 

mattyprice4004

Andy_L said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

400ixl said:

...

Not sure how Chip & Sign is supposed to work, or why Chip and Pin does not work for you so can't comment on that.
...

I assume the OP's long term disability combined with major head surgery means that they are unable to use a PIN but can sign a card "receipt" or voucher or whatever they are called.

But if shops and traders no longer have the facilities to accept a signature I'm not sure what the OP does - or if it warrants a complaint about the bank.

Does the bank have a duty to provide to people with a disablity a method with which they can use their account?  I assume there is such a duty, but that it is limited by reasonableness and practicality?

Is it an Equality Act issue?

[Edit:  Like other posters i'm not entirely sure what the substance of the OP's complaint is or was.  Perhaps the OP's disability makes it difficult for them to articulate it]

The bank has provided a facility, its the merchant that has decided to have kit that doesnt support chip and sign. The DDA etc only requires that reasonable adjustments are made and so you are probably in merky territory...  not sure there any mobile based systems like Zettle support chip and sign and have a battery powered printer. Zettle dont support them and even if they did their printer requires mains power which probably wont be available for 60% of market stalls etc.

Personally think a better solution in this day and age for those without the dexterity etc to use a pin pad is the likes of ApplePay and GooglePay etc which are uncapped, unlike contactless, and in my experience at least dont have the "after x contactless payments there must be an insert the card" which is the most common point of failure on contactless. With FaceID or other biometric options I'd imagine most that are capable of independent shopping would be capable of using it. 

All card readers can handle chip & sign - they print out a receipt that the card holder can sign. AIUI the problem is either head office have decided to reject them (which is prob a breach of the DDA) or staff are poorly trained/unused to chip & sign and that they refuse themselves

The point is not all card readers have printers, so inherently they can’t handle chip and sign. 

Birdsnest451

I've had a chip and sign card since 2007 which is when they were introduced and before the 2010 Equality Act.  I understand that around 100,000 cards have been issued and had been concerned about the way in which confirmation was obtained with the introduction of contactless payment.  Until the incident in 2021 there had never been a problem and the low limit of £30 meant that my Lloyds card probably met the confirmation criteria using the signature on a printed slip.  Most retailers were not aware of the process and I always informed them before inserting the card in the reader.

On the first instance in April 2021 the reader showed the message Enter PIN and I accept that this was outside Cardnet's control as it was the retailer's reader that should have displayed Enter card in reader.  In the second instance the retailer had a new reader with a touchpad for signature entry but this required a stylus which they didn't have.  My cards now work using contactless payment although recently I had to provide a signature for the first time and that worked as expected.

Using Google or Apple pay is fine for those with a smartphone for those who trust their security which I don't.

Looking at the FOS decisions it appears that the majority are not upheld and, even in those that are, it is rare for any further action to be required.  I found one where the complainant had expressed not to be contacted by phone and, as in my case, her complaint was effectively ignored by Lloyds.     Lloyds records marked my complaint as NFAR (no further action required) in July 2021 following a number of failed calls and the final decision letter.  The FOS remedied the other issue in August 2022 and did not uphold my complaint to them on the basis that the Lloyds complaint handling procedure was outside their remit.

I feel that the Lloyds handling process fails to make the reasonable adjustments required by the Equality Act by requiring confirmation of identity by phone.   Their process means that a phone call is required to verify the identity of the complainant and consent to record sensitive personal data - the reason for my request not to be contacted by phone.  Perversely the secure messages containing that data is on their records although they are not allowed to act upon it.   Now that I have recovered and can complain by phone I recently failed a phone security check because I couldn't name the retailer for a £5 transaction a month before and nothing further was heard about the complaint. 

Andy_L

mattyprice4004 said:

Andy_L said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

400ixl said:

...

Not sure how Chip & Sign is supposed to work, or why Chip and Pin does not work for you so can't comment on that.
...

I assume the OP's long term disability combined with major head surgery means that they are unable to use a PIN but can sign a card "receipt" or voucher or whatever they are called.

But if shops and traders no longer have the facilities to accept a signature I'm not sure what the OP does - or if it warrants a complaint about the bank.

Does the bank have a duty to provide to people with a disablity a method with which they can use their account?  I assume there is such a duty, but that it is limited by reasonableness and practicality?

Is it an Equality Act issue?

[Edit:  Like other posters i'm not entirely sure what the substance of the OP's complaint is or was.  Perhaps the OP's disability makes it difficult for them to articulate it]

The bank has provided a facility, its the merchant that has decided to have kit that doesnt support chip and sign. The DDA etc only requires that reasonable adjustments are made and so you are probably in merky territory...  not sure there any mobile based systems like Zettle support chip and sign and have a battery powered printer. Zettle dont support them and even if they did their printer requires mains power which probably wont be available for 60% of market stalls etc.

Personally think a better solution in this day and age for those without the dexterity etc to use a pin pad is the likes of ApplePay and GooglePay etc which are uncapped, unlike contactless, and in my experience at least dont have the "after x contactless payments there must be an insert the card" which is the most common point of failure on contactless. With FaceID or other biometric options I'd imagine most that are capable of independent shopping would be capable of using it. 

All card readers can handle chip & sign - they print out a receipt that the card holder can sign. AIUI the problem is either head office have decided to reject them (which is prob a breach of the DDA) or staff are poorly trained/unused to chip & sign and that they refuse themselves

The point is not all card readers have printers, so inherently they can’t handle chip and sign. 

What I mean is the card reader can handle requesting a signature instead of a PIN and the merchant confirming the signature.

AIUI merchants must be able to give a transaction receipt for non-contactless card transactions so the printer-less machines will be paired with a separate printer

Ectophile

How many of these problems are within the remit of the FOS?  It looks like there's a largely toothless Equality Advisory Service https://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/app/help that is supposed to help in discrimination cases.

It seems that some of the complaints should be against the retailers, rather than the bank themselves, if they haven't got the facilities to handle chip+sign cards.

(Disclosure: I own shares in a large bank, so my opinion may be biased)

Birdsnest451

Ectophile said:

How many of these problems are within the remit of the FOS?  It looks like there's a largely toothless Equality Advisory Service https://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/app/help that is supposed to help in discrimination cases.

The FOS's remit includes compliance and implementation of the law so they are as toothless as the Equality Advisory Service if they fail to implement the law  which I believe to be the case.  This is a comment from the investigator in another case:

You have complained that the business has failed to make reasonable adjustments for you. In other words, has failed their duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. I’ve taken the Equality Act 2010 into account when deciding this complaint – given that it’s relevant law – but I’ve ultimately decided this complaint based on what’s fair and reasonable. If you want a decision that the business has breached the Equality Act 2010, you will need to go Court.  As we can’t decide this.

To be fair after reference for a final decision to the Ombudsman the complaint was upheld on the basis that the business had failed to make reasonable adjustments.