It appears that The Trainline has introduced, unannounced, a surcharge
of £1.50 for any transaction paid for by credit card (but not debit
card). This only appears on the very last screen before payment is
made.
I would advise booking through eg Midland Mainline which despite using
The Trainline to make bookings does not impose this surcharge.

simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:

> It appears that The Trainline has introduced, unannounced, a surcharge
> of 1.50 for any transaction paid for by credit card (but not debit
> card). This only appears on the very last screen before payment is
> made.


Obviously this is because they can't make a profit on short and 
inexpensive journeys. But is the bank charge really that much to process 
a credit card transaction?

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

"Jonathan Stott"  wrote in message
news:dfmlr3$92g$2@oheron.kent.ac.uk...

> simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
> > It appears that The Trainline has introduced, unannounced, a surcharge
> > of 1.50 for any transaction paid for by credit card (but not debit
> > card). This only appears on the very last screen before payment is
> > made.
>
> Obviously this is because they can't make a profit on short and
> inexpensive journeys. But is the bank charge really that much to process
> a credit card transaction?


I don't know how much they charge The Trainline, but my bills from Tesco now
all carry a statement at the bottom which says 2.5% of the total goes on
card handling services.

Roger

On Wednesday 07 September 2005 13:21, Roger H. Bennett wrote:


> "Jonathan Stott"  wrote in message
> news:dfmlr3$92g$2@oheron.kent.ac.uk...
>> simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
>> > It appears that The Trainline has introduced, unannounced, a
>> > surcharge of 1.50 for any transaction paid for by credit card (but
>> > not debit card). This only appears on the very last screen before
>> > payment is made.
>>
>> Obviously this is because they can't make a profit on short and
>> inexpensive journeys. But is the bank charge really that much to
>> process a credit card transaction?


I doubt it.  I think they are just jumping on the bandwagon of gouging
consumers for using a credit card.  I suspect that many businesses do
it to discourage customers from using credit cards because of the extra
protection they get (although that may not be relevant here).


> I don't know how much they charge The Trainline, but my bills from
> Tesco now all carry a statement at the bottom which says 2.5% of the
> total goes on card handling services.


That's quite different.  When you buy 100 of stuff with a credit card,
the retail company gives you a discount of 2.50 on the price and a
separate subsidiary charges you 2.50 for "processing", so the total is
the same.  The purpose of this is to reduce their VAT bill (they claim
the processing is a zero-rated service) and increase their profits (at
the public expense, in effect: they get the same amount of gross
revenue but pay less in tax).

Whereas with the Trainline, you buy 100 of tickets and pay 101.50.

Roger H. Bennett wrote:


> I don't know how much they charge The Trainline, but my bills from Tesco now
> all carry a statement at the bottom which says 2.5% of the total goes on
> card handling services.


Going slightly OT here, but surely it doesn't cost any more for 
computers to move 100 than to move 1. So using a percentage seems a 
bit rich: a flat-fee would be more realistic, surely?

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

Jonathan Stott wrote:


> simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
> 
>> It appears that The Trainline has introduced, unannounced, a surcharge
>> of 1.50 for any transaction paid for by credit card (but not debit
>> card). This only appears on the very last screen before payment is
>> made.
> 
> 
> Obviously this is because they can't make a profit on short and 
> inexpensive journeys. But is the bank charge really that much to process 
> a credit card transaction?
> 


Just looking at the Barclaycard Merchant Guide, you are not allowed to 
put a surcharge on transactions made using a debit card, but you can 
with a credit card. The amount you charge the end user may not total 
more than the charge the bank makes (which is 1% or so I think). 
(Although I'm not sure the relevant legislation agrees with this, but 
it's an impossible document to interpret!) You must also inform the 
customer that you intend on making a surcharge "before they place the 
order", and you must ensure that "your catalogues, advertisements and 
the order form itself carry exact details of your intention to surcharge 
those customers who wish to pay by credit card".

The relevant bits of legislation are the Credit Cards (Price 
Discrimination) Order 1990 and Price Indications (Method Of Payment) 
Regulations 1991 (although I'm not sure if the latter applies to the 
internet or not.) I'm also assuming this is all covered by this 
legislation and is not just a term in the Barclaycard Merchant Services 
agreement.

Assuming thetrainline are charged 1% by the bank (apparantly the %age 
varies based on your company size and the value of your card 
transactions), this would mean you had to spend 150 before they could 
charge that big a surcharge? :o\

Jonathan Stott wrote:

> Going slightly OT here, but surely it doesn't cost any more for
> computers to move £100 than to move £1. So using a percentage seems a
> bit rich: a flat-fee would be more realistic, surely?
>

I see your logic there.

Cash machine charges always used to be a percentage (subject to a
minimum fee) although the ones which charge now seem to charge a flat
rate.

