I wonder if this might be raised in line with the level itself going up. £45 x 3 = £135 £100 x 3 = £300.
Going to be interesting to see how banks deal with it.
2 Likes
It is being raised, the treasury has already confirmed that, but I forget what the new SCA limit was.
I think it may be £300, as you suggested.
Edit: Yes, that’s right.
Confirmation straight from the FCA press release:
2 Likes
Not sure the best thread but … Interesting article.
Issue has been fixed for MasterCard but Visa appears to have not .
2 Likes
It sounds like they are reverse-engineering CDCVM, so probably easily fixed with software updates.
The article is understandably a bit vague on precise technical details so I can’t be sure.
Still, it’s a bit worrying even though the technical complexity makes it seem unlikely in practice.
1 Like
“Experts” come out of the woodwork to say this every time there is an increase, and it’s probably true.
But that doesn’t mean that fraud rates skyrocket, they usually only creep upwards slightly.
Last time there was an increase, levels of fraud actually went down afterwards!
3 Likes
I’m sure a Monzo staff member came along last year to say that they saw an increase in fraud after the temporary raise of the contactless limit.
5 Likes
“Lloyds, Halifax and Bank of Scotland customers will set own contactless limits”
4 Likes
Are any other banks doing this adjustable limit?
Starling said they were looking at it.
I think Monzo may also be considering it.
3 Likes
I do hope more banks do it. It seems like a sensible thing to do when not everyone will need a £100 contactless limit.
2 Likes
I find it interesting that banks are putting this in the hands of the customer when it has little to no impact on the customers themselves.
Effectively, they’re getting us to voluntarily reduce their exposure to fraud. I don’t have an issue with it at all, it just strikes me as slightly bizarre. Am I missing something?
6 Likes
Surely that is it? Reducing the banks risk by offering the consumer a choice - it is a win-win for the banks?
6 Likes
You are not missing anything @Feathers!
It just allows the customer to potentially feel more comfortable, as £100 is a lot of money for some people - and the investigation and resulting refund that would be given in the event of fraud would still be stressful and take some time.
By not allowing large payments in the first place, the customer knows they will never have to worry about that happening.
4 Likes
It’s giving customers a choice, finally over what limit they’d like to use.
Act on something people will moan, don’t act on it, people will moan. That’s not a dig at you by the way, it’s just the in general.
I’d probably choose a lower limit, but that’s because I use Google Pay and my card doesn’t go anywhere. In the likelihood my card did go walkies, would just mean whoever couldn’t go buy something more expensive for themselves. Although I guess they could just go buy multiple items of something cheaper.
2 Likes
I guess so. Given that the bank’s liability here doesn’t seem well understood by the public, we get to feel ‘in control’ and they take the risk benefit. On that basis it seems like quite a clever move to make.
As I say, I’m not knocking it at all.
3 Likes
I don’t ever carry a physical card around so it’s no biggy for me.
All done by Apple Watch or phone.
5 Likes
2 Likes
I always use my phone too, but it’s sensible to carry a card too in case you drop your phone or something.
1 Like
That’s where the Apple Watch comes in 
6 Likes