Given you didn't say what you think that the issue is, it's not an enormous surprise that most people didn't take much notice of your post!As I said, Ticketer isn't the issue, nor is the authorisation and nor is it about forged tickets.
Given you didn't say what you think that the issue is, it's not an enormous surprise that most people didn't take much notice of your post!As I said, Ticketer isn't the issue, nor is the authorisation and nor is it about forged tickets.
I believe that it is. How else would you use it given the bus doesn't have a chip and pin machine? "Oh sorry, the transaction hasn't gone through because you need to use your card's chip. We don't take cash any more and this is the last bus of the day so I guess you'll have to walk home."
What Ensignbus appear to be doing is trying to move the fraud risk from them to the card issuer, as £10 is still the limit in transport mode. However I imagine that splitting one ticket sale into two transactions to get it under £10 purely to evade the fraud risk is also a breach of the card scheme's rules...
What will be happening is that people are paying for tickets with cards that don't have enough money in the relevant account. The transaction then declines but of course the customer is long gone as it won't post immediately.
Given this is part of my job (which shall remain anonymous), here’s the proper reason for the 10p charge…I have noticed that Ticketer does seem to have a bit of a quirk when it comes to authorising card payments - it seems to do them on a batch basis shortly after you sit down, and only for 10p rather than the real amount. It could well be that this two transaction thing is a workaround to allow that to take place and potentially bar the card before the second one.
It is an odd setup, though, and I don't entirely get why it doesn't authorise on the spot, it takes a second or two when online. But then there are many odd things about Ticketer that don't make sense; it has been a big success in getting card acceptance widespread, but the design leaves a lot to be desired in many ways.
(Transit mode requires no authorisation, but transit mode isn't used for ticket sales in advance, only for tap in style operation)
Given you didn't say what you think that the issue is, it's not an enormous surprise that most people didn't take much notice of your post!
The issue with Ticketer doing online authorisations is that with it being a mobile system it doesn’t always guarantee a data connection, so effectively this wouldn’t work 100% of the time, particularly in rural areas.It sounds like you are actually correct:
https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/system/files/UK-Finance-Contactless-Transit-EMV-Framework.pdf is the lengthy detail of the framework, it fits Model 1. Further down in the document under Model 2 it appears it is bank liability for transactions under £10 if authorisation is not completed.
It thus seems I was correct in terms of the issue, i.e. that the lack of online authorisation for these larger transactions IS the issue. So Ticketer could fix it by online authorising all transactions over £10. This would slow boarding slightly but would prevent the issue of seasons etc on a card that doesn't have funds. Though even without that it would strike me that if the debit failed later you could just cancel the season and blacklist the card.
However it does seem doing two transactions is not playing the game, so don't expect this to last once the card companies twig its essentially borderline fraudulent purpose of moving liability to the bank.
It is worth noting that transit mode isn't the only non PIN fallback mode, vending machines can also do it but do do an authorisation before the product is dispensed. Toilet access is the same which causes some delays at the barrier.
Given this is part of my job (which shall remain anonymous), here’s the proper reason for the 10p charge…
The issue with Ticketer doing online authorisations is that with it being a mobile system it doesn’t always guarantee a data connection, so effectively this wouldn’t work 100% of the time, particularly in rural areas.
It is, unfortunately. My advice to anyone thinking of posting "I know and I'm not saying" is simply to say nothing at all. It's generally better that way."I know but I'm not telling you" is sadly a common contribution to threads on here, and it is essentially valueless.
Indeed. I believe it's in everyone's interests that such information is shared. This is not the sort of thing that should be covered by "commercial confidentiality". Either cough up and share what you know, or don't bother posting at all; the "I know more than you do, but I'm not telling you" mentality is frustrating.It is, unfortunately. My advice to anyone thinking of posting "I know and I'm not saying" is simply to say nothing at all. It's generally better that way.