In message <dfmnm1$org$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk>, at 13:50:09 on Wed, 7 Sep 
2005, Neil Shaw  remarked:

>Just looking at the Barclaycard Merchant Guide, you are not allowed to 
>put a surcharge on transactions made using a debit card, but you can 
>with a credit card. The amount you charge the end user may not total 
>more than the charge the bank makes (which is 1% or so I think). 
>(Although I'm not sure the relevant legislation agrees with this, but 
>it's an impossible document to interpret!) You must also inform the 
>customer that you intend on making a surcharge "before they place the 
>order", and you must ensure that "your catalogues, advertisements and 
>the order form itself carry exact details of your intention to 
>surcharge those customers who wish to pay by credit card".
>
>The relevant bits of legislation are the Credit Cards (Price 
>Discrimination) Order 1990 and Price Indications (Method Of Payment) 
>Regulations 1991 (although I'm not sure if the latter applies to the 
>internet or not.) I'm also assuming this is all covered by this 
>legislation and is not just a term in the Barclaycard Merchant Services 
>agreement.
>
>Assuming thetrainline are charged 1% by the bank (apparantly the %age 
>varies based on your company size and the value of your card 
>transactions), this would mean you had to spend 150 before they could 
>charge that big a surcharge? :o\


BMI Baby charges 4.95, whatever the price of your air ticket. So I 
don't think simplistic calculations like that are the answer.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:40:08 on Wed, 7 Sep 
2005, Adam Funk  remarked:

>When you buy 100 of stuff with a credit card,
>the retail company gives you a discount of 2.50 on the price and a
>separate subsidiary charges you 2.50 for "processing", so the total is
>the same.  The purpose of this is to reduce their VAT bill (they claim
>the processing is a zero-rated service) and increase their profits (at
>the public expense, in effect: they get the same amount of gross
>revenue but pay less in tax).


I thought that whatever HM Customs is called this week had won a test 
case invalidating this loophole?
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:Dk6rX$e7p0HDFAdq@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message , at 13:40:08 on Wed, 7 Sep
> 2005, Adam Funk  remarked:
> >When you buy 100 of stuff with a credit card,
> >the retail company gives you a discount of 2.50 on the price and a
> >separate subsidiary charges you 2.50 for "processing", so the total is
> >the same.  The purpose of this is to reduce their VAT bill (they claim
> >the processing is a zero-rated service) and increase their profits (at
> >the public expense, in effect: they get the same amount of gross
> >revenue but pay less in tax).
>
> I thought that whatever HM Customs is called this week had won a test
> case invalidating this loophole?


AIUI that is correct, but the retailers are appealing against the decision.

Peter

Jonathan Stott wrote:


> Roger H. Bennett wrote:
> 
>> I don't know how much they charge The Trainline, but my bills from 
>> Tesco now all carry a statement at the bottom which says 2.5% of the 
>> total goes on card handling services.


As Adam said, that is just a scam to reduce their VAT bill. The actual
charge to Tesco for credit card transactions is significantly less
than this - ISTR somewhere in the 1% region. For smaller retailers, it
would be higher.
 

> Going slightly OT here, but surely it doesn't cost any more for 
> computers to move 100 than to move 1. So using a percentage seems a 
> bit rich: a flat-fee would be more realistic, surely?


The credit card companies are there to make money. That's why they
operate. Don't forget that credit card processing also has a risk
element - there is the risk that the customer will default on his
payment, and there is the risk that the goods will be faulty or
whatever, and then the credit card insurance has to pay out. There is
then the matter that the credit card company pays for the goods quite
some time - up to 2 months in some cases - before they receive payment
from you - so by charging a %age rather than flat rate, this
effectively pays the interest on their bill, and does it more fairly
than a flat rate would. For these reasons, it is quite understandable
that the credit cards use %age charge.

And the converse also applies, which is why _debit_ cards do just
charge a flat rate per transaction - there is no risk, no insurance,
and no deferred payment. So they are just charging you the
administrative cost of the transaction.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

naked_draughtsman  wrote:

> Cash machine charges always used to be a percentage (subject to a
> minimum fee) although the ones which charge now seem to charge a flat
> rate.


Is that because the charges used to be for using a machine at another bank,
which is now free, and are now for using a machine at a corner shop or
elsewhere that rents the machine?

Theo

simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:

> It appears that The Trainline has introduced, unannounced, a surcharge
> of 1.50 for any transaction paid for by credit card (but not debit
> card). This only appears on the very last screen before payment is
> made.
> I would advise booking through eg Midland Mainline which despite using
> The Trainline to make bookings does not impose this surcharge.
> 


After having tried to deal with their "customer service" people late
last year I vowed never to use them again. This just confirms it.

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime"-G Gordon Liddy

On 07 Sep 2005 22:27:58 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:


>naked_draughtsman  wrote:
>> Cash machine charges always used to be a percentage (subject to a
>> minimum fee) although the ones which charge now seem to charge a flat
>> rate.
>
>Is that because the charges used to be for using a machine at another bank,
>which is now free, and are now for using a machine at a corner shop or
>elsewhere that rents the machine?
>

In general the machines located in banks and "proper" Post Offices
work on the former basis (but originally with a fixed fee for cash
card withdrawals from someone else's machine) for cash transactions
via the Link system while the latter applies to the (usually?)
floor-standing machines found in shops, garages, etc. In either case
AFAIAA the card-holder's own bank will still make their own surcharge
on a cash withdrawal on a _credit_ card.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message , at 13:40:08 on Wed, 7 Sep
> 2005, Adam Funk  remarked:
>>When you buy 100 of stuff with a credit card,
>>the retail company gives you a discount of 2.50 on the price and a
>>separate subsidiary charges you 2.50 for "processing", so the total is
>>the same.  The purpose of this is to reduce their VAT bill (they claim
>>the processing is a zero-rated service) and increase their profits (at
>>the public expense, in effect: they get the same amount of gross
>>revenue but pay less in tax).
> 
> I thought that whatever HM Customs is called this week had won a test
> case invalidating this loophole?


