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

[Rick Moynihan]

On 9 June 2010 15:59, Robert McWilliam <rmcw at allmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 01:21:00PM +0100, Rick Moynihan wrote:
>>
>> This potential design did occur to me at the time... and if it were
>> designed this way, would support the managers belief in the systems
>> design...  i.e. under such a system I can see that Tesco would either
>> be short OR the intermediate system can retry a transaction, without
>> presence of a PIN authorisation!  This contradicted my prior
>> understanding of chip and pin, i.e. that the PIN acceptance part of
>> the transaction (at a wire level)...  Introducing an intermediary and
>> the ability to retry would seem to be more than a little scary.
>>
>
> It is definitely possible for the actual transaction to happen after
> the card is gone. The pay at pump things in petrol stations (at least
> the ones I've used) do the chip and pin stuff first and tell you it's
> authorised for some maximum value and to take your card out before you
> actually fill up and they find out how much you should be charged, so
> the actual collecting money part must happen after the card is gone.
>
>       Robert

Yes, good point... thinking about it petrol pumps have for a long time
been an exception.  Prior to chip and pin, there was still pay at pump
(though I don't think it was incredibly common), it didn't require any
authorisation at all, i.e. just the presence of the card was enough to
buy maybe £100 of fuel.

Sounds like C&P provides supports both online and offline transaction
modes... along with presumably also the ability for the seller to
override and claim there was a signature (as I've seen that done from
to time).... (could that be what PIN.BYPASS means?!?) I'm guessing
they probably charge sellers differently for the different models.

R.