[dundee] Chip and Pin payments - Consumer Rights when there's an error...

Wed Jun 9 13:52:08 UTC 2010

Hello,

the PIN ACCEPTED just mean that the correct PIN was used. The Terminal  
send the PIN to the card. The card verify the PIN and send a response.
TRUE  - if the PIN correct.
FALSE - and a number of attempts remain, before the card is unusable.

There should be a additional messages, that the payment was successful  
on the Terminal display. However, I had just use the ATM in the UK.  
Never a Terminal in a shop, but I would surprise is there a difference  
to Germany.

Paying cash has several benefits:
(1) no technical problem
(2) no privacy violation
(3) no additional fees for the Banks

Axel

Quoting Rick Moynihan <rick.moynihan at gmail.com>:

> On 9 June 2010 12:16, Gary Short <gary at garyshort.org> wrote:
>> The receipt is proof of purchase, it's as simple as that. When shops say "no
>> refund given without proof of purchase" they mean a receipt, so they can't
>> have it both ways.
>
> Thats what I thought... but is there what legislation describes the
> legal nature of a receipt and its constitution?
>
>> Now, the failsafe for a till going tits up might be to back out the
>> transaction, but in that case it should print off a "credit note" telling
>> you it had done that. It didn't in this case so as far as you know, the
>> goods are yours and you have a receipt to prove it.
>
> Thats true... It didn't occur to me at the time, but I've always
> previously had printed confirmation that a transaction was voided.
>
>> So let's see what happens if you leave. They could try to stop you claiming
>> theft, but the common law definition of theft is to "feloniously appropriate
>> the property of another", well in this case the property is yours, you have
>> a receipt to prove it, so there can be no theft. If they try to stop you by
>> force, then it's assault. Simple as that.
>
> Yup, my logic entirely!
>
>> What happens if they call the police? Well if it were me, I'd let you go and
>> tell the store it's a civil matter not a criminal matter and they'd have to
>> sue you for the goods or cost if they found out you'd not paid.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
> Thats what I thought... maybe next time I'll have 'the pleasure' of
> taking it this far... though hopefully not.
>
> Cheers for the response.
>
> R.
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dundee-bounces at lists.lug.org.uk [mailto:dundee-
>>> bounces at lists.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Rick Moynihan
>>> Sent: 09 June 2010 12:00
>>> To: Tayside Linux User Group
>>> Subject: [dundee] Chip and Pin payments - Consumer Rights when there's
>>> an error...
>>>
>>> Hi all...
>>>
>>> Not Linux related, but I know there're people on the list who know
>>> more than me about the design and legalities of chip and pin
>>> payments...  It's also quite an interesting situation... here's the
>>> story of what happened:
>>>
>>> I went into Tesco (riverside) on Monday night and purchased groceries
>>> for the week.  Going over to the checkout, the girl scanned everything
>>> as usual and it totalled up to £21.67....  Here's what happened:
>>>
>>> 1) I entered my Visa Debit card into the chip and pin device, and the
>>> correct pin as normal.
>>>
>>> 2) The device printed "PIN ACCEPTED" on the screen.
>>>
>>> 3) The device printed something along the lines of "TRANSACTION
>>> COMPLETE - PLEASE REMOVE YOUR CARD"
>>>
>>> 4) I removed my card.
>>>
>>> 5) The checkout started to print the remainder of the receipt.
>>>
>>> 6) The checkout crashed and started furiously beeping (for the next 20
>>> minutes).
>>>
>>> Now my position, is that this isn't really my concern.  The chip and
>>> pin device authorised my transaction and indicated that the
>>> transaction was complete...  So I begin picking up my shopping bags to
>>> leave.  The checkout girl concerned that the transaction hasn't worked
>>> properly asks me to hold on...  I oblige out of curtousy, but tell her
>>> that as far as I'm concerned it was successful.
>>>
>>> I immediately take a look at the receipt (which was still in the
>>> machine), and see that its printed all the items, the total and all
>>> the gubins associated with a visa debit transaction, including "PIN
>>> AUTHORISED" etc... Again, as far as I'm concerned - I've paid and the
>>> shopping is now my personal property.  I point this out to her, and
>>> ask if I can leave...  She again asks me to wait for the manager to
>>> look, citing how the receipt hadn't been cut off by the machine and
>>> that it hadn't printed the barcode or club card point advert...  again