I forgot to mention that the retailers and Customs are disputing this
practice!  But I didn't know the case had concluded this week.

Charles Ellson wrote:


>>Is that because the charges used to be for using a machine at another
>>bank, which is now free, and are now for using a machine at a corner shop
>>or elsewhere that rents the machine?
>>
> In general the machines located in banks and "proper" Post Offices
> work on the former basis (but originally with a fixed fee for cash
> card withdrawals from someone else's machine) for cash transactions
> via the Link system while the latter applies to the (usually?)
> floor-standing machines found in shops, garages, etc. In either case
> AFAIAA the card-holder's own bank will still make their own surcharge
> on a cash withdrawal on a _credit_ card.


The particularly nasty problem is that banks have been selling free cash
machines to cash machine companies, who then make them chargeable.  So a
village, motorway service area or other location with a captive market no
longer has any free cash withdrawal options.

In message <dforiv$263p$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 09:09:03 on Thu, 8 Sep 
2005, Adam Funk  remarked:

>> I thought that whatever HM Customs is called this week had won a test
>> case invalidating this loophole?
>
>I forgot to mention that the retailers and Customs are disputing this
>practice!  But I didn't know the case had concluded this week.


Has it?
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:11:47 +0100, Adam Funk 
wrote:


>Charles Ellson wrote:
>
>>>Is that because the charges used to be for using a machine at another
>>>bank, which is now free, and are now for using a machine at a corner shop
>>>or elsewhere that rents the machine?
>>>
>> In general the machines located in banks and "proper" Post Offices
>> work on the former basis (but originally with a fixed fee for cash
>> card withdrawals from someone else's machine) for cash transactions
>> via the Link system while the latter applies to the (usually?)
>> floor-standing machines found in shops, garages, etc. In either case
>> AFAIAA the card-holder's own bank will still make their own surcharge
>> on a cash withdrawal on a _credit_ card.
>
>The particularly nasty problem is that banks have been selling free cash
>machines to cash machine companies, who then make them chargeable.  So a
>village, motorway service area or other location with a captive market no
>longer has any free cash withdrawal options.


The system (machines not at banks) also seems to be capable of working
the other way (i.e. no charge to most users) with one located at an
ex-bank (now some kind of financial firm) in Pinner, Middlesex and
other examples elsewhere where the current occupiers of the premises
are presumably able to make enough by renting out the space or taking
a cut of the Link transaction fees.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Adam Funk wrote:

>
> The particularly nasty problem is that banks have been selling free cash
> machines to cash machine companies, who then make them chargeable.  So a
> village, motorway service area or other location with a captive market no
> longer has any free cash withdrawal options.


Answer is simple - dont use them. I refuse to pay some parastite £1.50
to get my money.

Alternatively, buy something in the shop - pop, water, choccy - and pay
with a debit card and ask for cashback.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:19:24 +0100, Jonathan Stott 
wrote:


>simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
>> It appears that The Trainline has introduced, unannounced, a surcharge
>> of 1.50 for any transaction paid for by credit card (but not debit
>> card). This only appears on the very last screen before payment is
>> made.
>
>Obviously this is because they can't make a profit on short and 
>inexpensive journeys. But is the bank charge really that much to process 
>a credit card transaction?


AIUI the banks charge a % for processing credit cards (the exact
amount depends on the charge as Visa, Mastercard and AmEx all have
different rates but I think it's about 1.5-3.5%) whereas for debit
cards it's a fixed rate charge of c.30p...

"Grumpy Old Man"  wrote in message
news:1126208298.807788.62890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Adam Funk wrote:

>
> The particularly nasty problem is that banks have been selling free cash
> machines to cash machine companies, who then make them chargeable.  So a
> village, motorway service area or other location with a captive market no
> longer has any free cash withdrawal options.

>Answer is simple - dont use them. I refuse to pay some parastite 1.50
>to get my money.

>Alternatively, buy something in the shop - pop, water, choccy - and pay
>with a debit card and ask for cashback.



i have actually been charged a "handling fee" for wanting cash back.
cheers
james

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:39:28 GMT, "gonzo" 
wrote:


>i have actually been charged a "handling fee" for wanting cash back.


Some shops do this.  The answer is not to use them for obtaining
cashback.  There are plenty of places where cash can be obtained
without a fee being charged.

The more sensible shops offer it as a free service when you spend a
certain amount of money (say a fiver) because it saves them having to
bank it themselves!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:

>
> Some shops do this.  The answer is not to use them for obtaining
> cashback.  There are plenty of places where cash can be obtained
> without a fee being charged.
>
> The more sensible shops offer it as a free service when you spend a
> certain amount of money (say a fiver) because it saves them having to
> bank it themselves!