Same sort of thing happened in Manchester and hence a number of tickets over there can't be bought with card.I believe unscrupulous individuals are buying multiple high-value season tickets (on different buses) paid by contactless card. They are then reselling the tickets at reduced prices. However, subsequent payment to Ensign is being declined by the banks, presumably on grounds of "insufficient funds".
The problem seems to revolve around who takes the risk (and what the upper limit is) on contactless card payments on-bus - the merchant (Ensignbus in this case) or the issuing bank in cases where the accountholder has insufficient funds.
ANPR based freeflow tolling would allow a significant staffing cut so would save them money, hence why it is likely
It only needs to be for tickets over £10, so it wouldn't happen for everyone.The issue with Ticketer doing online authorisations is that with it being a mobile system it doesn’t always guarantee a data connection, so effectively this wouldn’t work 100% of the time, particularly in rural areas.
What's the advantage in doing a 'pre-authorisation' ? The fare is known before that happens so why not attempt to authorise the full amount before issuing the ticket?When Littlepay processes a transaction for settlement, a pre-authorisation amount needs to be sent to the issuing bank first in order to verify the card for contactless payments. This is to ensure the card has not been reported lost or stolen before Littlepay attempt to take payment from the card.
This pre-authorisation amount is usually £0.10 for UK MasterCards and can be up to £1 for MasterCards outside of the UK. This is effectively a holding fee on the card while we wait to authorise the full payment amount on the card.
For Visa cards, the pre-authorisation amount is £0.00 and should not be visible on a customer's account. The pre-authorisation value is never sent for settlement from the card, and if this is still visible on a customer's account, they should speak to their issuing bank to investigate.
Indeed. That's 'Model 2' in the UK Finance document linked to above.In some cases, notably TfL, the amount may not be known at the time of tap.
No, because it takes too long and too many bus stops do not have good signal coverage. That is why there is a problem.Do any bus ticket machines do an online authorisation in real time? My Stagecoach Vix ones never come through on the same day.
Yes, precisely.No, because it takes too long and too many bus stops do not have good signal coverage. That is why there is a problem.
More than that, it's against the card merchants agreement to take multiple small transactions for a single sale, just like it was against the rules in the old cheque guarantee £50 limit days of taking multiple cheques for the sale. It's surprising it's even got this far.However it does seem doing two transactions is not playing the game, so don't expect this to last once the card companies twig its essentially borderline fraudulent purpose of moving liability to the bank.
The same back-office payment handling system is used for capping, so I think it treats every incoming transaction the same way.What's the advantage in doing a 'pre-authorisation' ? The fare is known before that happens so why not attempt to authorise the full amount before issuing the ticket?
Also card transactions come with a charge per transaction, if Ensign split every transaction over £10 they'll increase the fees they pay... I hope someone has done their sums.
Yes but the charge is largely a percentage based on the value of the ticket sold. So x% of £10 + x% of £10 is the same cost as x% of £20….
Not if they pay a minimum fee per transaction.Yes but the charge is largely a percentage based on the value of the ticket sold. So x% of £10 + x% of £10 is the same cost as x% of £20….
Isn't it normally the case that debit cards tend to be a flat fee and credit cards a percentage?
Not if they pay a minimum fee per transaction.
Of course, given they're publicly advertising something which appears likely to break the card scheme rules it will end up costing them rather a lot more than that in the long run when they get pulled up on it.
Which is exactly what is claimed has been happening at EnsignBus. Multiple purchases of high-value season tickets with the same card. Tickets then sold at discount prices "down the market". When transactions are presented to the payment processor (later in day or overnight), the issuing bank declines them. As the risk for high-value (over £10?) non-authorised transactions rests with the merchant (Ensignbus), the latter is then out of pocket. Hence, they've stopped selling them. Given the low margins on bus fares, one can hardly blame them.I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that transactions aren't debited on the spot. I've noticed that the last few times I've used contactless with Stagecoach, the transactions haven't actually gone through until after much later in the day (after 7pm if it's local journeys only - presumably this coincides with the time that the bus returns to the depot). In the meantime, there's no "hold" on the funds, and therefore it's possible to spend the same amount of money twice.