(Rant) ID Required to prove I own a Disabled Railcard

[whole diary]

[moonrakerz]

BUT given that it is supposedly almost impossible to skim a pin the way they could the old swipe details, it becomes a lot harder to prove that you did not disclose the pin number to someone.  Effectively, if the PIN is used in fraud you have to prove you have never told anyone your PIN.  Try it............ ok, it might not happen but I want to minmize my risks

You are missing the point - YOU do not have to prove anything - THEY do !

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website, a pretty good summary.
"The law states that cardholders are not liable for fraudulent transactions as long as the original card is still in their possession.

Any bank or business turning down a refund request is on very shaky legal ground.

The problems arise when a card is stolen or lost and is then used fraudulently.

Under these circumstances according to the terms of the Consumer Credit Act and the Banking Code you are liable for damages up to a maximum of ^50.

However, an Apacs spokesperson said that banks often waive the ^50. "

As I said, the banks are trying it on, they work on the principle that they are the mighty ABCD bank and you are merely insignificant Mr Mookiemoo. The LAW is on your side, if your bank won't play, take them to the Small Claims Court or complain to the Financial Ombudsman.
Card fraud, after falling when chip & pin was introduced is now rising fast - the banks, after saying that chip & pin would just about eliminate card fraud are now trying to say that this increase is due to everyone giving everyone else their PIN.

You mustn't let them "flannel" you - two years ago I paid over ^1000 to an airline which went bust. The credit card company initially told me that they were not responsible for a refund, in fact they actually told me that Mastercard WAS the Law !!!! - I not only got my money back - but I got another ^1000 from them because that is the extra I had to pay BA^» (British Airways - about) for a similar quality seat !
I took Alliance & Leicester to Court and recovered over ^2000 for my son - again, they said they owed him nothing - and, they had to pay my Court costs.

Finally, as you rightly say, minimize your risk - be ultra cautious where you use a debit card.

[Mookiemoo]

BUT given that it is supposedly almost impossible to skim a pin the way they could the old swipe details, it becomes a lot harder to prove that you did not disclose the pin number to someone.  Effectively, if the PIN is used in fraud you have to prove you have never told anyone your PIN.  Try it............ ok, it might not happen but I want to minmize my risks

You are missing the point - YOU do not have to prove anything - THEY do !

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website, a pretty good summary.
"The law states that cardholders are not liable for fraudulent transactions as long as the original card is still in their possession.

Any bank or business turning down a refund request is on very shaky legal ground.

The problems arise when a card is stolen or lost and is then used fraudulently.

Under these circumstances according to the terms of the Consumer Credit Act and the Banking Code you are liable for damages up to a maximum of ^50.

However, an Apacs spokesperson said that banks often waive the ^50. "

As I said, the banks are trying it on, they work on the principle that they are the mighty ABCD bank and you are merely insignificant Mr Mookiemoo. The LAW is on your side, if your bank won't play, take them to the Small Claims Court or complain to the Financial Ombudsman.
Card fraud, after falling when chip & pin was introduced is now rising fast - the banks, after saying that chip & pin would just about eliminate card fraud are now trying to say that this increase is due to everyone giving everyone else their PIN.

You mustn't let them "flannel" you - two years ago I paid over ^1000 to an airline which went bust. The credit card company initially told me that they were not responsible for a refund, in fact they actually told me that Mastercard WAS the Law !!!! - I not only got my money back - but I got another ^1000 from them because that is the extra I had to pay BA^» (British Airways - about) for a similar quality seat !
I took Alliance & Leicester to Court and recovered over ^2000 for my son - again, they said they owed him nothing - and, they had to pay my Court costs.

Finally, as you rightly say, minimize your risk - be ultra cautious where you use a debit card.

So just claim you are dyslexic, get  a chip and sig - no argument. Why bother fighting the long arm of the law - use it for you.

Chip and sig = situation back on retailer = no problem

[Mookiemoo]

BUT given that it is supposedly almost impossible to skim a pin the way they could the old swipe details, it becomes a lot harder to prove that you did not disclose the pin number to someone.  Effectively, if the PIN is used in fraud you have to prove you have never told anyone your PIN.  Try it............ ok, it might not happen but I want to minmize my risks

You are missing the point - YOU do not have to prove anything - THEY do !

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website, a pretty good summary.
"The law states that cardholders are not liable for fraudulent transactions as long as the original card is still in their possession.

Any bank or business turning down a refund request is on very shaky legal ground.

The problems arise when a card is stolen or lost and is then used fraudulently.