Indeed - the Daily Mail today, FWIW, reports that Tesco are looking
into 'cash-free' stores - at which you could only pay by plastic. This
is due to the high cost of cash handling.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Neil Williams wrote:


> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:39:28 GMT, "gonzo" 
> wrote:
> 
> >i have actually been charged a "handling fee" for wanting cash back.
> 
> Some shops do this.  The answer is not to use them for obtaining
> cashback.  There are plenty of places where cash can be obtained
> without a fee being charged.
> 
> The more sensible shops offer it as a free service when you spend a
> certain amount of money (say a fiver) because it saves them having to
> bank it themselves!


Sure thing, but one could understand them wanting to avoid folks 
turning up to buy something for a token price (50p or whatever) on 
plastic, in order to use the store checkout effectively as an ATM.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


> Sure thing, but one could understand them wanting to avoid folks 
> turning up to buy something for a token price (50p or whatever) on 
> plastic, in order to use the store checkout effectively as an ATM.
> 


Then again, once in the shop they might just be tempted by
some other items.

Whaley Bridge has just one cash machine, outside the Co-op store
and operated by the Co-op bank. (Since the oh-so-friendly
Natwest closed their branch.) Would the Co-op store be justified
in charging people for cashback when the machine's out of order?

Charlie

In message <MPUUe.9839$Y06.675@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, at 11:47:56 on 
Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Charlie Hulme  remarked:

>Whaley Bridge has just one cash machine, outside the Co-op store
>and operated by the Co-op bank. (Since the oh-so-friendly
>Natwest closed their branch.) Would the Co-op store be justified
>in charging people for cashback when the machine's out of order?


Of course, the Co-op Bank is a quite different company from the Co-Op 
store (see discussions of online booking, where ToCs disclaim 
responsibility for tickets booked on their websites on the grounds that 
its "really Trainline").
-- 
Roland Perry

On 10 Sep 2005 14:36:11 -0700, scotboy1994@hotmail.co.uk wrote:


>Indeed - the Daily Mail today, FWIW, reports that Tesco are looking
>into 'cash-free' stores - at which you could only pay by plastic. This
>is due to the high cost of cash handling.


And the safety aspect.  I can see the first implementation of this
being Tesco Express stores in less salubrious areas, perhaps in the
evening only, for the simple reason of staff protection.  If there
genuinely is no cash present, you can't rob it.

This leads me to ask, slightly nearer being on-topic, why it is that
bus companies (other than London bendies) haven't gone for cashless
(or reduced cash) operations, with a simplified fare structure and
strip-cards and the likes sold in local shops etc?  I know exact fare
systems provide better protection for the cash, but surely it's better
for it not to be there in the first place, or at least in reduced
amounts?

It's especially surprising for MK Metro, as their smartcard system
(albeit a dated one) *does* support electronic purses - they just
don't use it (except for the Council concessionary cards).  That said,
Metro don't really have a crime problem - this is shown by the fact
that they don't have protective screens for drivers simply because
they don't really need them, unlike in many other large towns and
cities.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:


> That said, I pay for stuff by credit card more often than I do not,
> even of very low value. Especially now Chip and PIN is here, it's just
> more convenient than faffing with cash.  This has nothing to do with
> borrowing; 99.999% of the time my balance is paid in full at the end
> of the month.


To achieve this figure, as opposed to 100.000%, you must have had a 
credit card for 100,000 months. You are obviously older than I thought 
you were ;-)

Charlie

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:28:09 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>To achieve this figure, as opposed to 100.000%, you must have had a 
>credit card for 100,000 months. You are obviously older than I thought 
>you were ;-)


Pedantry rules USENET :)

(The actual figure would be about one in about 8 years, ignoring my
current playing of the profiteering-off-0%-cards game, if you can be
bothered working it out!)

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message <tpVUe.7279$oq4.3230@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, at 12:28:09 on 
Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Charlie Hulme  remarked:

>> That said, I pay for stuff by credit card more often than I do not,
>> even of very low value. Especially now Chip and PIN is here, it's just
>> more convenient than faffing with cash.  This has nothing to do with
>> borrowing; 99.999% of the time my balance is paid in full at the end
>> of the month.
>
>To achieve this figure, as opposed to 100.000%, you must have had a 
>credit card for 100,000 months. You are obviously older than I thought 
>you were ;-)


Or he could have 1,000 different cards in use.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message <tpVUe.7279$oq4.3230@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, at 12:28:09 on 
> Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Charlie Hulme  remarked:
> 
>>> That said, I pay for stuff by credit card more often than I do not,
>>> even of very low value. Especially now Chip and PIN is here, it's just
>>> more convenient than faffing with cash.  This has nothing to do with
>>> borrowing; 99.999% of the time my balance is paid in full at the end
>>> of the month.
>>
>>
>> To achieve this figure, as opposed to 100.000%, you must have had a 
>> credit card for 100,000 months. You are obviously older than I thought 
>> you were ;-)
> 
> 
> Or he could have 1,000 different cards in use.


