Now I see perplexity, its a "I was only doing my job" type situation - a phrase used down the ages as a cover for all types of behaviour ranging from publicly humiliating a womann and her child at a supermarket til (when a clear and better alternative behaviour form was available), right the way through to unspeakable horrors in unmentionable circumstances. Do you think I may be in the wrong place to ask for sensible consumer advice and a sympathetic ear? All you have offered so far is a kind of victim blaming management speak. I can detect no recognition of the low status that a consumer has in the real world.

One suggests that humiliation is an irrelevance (its all in the mind..). One suggests that the customer is responsible for inaccurately keying a wrong number or for failing to remember her keycode. Where the One that accepts the scenario as described? Where the One that understands the supermarket managers responsibility to react appropriately and in a non judgemental way?

Shifting the focus of responsibility away from the immediate source and cause of the humiliation does not serve the consumers interests. The supermarket managers assumption was that the customers account could not pay for the goods being purchased. He indicated as much, and he did so in a crowded public environment. He had alternatives available to him. He could have accepted the Mrs redcogs explanation that "there must be some mistake" and reacted sympathetically in the way I have suggested above. He did not. It is fair to assume that the technological breakdown which created this situation may not have been the direct responsibility of the supermarket, and that other agencies were involved. but if so, they were not responsible for generating humiliation. The supermarket manager was. I am not clear as to why anyone could believe that a telephone call fielder for a remote bank or an equally remote streamline operator could in any way be held to account for humiliating a supermarket customer? They were not present in the supermarket, and as far as I know, they did not make any assumptions about the ability of a customer to pay for their goods.

This was a 'real world' situation. It is unfortunate IMO that some here accept as reasonable the humiliation factor which can be involved between supermarket managers (who represent powerful interests) and consumers who have unwittingly stumbled into a technological glitch not of their own making. It is not reasonable, and as already stated above: " A clear injustice has occurred. The reaction of the involved manager was unhelpful and non apologetic. At no stage did he suggest that the shopping trolley was put aside for later payment, and his clear assumption was that "the problem is at your end", not the more acceptable 'I'm ever so sorry, there appears to be a problem with the technology, which is no ones fault, but as soon as this mess is sorted your shopping will be available to you, and your custom is valued to us'. Had these alternative words been used the humiliation (which was not illusory as someone suggested) aspect would have been obviated". Nor is it reasonable to expect every consumer to be bristling with a variety of credit and debit cards so that they have an instant alternative means of payment when technology fails. In the real world there are still plenty of people who live a hand to mouth existence and who flounder in the face of technological big science and high commerce.

It is unlikely that wife failed to remember her pin number. She is always able to recall with incredible detail every aspect of the occasion that I withdrew £100 from a hole in the wall but failed to wait long enough for the money to be dispensed.. I have written to said supermarket demanding a comprehensive explanation. According to Mrs redcogs the manager who rang for authorisation read out to the 'Streamline' operative what sounded like a bar code - so it is unclear to me whether this was her card number, or some other mysterious series of numbers associated with the transaction. I'm a bit dissappointed at the reaction of several contributors here. A clear injustice has occurred. The reaction of the involved manager was unhelpful and non apologetic. At no stage did he suggest that the shopping trolley was put aside for later payment, and his clear assumption was that "the problem is at your end", not the more acceptable 'I'm ever so sorry, there appears to be a problem with the technology, which is no ones fault, but as soon as this mess is sorted your shopping will be available to you, and your custom is valued to us'. Had these alternative words been used the humiliation (which was not illusory as someone suggested) aspect would have been obviated. Is this a forum comprised of supermarket managers and banking system apologists by any chance? Perhaps i have made a mistake in assuming that a 'consumer action group' consists of people who recognise the unequal power relations between powerful supermarket interests and the wronged little consumer?

That is easy to say Guido, but it ignores the intrinsic nature of our local community, which is deeply conservative, gossipy and narrow. it is also lovely and a sense of 'community' cohesion is evident, but vicious condemnatory undercurrents are frequent. If my wife felt humiliated and damaged, that needs to be accepted as a real and normal human reaction doesn't it?

Thankyou for the alert regarding the cyber activities associated with the Wiki incident. Our card is Visa, so one possible explanation for this mess may relate to that, but I doubt it. The supermarket manager revealed that several other people had their cards rejected on the same day, until the necessary telephone call was able to achieve full payment authorisation. Our was the only card that was blocked despite telephone intervention.

First post here. In our small local supermarket my partner got to the checkout and tried to pay with debit card as usual. The card machine rejected the card twice, so manager intervened and telephoned to get authorisation of payment. This was denied. The conversation which ensued involved my partner explaining that our account had more than sufficient funds, and there must be a mistake. The manager stated the problem was "at your end". This all took place in the presence of an extending queue comprised of locals/neighbours/acquaintances. The supermarket serves a small relatively isolated community of about 5000 people. Having to leave the supermarket without the shopping (£60 worth) was a humiliating experience, which will inevitably damage my wife's reputation in the town. Our daughter was also present, and she was embarrassed and upset by the incident. The nearest 'hole in the wall' cash dispenser was 5 minutes away. Wife went straight there and was able to withdraw £100 immediately. The account held over £500. A call to the bank verified that there were no problems with card or account, and, importantly, no one had asked them to verify if the account was in a sufficiently good state to enable a release of £60.. Advice please on how to proceed. I am outraged, my wife is distressed. I feel we are damaged by this unjust series of events. Is compensatipn a realistic possibility? Should I go to the courts?