>>> something that doesn't concern me...  regardless I wait for the
>>> manager.
>>>
>>> 5 minutes later the manager comes over and checks for the transaction
>>> on their computer system (the till was still locked up)...  There's no
>>> sign of the amount.  Again I say that the receipt constitutes proof of
>>> purchase...  He tells me, it would have shown up on the computer
>>> system, and says they'll have to run the items through again on
>>> another till.
>>>
>>> Finally after a few minutes of arguing, I give up agreeing to their
>>> demands, but make sure they write everything down and agree to refund
>>> me if I my mini statement shows the duplicate payment the next day.
>>> They charge me again and I finally walk away with my goods.
>>>
>>> Yesterday I checked with my bank, and unfortunately it was too early
>>> for the mini statement to show... However they could check the list of
>>> pending authorisations and the transactions were listed three times
>>> like so:
>>>
>>> 21:17:40  £21.67 APPROVED
>>> 21:35:30  £21.65 DENIED.PIN BYPASS
>>> 21:37:47  £21.65 APPROVED
>>>
>>> (The two pence price discrepancy was due to weighed goods on the
>>> different tills... I made a point at the time).  The bank teller
>>> didn't know what "DENIED.PIN BYPASS" meant (I got my PIN right first
>>> time) so its a little puzzling... but regardless it looks like I have
>>> indeed been charged twice.  I'll find out for sure later on today,
>>> when I get my statement.
>>>
>>> Now I'm confident Tesco will refund the error, but I'm wondering if in
>>> situations like this I am within my legal rights to walk off with my
>>> shopping.  Some questions:
>>>
>>> 1) Does anyone know when an EPOS transaction is legally considered to
>>> have been made?  Is it the card unit displaying "PIN ACCEPTED - PLEASE
>>> REMOVE CARD", or is it after the receipt is printed?
>>>
>>> 2) Is a receipt is legally considered proof of purchase.  (I'm almost
>>> 100% sure it is - but can anyone point me to the act/legislation
>>> covers this?)  i.e. if I'm in posession of a receipt, can I just leave
>>> the store with my goods?
>>>
>>> 3) Is there any legislation covering what constitutes a receipt...  As
>>> I said, the receipt didn't print the club card advert, the barcode, or
>>> more crucially the last line which was the time and date.  But are any
>>> of these legally required?!
>>>
>>> The reason I ask all these questions, is because a concern is bank
>>> charges...  My concern in this situation was that the account in
>>> question is perilously close to my overdraft limit, and that the
>>> transaction going through twice might push me over into bank charges
>>> when that and other direct debits come out.  Tesco's obviously refused
>>> to accept liability for any charges, and I'm pretty confident that I
>>> have enough of a margin (this time) to avoid them; but this might not
>>> have been the case.
>>>
>>> Because of this, I think I have a good legal grounds to actual just
>>> walk out with my goods...  After all they can't force me to enter my
>>> PIN pay again.  Obviously it would seem reasonable to provide Tesco
>>> with my contact details should they want to clarify things at a future
>>> date, but am I right in thinking this???
>>>
>>> I should point out that the Tesco staff were helpful, and given the 1
>>> in a million chance of a till crashing at that exact point I can
>>> appreciate their cluelessness on what to do, and the desire to cover
>>> their asses.  However my technical understanding of chip and pin is
>>> that the card reader securely talks to the banking system, meaning
>>> that Tesco's log (which didn't show the transaction) is not party to
>>> the communications between the reader and the banking system.
>>>
>>> Assuming I have been charged twice (it very much looks like it), as a
>>> software engineer I also find it interesting that the system was
>>> designed to errr on the side of the store rather than the consumer in
>>> the case of error.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list
>>> dundee at lists.lug.org.uk  http://dundeelug.org.uk
>>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee
>>> Chat on IRC, #tlug on irc.lug.org.uk
>>>
>>> !DSPAM:5,4c0f7426153671750512326!
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list
>> dundee at lists.lug.org.uk  http://dundeelug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee
>> Chat on IRC, #tlug on irc.lug.org.uk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list
> dundee at lists.lug.org.uk  http://dundeelug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee
> Chat on IRC, #tlug on irc.lug.org.uk
>