Curses, I never thought of that!

Charlie

Neil Williams wrote:


> As an opposite (possibly), there is a Tesco Express in Walnut Tree,
> Milton Keynes, not far from where I work (indeed, I tend to get my
> lunch there).  This has an Alliance and Leicester cash machine
> outside, which has been there a good while, which charges gbp1.50 per
> transaction for cash.  Inside, there is a Post Office, where it can be
> obtained without charge by customers of many banks.
> 
> Guess which I use - but also guess where the crowds normally go!
> 
> (Notably, the Tesco does not itself do cashback, even though many of
> their stores do.  I am yet to work out why).
> 
> Neil
> 


This seems to be a Tesco Express thing - their store on Trafalgar Square 
(with a product range of around 50 items it seems) doesn't do cashback 
either, while all their traditional and Metro stores I use do.

Cheers,

Steve M

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:tpVUe.7279$oq4.3230@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

> Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> That said, I pay for stuff by credit card more often than I do not,
>> even of very low value. Especially now Chip and PIN is here, it's just
>> more convenient than faffing with cash.  This has nothing to do with
>> borrowing; 99.999% of the time my balance is paid in full at the end
>> of the month.
>
> To achieve this figure, as opposed to 100.000%, you must have had a credit 
> card for 100,000 months. You are obviously older than I thought you were 
> ;-)


Does that not assume Neil has only one card?

KW  :-))

On 7 Sep 2005 04:43:44 -0700, simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:



>I would advise booking through eg Midland Mainline which despite using
>The Trainline to make bookings does not impose this surcharge.


Same apples to GNER.  uses trainline but no surcharge

Nigel wrote:


> On 7 Sep 2005 04:43:44 -0700, simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>I would advise booking through eg Midland Mainline which despite using
>>The Trainline to make bookings does not impose this surcharge.
> 
> 
> Same apples to GNER.  uses trainline but no surcharge


Obviously this all came about when it was discovered
that thousands of people were buying tickets from Barry Links
to Golf Street ;-)

Charlie

Charlie Hulme  wrote:

>
>To achieve this figure, as opposed to 100.000%, you must have had a 
>credit card for 100,000 months. You are obviously older than I thought 
>you were ;-)



I have told you at least 10,000 times not to exaggerate.

;-)

"Ken Ward"  wrote:


>"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
>news:tpVUe.7279$oq4.3230@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> Neil Williams wrote:
>>
>>> That said, I pay for stuff by credit card more often than I do not,
>>> even of very low value. Especially now Chip and PIN is here, it's just
>>> more convenient than faffing with cash.  This has nothing to do with
>>> borrowing; 99.999% of the time my balance is paid in full at the end
>>> of the month.
>>
>> To achieve this figure, as opposed to 100.000%, you must have had a credit 
>> card for 100,000 months. You are obviously older than I thought you were 
>> ;-)
>
>Does that not assume Neil has only one card?



Do you have an account with Asperger's Bank PLC?

;-)

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On 10 Sep 2005 14:36:11 -0700, scotboy1994@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Indeed - the Daily Mail today, FWIW, reports that Tesco are looking
>>into 'cash-free' stores - at which you could only pay by plastic. This
>>is due to the high cost of cash handling.
>
>And the safety aspect.  I can see the first implementation of this
>being Tesco Express stores in less salubrious areas, perhaps in the
>evening only, for the simple reason of staff protection.  If there
>genuinely is no cash present, you can't rob it.



In future we will have the staff-free Tesco store, where all the tills
are self-service Fastlanes remotely monitored by CCTV.

(no smiley - I'm not joking)

Nigel  wrote:


>On 7 Sep 2005 04:43:44 -0700, simonreading@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
>
>
>>I would advise booking through eg Midland Mainline which despite using
>>The Trainline to make bookings does not impose this surcharge.
>
>Same apples to GNER.  uses trainline but no surcharge



Are you comparing apples to oranges?

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:


> In future we will have the staff-free Tesco store, where all the tills
> are self-service Fastlanes remotely monitored by CCTV.
> 
> (no smiley - I'm not joking)


Can't see that happening in the near future. The self-service checkouts 
in the local Sainsbury's are awkward to use and a member of staff has to 
be present to deal with such problems as bar codes not working and 
whether the customer is over 18 to buy alcohol. Also, the checkouts do 
not take vouchers of any kind. I hate using them - would rather queue 
for a few minutes instead.

But then I hate using anything automated like that - self-service ticket 
machines at railway stations are a point in hand. They are always 
awkward to use, unintuitive or have design flaws like you can't see the 
display for the credit card slot asking you to put your PIN in if you 
are more than 5' tall.

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:43:02 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>In future we will have the staff-free Tesco store, where all the tills
>are self-service Fastlanes remotely monitored by CCTV.
>
>(no smiley - I'm not joking)


Tesco already have self-service tills at large stores.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:21:53 +0100, Jonathan Stott 
wrote:


>Can't see that happening in the near future. The self-service checkouts 
>in the local Sainsbury's are awkward to use and a member of staff has to 
>be present to deal with such problems as bar codes not working and 
>whether the customer is over 18 to buy alcohol. Also, the checkouts do 
>not take vouchers of any kind. I hate using them - would rather queue 
>for a few minutes instead.


