Credit Card Misuse - theft !

Incisor

NickX wrote: »

I don't agree I'm afraid.

In applying for an additional card in his name the OPs friend is effectively authorizing him to take the money.

I don't think a visit to the small claims court would change this legal fact unless there are circumstances that we are not aware of - for instance if the ex-partner used threatening behaviour to force her to make him an additional card holder.

You'll have to work harder to say I am wrong. Just because you call your opinion a fact is not enough to make it one.

Time to get your terminology straight, because I think it is sloppy thinking on your part. The card authorises the bank to give funds to the additional card holder. There is a card agreement in place which covers this point, which is why the actions of the ex are not a criminal act agianst the bank. But the card agreement will not cover the arrangements between main and additional card holder. It is on the basis of what agreements are in place that I would expect a civil claim against the ex to succeed.

Unless NickX you can produce relevant case law which says that the claim will fail, I would encourage the OP to carry on investigating and certainly not to drop this avenue solely on the basis of your sayso.

NickX

Incisor wrote: »

You'll have to work harder to say I am wrong. Just because you call your opinion a fact is not enough to make it one.

Time to get your terminology straight, because I think it is sloppy thinking on your part.

Why the aggression ?

So we don't agree, I don't have a problem with that, there is lots posted on here that I don't agree with, if we all agreed there wouldn't be much need for the forum.

Just to be clear for you, I believe that when there is an Additional Cardholder on an account, the Primary Cardholder is legally liable for all debts incurred on the card even if they are not aware of what transactions the Additional Cardholder are making with their card.

I believe this is detailed in the Terms and Conditions and I have never heard of this being successfully challenged.

I am not going to site any case law with regard to this, because the question is asked regularly on this forum and I never seen anyone respond to the contrary.

With regard to a civil claim, this is not something that I have ever been involved in, it may be possible but I would think that other factors would have to be taken into account, such as the behaviour of either party and what is deemed reasonable and what is not. I think this would be for a solicitor to consider and I think more factors than straight forward Credit Card transactions would be taken into account.

Finally I did not suggest that the OP stop investigating this or other avenues.

Incisor

NickX wrote: »

Why the aggression ?

It's being forceful, because I believe that you being so definite about this is going to scare the OP's friend off following through - needlessly. I think forceful expression is justified when there might be a valid claim for £6000 which you are dismissing.

So we don't agree, I don't have a problem with that, there is lots posted on here that I don't agree with, if we all agreed there wouldn't be much need for the forum.

What you are saying is true, as far as it goes between the cardholders and the bank. But that is not relevant here, the bank is nothing to do with the claim which needs to be made.

Just to be clear for you, I believe that when there is an Additional Cardholder on an account, the Primary Cardholder is legally liable for all debts incurred on the card even if they are not aware of what transactions the Additional Cardholder are making with their card.

I believe this is detailed in the Terms and Conditions and I have never heard of this being successfully challenged.

Yes, I know. But what you have said here has absolutely no bearing on whether the OP's friend can claim off her additional cardholder. Your explanation above, while true, is totally irrelevant.

I am not going to site any case law with regard to this, because the question is asked regularly on this forum and I never seen anyone respond to the contrary.

With regard to a civil claim, this is not something that I have ever been involved in, it may be possible but I would think that other factors would have to be taken into account, such as the behaviour of either party and what is deemed reasonable and what is not. I think this would be for a solicitor to consider and I think more factors than straight forward Credit Card transactions would be taken into account.

Finally I did not suggest that the OP stop investigating this or other avenues.

It is only the civil claim which I have been suggesting all along [civil claim = small claims court]. The only question would be whether the ex had rights to the money. And one thing is for sure, the agreement with the bank will be silent on that. Which would be in the OP's friend's favour.

NickX

Incisor wrote: »

Clarification. He may not have committed a criminal act, but a visit to the small claims court would show that he is legally obliged, if it can be proved that he took the money.

Incisor, this is your original post on this thread.

You have said "a visit to the small claims court would show that he is legally obliged".

I believe that you are the one being very definite on this.

If you had said "a visit to the small claims court could show that he is legally obliged", then I would agree with you.

Legal issues are never clear-cut and open to subjective opinion. This is why I have said on several occasions that a civil case could well be subject to more than the straight fact that the ex-partner withdrew cash on the OP's friend's account using his Additional Cardholder rights.

A civil case is not going to be straight forward. Who is to say that the OP's friend didn't say to her ex when they were together, "Yes you can have £6000 out of that account, just draw it out on your card". Then they split up and she decides, "oh, I don't really want to him have that £6000 now" so I am going to contest it in the Small Claims Court. It then becomes his word against hers !