Under these circumstances according to the terms of the Consumer Credit Act and the Banking Code you are liable for damages up to a maximum of ^50.

However, an Apacs spokesperson said that banks often waive the ^50. "

As I said, the banks are trying it on, they work on the principle that they are the mighty ABCD bank and you are merely insignificant Mr Mookiemoo. The LAW is on your side, if your bank won't play, take them to the Small Claims Court or complain to the Financial Ombudsman.
Card fraud, after falling when chip & pin was introduced is now rising fast - the banks, after saying that chip & pin would just about eliminate card fraud are now trying to say that this increase is due to everyone giving everyone else their PIN.

You mustn't let them "flannel" you - two years ago I paid over ^1000 to an airline which went bust. The credit card company initially told me that they were not responsible for a refund, in fact they actually told me that Mastercard WAS the Law !!!! - I not only got my money back - but I got another ^1000 from them because that is the extra I had to pay BA^» (British Airways - about) for a similar quality seat !
I took Alliance & Leicester to Court and recovered over ^2000 for my son - again, they said they owed him nothing - and, they had to pay my Court costs.

Finally, as you rightly say, minimize your risk - be ultra cautious where you use a debit card.

So just claim you are dyslexic, get  a chip and sig - no argument. Why bother fighting the long arm of the law - use it for you.

Chip and sig = situation back on retailer = no problem

Should I have to take them to court?  Old situation - retailer/credit card liable.  Current me unless I jump through hoops.

Chip and pin would not have been introduced if it did not favour the banks/ the government etc

Tell me how as a card holder chip and pin protects me

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

I don't agree with chip and pin, retailers don't make any effort to check it's actually your card... They know the pin it must be theirs?!

[moonrakerz]

"Should I have to take them to court?  Old situation - retailer/credit card liable.  Current me unless I jump through hoops."

Certainly ! The banks rely on people being "afraid" of the Courts. Taking Alliance and Leicester to Court was as simple as typing this post ! With the internet you have all the Laws, examples, pitfalls at your fingertips.

"Chip and pin would not have been introduced if it did not favour the banks". Totally agree, they offloaded responsibility onto the retailer and claimed that would stop fraud !

"Tell me how as a card holder chip and pin protects me"  It doesn't, your original point that you had lost your legal rights however, was incorrect. Years ago I had a credit card from (I think !) the National and Provincial BS, it had my photo as well as my signature IN the card, just like a driving licence. When they got taken over it reverted to a "normal" card, explain that ?

If you dislike chip & pin ask for a chip & sig card. The banks have to supply you with one, you don't have to give a reason.

"............retailers don't make any effort to check it's actually your card..........."  Again, totally agree - but why should they ? As long as the person presenting the card knows the pin for that card the retailer will get the money. That was the bank's big selling point for this scheme ! Now that pins are becoming available via cameras, Mk 1 eyeball, people writing them down AND corrupt bank staff, the banks are frantically back-pedaling and trying to shift their losses onto someone else. The LAW says they cannot shift it to the card holder unless the card holder is negligent in some way.

There probably is more "improper" use of cards nowadays, caused by the banks and their chip & pin system making it a lot easier ! It must be tempting if you are busy to give your credit card to one of your kids/neighbour/relative tell them the pin and ask them to get something for you. With self-serve machines such as at Argos and railway stations a five year old can now spend huge sums !!

[Tim]

Are there not too issues here that we ought to separate out.

1) The issue of whether or not a railcard is being used by the person to whome it is issued (or a person accompanying the person to whom it is issued)

2) The issue of whether a disabled railcard is being used by someone who does not "look disabled".

Issue 2) is difficult.  Gateline staff have no right to challenge or doubt someone for not "looking disabled".  If the Rail industry wants better checks to make sure that the cards are only given to the deserving then sensitive mechanisms for assessing entitlement (doctors letters that kind of thing) ought to be in place when the card is issued not when it is used.  For all I know such mechanisms are in place.

Issue 1) is nothing to do with the fact that it is a disabled railcard. and is an issue that could be applied to any railcard or ticket which was only valid when held by a particular person.  It does baffle me however that disabled railcards do not carry photos.  That is just rediculous.

Given that many disablilities are not vissible in passing is there does not appear to be anything at all to stop a disabled person from getting a railcard and passing it to a non-disabled friend for use.  So I can understand why staff might take it upon themselves to request photo ID but of course the proper thing for the industry to do whould be to still photos on the railcards or require that they be carried on conjunction with photo ID.