The Tesco tills are poorly-designed because the "natural" way to
provide this kind of facility is the hand-held scanners pioneered by
Safeway (now no longer in use) and Waitrose (who still have them).
The concept is flawed, not the implementation.

Of course, the reason hand-held scanners are deprecated is that they
encouraged theft - and as long as that's considered an economic[1]
problem, they won't come back.

[1] As soon as the expected losses are cheaper than the staff, they'll
be right back.


>But then I hate using anything automated like that - self-service ticket 
>machines at railway stations are a point in hand. They are always 
>awkward to use, unintuitive or have design flaws like you can't see the 
>display for the credit card slot asking you to put your PIN in if you 
>are more than 5' tall.


I do not find this of FastTicket machines, apart from the railcard
annoyance, and as such prefer to use one of these than a ticket office
these days.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Jonathan Stott wrote:


> Tony Polson wrote:
> 
>> In future we will have the staff-free Tesco store, where all the tills
>> are self-service Fastlanes remotely monitored by CCTV.
>> 
>> (no smiley - I'm not joking)
> 
> Can't see that happening in the near future. The self-service checkouts
> in the local Sainsbury's are awkward to use and a member of staff has to
> be present to deal with such problems as bar codes not working and
> whether the customer is over 18 to buy alcohol. 


In the future they'll be able to verify that by requiring you to put your
"non-compulsory" machine-readable national ID card in the till.

In message <dg3djl$qt9$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 09:17:57 on Mon, 12 Sep 
2005, Adam Funk  remarked:

>> The self-service checkouts
>> in the local Sainsbury's are awkward to use and a member of staff has to
>> be present to deal with such problems as bar codes not working and
>> whether the customer is over 18 to buy alcohol.
>
>In the future they'll be able to verify that by requiring you to put your
>"non-compulsory" machine-readable national ID card in the till.


That doesn't seem to me to be any more secure than verifying age using 
the payment card. I doubt such tills will be equipped with the necessary 
biometric devices.

I find it a bit odd when I go to the local Co-Op that the girl shouts 
"alcohol!!" (to the supervisor) whenever I buy some, when the Dividend 
Card I've given them could be used as proof I was over 18. Or maybe they 
are deemed too young to make that kind of judgement.
-- 
Roland Perry

Adam Funk wrote:

> In the future they'll be able to verify that by requiring you to put your
> "non-compulsory" machine-readable national ID card in the till.


And the sooner the better. Only a couple of weeks ago I was refused the 
sale of alcohol because I didn't have an acceptable form of ID on me. 
The only things they accepted at the pub were a passport of photocard 
driving license. As I do not have a photocard driving license (only one 
of the green paper ones) and I don't by habit take my passport to the 
pub, they wouldn't let me buy any booze :(

The sad thing (or is it a good thing?!) is that I'm 25!

With a national ID card that you carry round with you, this kind of 
situation would be avoided.

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

Jonathan Stott wrote:


> Adam Funk wrote:
>> In the future they'll be able to verify that by requiring you to put your
>> "non-compulsory" machine-readable national ID card in the till.
> 
> And the sooner the better. Only a couple of weeks ago I was refused the
> sale of alcohol because I didn't have an acceptable form of ID on me.
> The only things they accepted at the pub were a passport of photocard
> driving license. As I do not have a photocard driving license (only one
> of the green paper ones) and I don't by habit take my passport to the
> pub, they wouldn't let me buy any booze :(
> 
> The sad thing (or is it a good thing?!) is that I'm 25!
> 
> With a national ID card that you carry round with you, this kind of
> situation would be avoided.


And then retailers will be even better equipped to store accurate personal
information about your purchases.  In the USA purchase records (of alcohol,
for example) from loyalty cards have already been used as evidence in
lawsuits.

In message <dg3hup$s1o$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 10:32:09 on Mon, 12 Sep 
2005, Adam Funk  remarked:

>And then retailers will be even better equipped to store accurate personal
>information about your purchases.  In the USA purchase records (of alcohol,
>for example) from loyalty cards have already been used as evidence in
>lawsuits.


Loyalty card info (Tesco specifically) has also been used in 
prosecutions in the UK.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message <dg3hup$s1o$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 10:32:09 on Mon, 12 Sep
> 2005, Adam Funk  remarked:
>>And then retailers will be even better equipped to store accurate personal
>>information about your purchases.  In the USA purchase records (of
>>alcohol, for example) from loyalty cards have already been used as
>>evidence in lawsuits.
> 
> Loyalty card info (Tesco specifically) has also been used in
> prosecutions in the UK.


I wasn't aware of that.  In what sort of cases?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:


> I find it a bit odd when I go to the local Co-Op that the girl 
> shouts "alcohol!!" (to the supervisor) whenever I buy some, when the 
> Dividend Card I've given them could be used as proof I was over 18.


But perhaps the girl wasn't.  Young checkout operators have to call a 
supervisor - at some supermarkets there's a notice at the checkouts
mentioning the fact.