The court may decide that he has behaved inappropriately, then again they may not. The fact that he is legally alllowed to withdraw the cash is going to be on the ex's side, and IMO the outcome is not cut and dried.

NickX

NickX wrote: »

I don't agree I'm afraid.

In applying for an additional card in his name the OPs friend is effectively authorizing him to take the money.

I don't think a visit to the small claims court would change this legal fact unless there are circumstances that we are not aware of - for instance if the ex-partner used threatening behaviour to force her to make him an additional card holder.

My reply to you.

Notice I said "I don't think".

This is not definite, but an expression of my opinion.

You were the one who made a "definite" statement on this.

not_loaded

If you stand back a bit from the detail here, it makes it easier. Incisor is correct in principle about the ‘theft’ of the money.

Yes, the Ts & Cs for the card almost certainly get the card company off the hook, but if the ex took the money then he’s guilty of theft, as he had no permission to help himself to her credit. With the relationship broken up a very long time ago this is blatantly obvious. For example, he could not merely come round and help himself to other possessions of hers. Even when they lived together any misappropriation like this is theft.

Incisor sums it up very succinctly in para 2, post #12.

I have been involved in civil action quite a few times, and if the cardholder can prove the ex did take the money, she stands a very good chance in her claim. In order to possibly gain that evidence, she should get the police involved, not a solicitor. They can work with the card company’s records to see what can or cannot be achieved. The burden of proof is the hurdle to jump here. There’s no point in going to the County Court if you don’t have proof.

NickX, I hardly think accusations of aggression are warranted here. I don’t even see it as ‘forceful expression’. You want to get out more if you think you’re finding aggression here.

NickX

not_loaded wrote: »

Incisor is correct in principle about the ‘theft’ of the money.

Yes, the Ts & Cs for the card almost certainly get the card company off the hook, but if the ex took the money then he’s guilty of theft, as he had no permission to help himself to her credit.

NickX, I hardly think accusations of aggression are warranted here. I don’t even see it as ‘forceful expression’. You want to get out more if you think you’re finding aggression here.

No its not theft (in my opinion ofcourse).

The Primary Cardholder has agreed to Terms and Conditions that allow the Secondary Cardholder access to the funds. They have effectively given their authorization to access the account.

Whether they are still in a relationship or not is immaterial to this. That can be very subjective anyway.

not_loaded, you'll have to work harder to say I am wrong

Incisor

NickX wrote: »

No its not theft (in my opinion ofcourse).

The Primary Cardholder has agreed to Terms and Conditions that allow the Secondary Cardholder access to the funds. They have effectively given their authorization to access the account.

Groan. The Primary cardholder has a contract with the bank. All that has been authorised is for the bank to make payments on the instruction of the secondary cardholder. This does not extend to interpretation as authority for the secondary cardholder to take funds on any other basis than permission from the primary cardholder.

Otherwise, if your argument holds water and you have a company credit card, you can take money and they can't touch you for it. In that case, you are a secondary cardholder and the company is the primary cardholder. But the fact is that you would be up for a criminal conviction, bacause you would lack authority to take the money.

not_loaded has swayed me to thinking that a criminal conviction would possible here. The biggest difficulty is that the police are unlikely to want to take this on, because they are too lazy to collect the evidence.

NickX

Incisor wrote: »

if your argument holds water and you have a company credit card, you can take money and they can't touch you for it. In that case, you are a secondary cardholder and the company is the primary cardholder. But the fact is that you would be up for a criminal conviction, bacause you would lack authority to take the money.

I have the same problem with this as I do with the OP's situation.

You have a Company Credit Card and you withdraw funds on it that your employer has not agreed to. No problem with the Card Provider because you are an authorized Additional Card Holder. Your employer is going to be hacked off (just as the OPs friend is) and will no doubt sack you.

Lets say they call the police on the basis that it was theft. You then say to the police, "My boss said I could have this as a bonus, now he has sacked me and wants it back, but I was promised it etc"

The boss tells the truth and says "No he just took it without permission and it is theft etc"

Once again it is one word against another. Yes it is morally wrong and is theft but proving it one way or another is another matter. I agree with you that the police probably just wouldn't be bothered, so I think the criminal conviction is not a certainty.

Back to the small claims court and again I think it could go either way.

Just to repeat my earlier comment from post 15 :

You said "a visit to the small claims court would show that he is legally obliged".

If you had said "a visit to the small claims court could show that he is legally obliged", then I would agree with you.


We are agreed on the contract between the Primary Card Holder and the Card Provider. OK.

daveboy

For what it's worth, I think she'll be coughing up the £6000 as she is responsible for the transactions on the second card.

It was her responsibility to phone the card company to get the second card stopped.

She didn't - an expensive mistake.