On Aug 9, 2:18*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Does using a hip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?

Occasionally people use expressions without knowing that others reckon
they are jargon. It's a bit like spelling mistakes - astute readers can
see past them, whilst some might feel the need to point them out. ;-)

Don't smiley face me.

On Aug 9, 2:04*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 9, 10:33*am, Chris *Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

In message
,
at 14:11:42 on Sun, 8 Aug 2010, CJB remarked:

TfL explained that it could not be aware of any over-charging until
the issue was reported by a passenger.

Apart, of course, from looking for cards where there were two top-up
[bank charges] on the same day.

Yes - some passengers will do that, but that doesn't actually matter.
What you are looking for is top-ups where there were two debits but
only one amount of credit added.

Not holding an Oyster card, I wouldn't know, but in many cases the
financial part of e-transactions is handled separately for security
reasons. If that is the case here, then how would TfL know in detail
about the debits?

If by 'e-transactions' you are talking about an e-commerce (i.e.
online purchase) situation, then that wouldn't apply here as this
concerns people topping up their Oyster cards in person at self-
service ticket machines at LU stations.

No, I was trying to use a short form for transactions involving
electronic fund transfer. I've never been in doubt as to the nature of
the transaction - it just seems from the description as if the systems
in use are generating spurious transactions. My comment was predicated
on the idea that TfL may not have details which would identify whose
five pounds a particular five pounds is, if some other agency handles
the financial part of the transaction.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

On Aug 9, 2:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 9, 2:18*pm, Chris *Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Does using a chip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?

Occasionally people use expressions without knowing that others reckon
they are jargon. It's a bit like spelling mistakes - astute readers can
see past them, whilst some might feel the need to point them out. ;-)

Don't smiley face me.

Sorry, that was unnecessarily aggressive - I've read your other
substantive reply to my point/ question about what you meant by an 'e-
transaction'. Though I still don't quite see the need for the somewhat
snide put-down - especially in the context of the other 'Ipswich
idiocy' thread (which I intend to return to, if and when I can summon
up the requisite motivation), where I think it may not have been me
that was the one who was lacking in astuteness.

That aside, I didn't intend to suggest that the term 'e-transaction'
had some definitive meaning - my intention was merely to work clarify
what you mean by it.

Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 9, 2:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 9, 2:18*pm, Chris *Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Does using a chip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?

Occasionally people use expressions without knowing that others reckon
they are jargon. It's a bit like spelling mistakes - astute readers can
see past them, whilst some might feel the need to point them out. ;-)

Don't smiley face me.

Sorry, that was unnecessarily aggressive

Actually, I thought it was rather amusing, and I'm a little surprised
that you apparently intended it to be serious.

- I've read your other substantive reply to my point/ question about
what you meant by an 'e- transaction'. Though I still don't quite see
the need for the somewhat snide put-down - especially in the context
of the other 'Ipswich idiocy' thread (which I intend to return to, if
and when I can summon up the requisite motivation), where I think it
may not have been me that was the one who was lacking in astuteness.

There's no need to return to it. I knew what was going on all along. If
you hadn't kept on plugging away with the "who's being an idiot"
question, then I wouldn't have pointed out what the potential idiocy
was, and whom the poster who first used the word had in mind. But, as I
pointed out, I never applied that word to you, and if you think I did,
then with all due respect, I think you should read the exchange again.

That aside, I didn't intend to suggest that the term 'e-transaction'
had some definitive meaning - my intention was merely to work clarify
what you mean by it.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9682591.html
(08 601 and 08 604 at Tyseley, 4 Oct 1987)

Chris Tolley wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
14:11:42 on Sun, 8 Aug 2010, CJB remarked:
TfL explained that it could not be aware of any over-charging until
the issue was reported by a passenger.
Apart, of course, from looking for cards where there were two top-up
[bank charges] on the same day.

Yes - some passengers will do that, but that doesn't actually matter.
What you are looking for is top-ups where there were two debits but only
one amount of credit added.

Not holding an Oyster card, I wouldn't know, but in many cases the
financial part of e-transactions is handled separately for security
reasons. If that is the case here, then how would TfL know in detail

TfL would need to reconcile payments taken against the sale. Their
finance department would be able to run reports from their bank for all
card payments. I see no reason why each and every sale made via a
machine generates a unique reference number which in turn is transmitted
to the bank. From their they could pin-point any discrepancies between
bank reports and sale reports from each machine.

--
Phil Richards, London, UK
3,600+ railway photos since 1980 at:
http://europeanrail.fotopic.net
http://britishrail.fotopic.net