In message <dg3pbe$u4q$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 12:38:22 on Mon, 12 Sep
2005, Adam Funk  remarked:

>> Loyalty card info (Tesco specifically) has also been used in
>> prosecutions in the UK.
>
>I wasn't aware of that.  In what sort of cases?


Chap who stole a watch that another customer had lost in the store.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1459390,00.html

        "Using records from his supermarket loyalty card, police were
        able to prove that he had visited the Tesco store in Poole,
        Dorset, within two hours of the watch’s real owner on January
        16, 2002."
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Jonathan Stott wrote:


> driving license. As I do not have a photocard driving license (only one
> of the green paper ones) and I don't by habit take my passport to the
> pub, they wouldn't let me buy any booze :(
> The sad thing (or is it a good thing?!) is that I'm 25!


Just ask at 15 year old girl to get it for you. They seem to serve them.
-- 
 Chris Johns

In message , at 
12:58:33 on Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
remarked:

>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> I find it a bit odd when I go to the local Co-Op that the girl
>> shouts "alcohol!!" (to the supervisor) whenever I buy some, when the
>> Dividend Card I've given them could be used as proof I was over 18.
>
>But perhaps the girl wasn't.  Young checkout operators have to call a
>supervisor - at some supermarkets there's a notice at the checkouts
>mentioning the fact.


I know the girl isn't 18, but if my Dividend Card says I'm over 18, why 
does she need to get a supervisor to check that I'm over 18 (as I'm over 
50, the check is somewhat trivial).

-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:H22KTcZwVXJDFAcE@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message , at
> 12:58:33 on Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell 
> remarked:
> >On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:
> >
> >> I find it a bit odd when I go to the local Co-Op that the girl
> >> shouts "alcohol!!" (to the supervisor) whenever I buy some, when the
> >> Dividend Card I've given them could be used as proof I was over 18.
> >
> >But perhaps the girl wasn't.  Young checkout operators have to call a
> >supervisor - at some supermarkets there's a notice at the checkouts
> >mentioning the fact.
>
> I know the girl isn't 18, but if my Dividend Card says I'm over 18, why
> does she need to get a supervisor to check that I'm over 18 (as I'm over
> 50, the check is somewhat trivial).


I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.  It's her gae that's the
issue, not yours.

Technically under-18s cannot sell alcohol (as well as buy it), so officially
such sales are made by the supervisor.  What you are reporting is the
practical outworking of that.

Michael

In message <aWeVe.5643$yF2.4031@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, at 12:56:38 on 
Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Michael Hopkins  remarked:

>Technically under-18s cannot sell alcohol (as well as buy it), so officially
>such sales are made by the supervisor.  What you are reporting is the
>practical outworking of that.


Hmm, in which case I'd at least expect the supervisor to come over to 
the till and type in a magic number. In fact all the do is look up 
briefly from whichever till it is that they are operating themselves.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:41:28 +0100, Jonathan Stott 
wrote:


>And the sooner the better. Only a couple of weeks ago I was refused the 
>sale of alcohol because I didn't have an acceptable form of ID on me. 
>The only things they accepted at the pub were a passport of photocard 
>driving license. As I do not have a photocard driving license (only one 
>of the green paper ones) and I don't by habit take my passport to the 
>pub, they wouldn't let me buy any booze :(
>
>The sad thing (or is it a good thing?!) is that I'm 25!
>
>With a national ID card that you carry round with you, this kind of 
>situation would be avoided.


Or you could just bring your passport when you want to buy alcohol, or
get a photocard driving licence, thus saving the country 15 billion.

In message 
          Roland Perry  wrote:


> In message , at 
> 12:58:33 on Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
> remarked:
> >On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:
> >
> >> I find it a bit odd when I go to the local Co-Op that the girl
> >> shouts "alcohol!!" (to the supervisor) whenever I buy some, when the
> >> Dividend Card I've given them could be used as proof I was over 18.
> >
> >But perhaps the girl wasn't.  Young checkout operators have to call a
> >supervisor - at some supermarkets there's a notice at the checkouts
> >mentioning the fact.
> 
> I know the girl isn't 18, but if my Dividend Card says I'm over 18, why 
> does she need to get a supervisor to check that I'm over 18 (as I'm over 
> 50, the check is somewhat trivial).
> 


She technically can't sell alcohol unless supervised by an adult, it's her
being checked, not you.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <8fa046a94d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 15:36:39 on Mon, 
12 Sep 2005, Graeme Wall  remarked:

>She technically can't sell alcohol unless supervised by an adult, it's her
>being checked, not you.


So to get back to the original question: can a machine sell me alcohol, 
or does that need to be supervised by an adult too?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
          Roland Perry  wrote:


> In message <8fa046a94d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 15:36:39 on Mon, 
> 12 Sep 2005, Graeme Wall  remarked:
> >She technically can't sell alcohol unless supervised by an adult, it's her
> >being checked, not you.
> 
> So to get back to the original question: can a machine sell me alcohol, 
> or does that need to be supervised by an adult too?


