[Dayshine]

Even if he'd removed the limit entirely, that doesn't show intent to allow that specific transaction through.

What if he was removing it to make a completely different payment?

It seems like terrible UX to not allow/require individual approve/reject on transactions that triggered the limit.

[StavrosK]

> It seems like terrible UX to not allow/require individual approve/reject on transactions that triggered the limit.

This would have been a massive improvement, agreed. Maybe they have to make a call within a few seconds and can't ask your permission first, though, so maybe that's not possible.

Still, the notification could have shown "Your transaction to MERCHANT for AMOUNT on CARD was declined because of your limit". That would have avoided this whole disaster.

[patresh]

It is possible. Some other banks do it exactly this way. If the transaction amount is large enough, they ask you to authenticate on their app and confirm the transaction.

I suspect that by wanting to move fast they put less emphasis on the features that are more time-consuming to implement.

[jschwartzi]

I guess they built the transaction limit assuming that your merchant would tell you the transaction was declined, but neglected to address the case where you weren't the person hitting the transaction limit with your card.

[zuppy]

but this happens, I don’t know why the author said it doesn’t. i get notifcations with the merchant and the amount (that can also be seen in the app). maybe there was a temporary glitch?

[StavrosK]

Do you get the amount and merchant in the notification that you reached the limit? Mine doesn't (check the screenshot).

[zuppy]

hmm, you are right. I checked and the only notifications that I'm getting with the amount and merchant is when the card is blocked (I always keep it blocked and unblock it when I need to do purchases). I had the impression that's everywhere.