Yes, it would be nice if all contactless transport supported it.
I’m sure it will, in time. It’s still a fairly new feature so we have to be patient!
3 Likes
Yeah, it could even be invoked via an in-app button if they wanted to get really high-tech!
I’m going to get really off-topic if I carry on, but I’ll just say that mobile in general is an area which is particularly infuriating in this respect. Some networks still don’t even offer Visual Voicemail or Wifi Calling, and may of the ones that do don’t do it properly - not sending texts through the Wifi calling, etc, for example.
3 Likes
Asda can’t handle Apple Pay over £45 citing that that is there contactless limit.
Moving to £100 would cover most shopping for me there.
1 Like
Fully appreciate what your saying. My experience in the last 3 years is where retailers do limit it’s at the current £45 contactless limit.
When the limit was £30 same thing. Hence my own personal experience would mean somewhere like Asda would allow upto £100 for Apple Pay.
We can all use our own experiences that’s how our lives are shaped?
1 Like
If the banks are happy to cover the extra cost of fraud, why not? Again it’s not like customer’s money is (or was ever) at risk to begin with, despite all the fear-mongering.
However, given the prevalence of smartphones and the fact that every major bank (and even non-bank like Revolut) supports Apple or Google Pay, why is any work still being done on “old-school”, card-based unauthenticated contactless?
7 Likes
And nowhere in that link does Asda state that American Express does not work via Google Pay in their stores.
At least it never has for me 
I still use my card contactless more than I use ApplePay and I couldn’t tell you why!
Force of habitat?
Because there are still a lot of people who aren’t comfortable with phone-based payments, for (misplaced) security reasons, and a significant minority who still don’t even have a capable phone/device.
2 Likes
Probably. I’ve rarely used it on my phone, especially since Face ID where it feels less smooth, and even more so since having a mask on, I don’t even attempt it.
I use it on my watch if I’m in a rush, self service or something, but if there’s time and I’m stood waiting, I think it’s probably just habit to get my card out of my wallet.
1 Like
Fair enough.
I personally think that using Face ID is actually more smooth as long as you aren’t wearing a mask, or that was my experience pre-Covid anyway. I always tended to “pre-authenticate” before actually paying, but I can see why it might be a faff to wait until the moment of payment and then have to mess about with it.
I do accept that Face ID isn’t very workable in the current environment, although using your watch is so easy I don’t know why you would favour a card over it!
4 Likes
Done know if this has been posted yet £100 contactless limit would be a fraud risk, says Starling | Money | The Times
1 Like
Doesn’t make too much of a difference to me with the likes of Apple Pay / Google Pay being available where the limit is practically limitless any but i can see why they’d be concerned over this.
I think they’re probably right. £100 with zero authentication would be a bit of a risk. I think probably 50 quid maximum and unlimited through the Pays with additional biometric etc. authentication makes a lot more sense.
That being said it doesn’t really make a difference to me as if someone uses my card it’s not me who’s going to lose out it’s the bank.
3 Likes
Canada increased their contactless limit to $250 (about £140) last year and actually saw a reduction in fraud. Contactless fraud remained about the same but ATM/Chip & PIN fraud was lowered (presumably because PIN surfing and card skimming was harder). In fact some merchants like Costco have a $400 contactless limit in Canada, although you have to be member (and show two forms of ID to get membership), so it would be kind of stupid to use a stolen card. Merchants are free to set their own limits above the $250 limit, its just they are liable for any fraud above that amount.
Unless the contactless limit is high enough to buy expensive items like electronics which are profitable to resell, the fraud rate is unlikely to increase. If the UK wanted to take a more cautious approach it could do what Canada used to do, have a $50 normal limit but have a $100 limit for groceries and dining (these are very low risk merchant types, that stolen cards are basically never used at).
12 Likes
Update on this
If only it was up to him
The FCA can set the boundaries for payments, under its rules, but the card issuers would have the power to set the actual limits.
From the original link in this thread.
1 Like
If I’m reading that right, what that means is Sunak (or the FCA) can say “You can allow contactless payments up to £100” but your bank can say “Jesus Christ fuck no” and leave your limit at the current lower level. Because who wants to double their fraud losses, eh?
5 Likes
I might be wrong here, but I’m pretty sure several banks (us included!) initially increased the rolling limit before you were prompted to use chip & pin but saw the fraud losses increase and so reduced it back down.
I suppose if the rolling limit doesn’t increase then the maximum somebody with a stolen card can ‘steal’ doesn’t change - just that it might be easier to make higher value purchases with it.
9 Likes
That makes sense to me and seems like a good idea.
If you want to make occasional larger purchases they will probably be OK but the overall level of risk isn’t increased - so fraud isn’t either.
It’s just like now but with more flexibility in when you can use your card contactlessly.
1 Like
The ideal solution IMO would be for the UK to get with the majority of Europe and support contactless-and-PIN for high value transactions
(Boop your card on the reader and, possibly after contemplating matters for a few seconds, the terminal prompts you to enter your PIN. This is also used when your unauthenticated contactless limit is reached)
24 Likes