Under the current licencing laws no it can't as I understand the situation.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:43:02 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>
>>On 10 Sep 2005 14:36:11 -0700, scotboy1994@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Indeed - the Daily Mail today, FWIW, reports that Tesco are looking
>>>into 'cash-free' stores - at which you could only pay by plastic. This
>>>is due to the high cost of cash handling.
>>
>>And the safety aspect.  I can see the first implementation of this
>>being Tesco Express stores in less salubrious areas, perhaps in the
>>evening only, for the simple reason of staff protection.  If there
>>genuinely is no cash present, you can't rob it.
>
>In future we will have the staff-free Tesco store, where all the tills
>are self-service Fastlanes remotely monitored by CCTV.


At least one Co-Op store is now run with entirely self-service tills,
but still with human supervision. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/3952881.stm
http://www.osg.coop/live/welcome.asp?id=2088

Duncan

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:21:53 +0100, Jonathan Stott 
wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> In future we will have the staff-free Tesco store, where all the tills
>> are self-service Fastlanes remotely monitored by CCTV.
>> 
>> (no smiley - I'm not joking)
>
>Can't see that happening in the near future. The self-service checkouts 
>in the local Sainsbury's are awkward to use and a member of staff has to 
>be present to deal with such problems as bar codes not working and 
>whether the customer is over 18 to buy alcohol. Also, the checkouts do 
>not take vouchers of any kind. I hate using them - would rather queue 
>for a few minutes instead.


I read in Retail Week recently that Tesco are planning to expand their
self-service tills to more stores, as 25% of transactions go thought
the self-service tills in the stores that already have them fitted.
Many customers seem to prefer them as the queues are often quicker and
obviously Tesco prefer them because it reduces staff costs. 

I'm sure it won't be long until a solution is installed to read the
barcode on the vouchers as they are entered into a hopper of some
description, after all that is basically what the till staff do in
Tesco.

Duncan

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:02:26 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:39:28 GMT, "gonzo" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >i have actually been charged a "handling fee" for wanting cash back.
>> 
>> Some shops do this.  The answer is not to use them for obtaining
>> cashback.  There are plenty of places where cash can be obtained
>> without a fee being charged.
>> 
>> The more sensible shops offer it as a free service when you spend a
>> certain amount of money (say a fiver) because it saves them having to
>> bank it themselves!
>
>Sure thing, but one could understand them wanting to avoid folks 
>turning up to buy something for a token price (50p or whatever) on 
>plastic, in order to use the store checkout effectively as an ATM.


I'd be surprised if giving cash back wasn't actually cheaper than
banking the money they have in the till, once the staff time to count
and bag the money, the fee for the cash collection company and the
bank charges have all been taken into account.

I'm sure Tesco only offer cash back because it offers a financial
advantage for them.

Duncan

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:10:15 +0100, Duncan  wrote:


>I'm sure Tesco only offer cash back because it offers a financial
>advantage for them.


It's one of those rare true "win-win" situations that business seems
so fond of.  It saves Tesco money, and pleases the customer at the
same time.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , Roland 
Perry  writes

>Loyalty card info (Tesco specifically) has also been used in 
>prosecutions in the UK.

When was this?   I have long held a Tesco card for all my shopping and 
would hate to think it could be used against me in a court.   The blurb 
just say's it allows them to better target their customers with item 
they think they'll want.
-- 
Clive

In message , at 10:34:41 on Tue,
13 Sep 2005, Clive  remarked:

>>Loyalty card info (Tesco specifically) has also been used in
>>prosecutions in the UK.
>When was this?   I have long held a Tesco card for all my shopping and
>would hate to think it could be used against me in a court.   The blurb
>just say's it allows them to better target their customers with item
>they think they'll want.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1459390,00.html

        "Using records from his supermarket loyalty card, police were
        able to prove that he had visited the Tesco store in Poole,
        Dorset, within two hours of the watch’s real owner on January
        16, 2002."

-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:53:11 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 10:34:41 on Tue,
>13 Sep 2005, Clive  remarked:
>>>Loyalty card info (Tesco specifically) has also been used in
>>>prosecutions in the UK.
>>When was this?   I have long held a Tesco card for all my shopping and
>>would hate to think it could be used against me in a court.   The blurb
>>just say's it allows them to better target their customers with item
>>they think they'll want.
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1459390,00.html
>
>        "Using records from his supermarket loyalty card, police were
>        able to prove that he had visited the Tesco store in Poole,
>        Dorset, within two hours of the watchs real owner on January
>        16, 2002."


Possibly not the whole story. All that could be proved beyond
reasonable doubt would presumably be that the _card_ visited the
branch of Tesco's.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

In message , at 16:42:54 on 
Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Charles Ellson  remarked:

>>        "Using records from his supermarket loyalty card, police were
>>        able to prove that he had visited the Tesco store in Poole,
>>        Dorset, within two hours of the watch’s real owner on January
>>        16, 2002."
>
>Possibly not the whole story. All that could be proved beyond
>reasonable doubt would presumably be that the _card_ visited the
>branch of Tesco's.


Agreed, but the court clearly held that there was no reasonable doubt 
that anyone else had used the card that day.
-- 
Roland Perry