PIN crap.

For now you'll be able to sign the receipt instead, though this option will go away in the future. This is years away though. You can always use another tender.

Presumably they carefully monitor the nationwide statistics of the percentage of transactions where they can't do a PIN verification due to not knowing the PIN (or some people who won't use it on principle), and compulsion will come once a certain level is reached.

Many countries have no plans to implement chip and pin at the moment, and presumably shops would still like to be able to receive money from them. (I think at the moment the banks are more interesting how their chip and pin experiment is going.)

Isn't it 1st January that retailers become liable for fraudulent transactions when a C&P card is used without a PIN?

Without a hint of irony, "Yonki" astounded uk.finance on 08 Dec 2004 by announcing:

They bypass the PIN and fall back to signature.

Without a hint of irony, Alex astounded uk.finance on 08 Dec 2004 by announcing:

Are you sure? PMO haven't given a deadline yet.

Without a hint of irony, "Marx Peterson" astounded uk.finance on 08 Dec 2004 by announcing:

No. They become liable if they are unable to process EMV transactions.

"Alex" wrote

Really - is that true? So anyone can simply refuse to enter the PIN, and the retailer is still not liable (let's assume they are able to process EMV) - when the "customer" signs instead? Even if that "customer" is not the true cardholder (ie it's a thief who stole the card, and simply practised the signature from the back!) ??

So how is the new system better for anyone (incl. the banks) ?

transactions.

I think Alex is wrong, otherwise C&P would be a waste of time. I've heard that from 1st January 2005 if you don't know the PIN for your card you won't be able to use it with a C&P terminal. I've also read in a handbook for a C&P terminal that the option of overriding the PIN entry will still exist next year but when used will request online authorisation from the bank. I'm guessing that the bank will automatically decline the transaction if the PIN is not used, maybe they'll still approve C&P cards where the PIN has still not been issued.

I expect that your guess is wrong. There would be little reason for the shop to seek authorisation if they expected a refusal on principle. There will doubtless be many genuine idiots each day who have forgotten their pin, brought the wrong card with them (whatever) and Mr Sainsbury will get pretty p-eed off at having to put a trolly load of shopping back on the shelf just to uphold some principle.

tim

Without a hint of irony, "Tim" astounded uk.finance on 10 Dec

For the time being, that is correct.

Without a hint of irony, "Marx Peterson" astounded uk.finance on 11 Dec 2004 by announcing:

That's incorrect. PMO have not mandated a cut-off date yet. 1st Jan is when the liability shifts to the link in the chain that is not EMV-capable - be it the merchant, acquiring bank, issuing bank or whoever.

Exactly.

Why? In that case it would be a hell of a lot easier for the banks and merchants if they just removed the signature capability (CVM) from the card.

Without a hint of irony, "tim" astounded uk.finance on 12 Dec 2004 by announcing:

And there'd be no reason for the card to actually approve or refer the transaction. If this was the intent of the banks, the card would simply reject the transaction automatically if PIN wasn't used.

"tim" wrote

Isn't that just where commercial principles would likely cause Mr.Sainsbury, rather than refusing the sale, instead to simply to take the liability for possible fraudulent use & accept the card with signature? Which is where we started - won't the retailer be liable for loss due to fraud if a signature is taken instead of PIN?

Caught the end of a discussion on this on Radio 5 a few days ago. They didn't have a bank rep but a rep from some retailers' association. Her line sounded a bit simplistic - ie. quote/ NO shop will accept ANY card payment UNLESS it is verified by PIN from 1st January".

I didn't hear if there was any comment about chip & sig cards. Someone asked about Amex(?) cards that don't have PINs and she said that you wont be able to use them in any shops.

As I said I think that may have been a bit of an over simplification - I am waitning to see if my CC is replaced with one with a chip before then - if not I will have fun trying it out in January. :-)

Very simplistic - she probably meant that if the card required a PIN, then you'd need to give it and a signature wouldn't do. However, there exist for good reason Chip & Signature (aka PIN-suppressed) cards: these have no PIN at all.

Without a hint of irony, "rob." astounded uk.finance on 12 Dec 2004 by announcing:

Bollocks.

More bollocks.

She is either very confused or has no idea at all what she's talking about. Either way, she should not be officially representing anybody.

Without a hint of irony, Mike Scott astounded uk.finance on 13 Dec

And still she'd be incorrect.

Nope, she's doing exactly the job that the people she is representing want her to do. The fact that what she is saying is bollux, is not a problem to them, right or wrong, it's what they want the man on the clapham omnibus to believe.

tim