unauthorised use

tali

There has been unauthorised use of my credit card details on my PS3(cars details were already logged in by me on account registering).
Downloads to the value of £80 were purchased-the culprit was my 9year old son:mad:
PS3 say such transactions although unauthorised cannot be reimbursed or cancelled - likewise from Halifax-i suspect they are actually right on this and it is a lesson learnt for me:o
Anyone confirm the situation?

jonesMUFCforever

You are correct - you will have to pay up or report your son to the police.

chattychappy

You are only liable for unauthorised transactions if you were grossly negligent or you were involved in fraud.

Probably you "authorised" the transactions when you registered the account on the basis of a continuous charge authority. It really does come down to what you agreed at the time.

I'm not unsympathetic to your situation. These kind of gotcha arrangements are a modern day scourge and part of rip-off Britain IMHO.

If you feel strongly about it you can write a complaint. I haven't seen the T+Cs you agreed to, but remember that just because something is written in T+Cs doesn't mean it's legally enforceable. You would have to argue on the grounds that the terms are onerous/unfair/unclear. Undoubtedly they will refuse, but you do have the right to escalate to the FOS. I don't want to get your hopes up - but for £80 they might simply charge it back and if enough people have a moan about this something might change.

Degenerate

chattychappy wrote: »

You are only liable for unauthorised transactions if you were grossly negligent or you were involved in fraud.

It could well be argued that the OP was grossly negligent in failing to safeguard access to their PS3 account from their naughty 9-year old.

Alternatively, if the OP does not wish to accept liability, they may pursue the matter through either Sony or the Halifax (as you say, it would depend on the terms as to whether the card charge was technically "authorised"). Whichever company they pursue could then rightfully insist that the fraud commited by the Op's 9 year old son is a criminal matter to be reported to the police.

As the child is under the age of criminal responsibilty (I'm assuming as they have a Halifax account they reside in England or Wales), they cannot be directly prosecuted. Instead the police and social services may look into the child's home situation and consider whether they are being adequately parented and if it is necessary to intervene with a child safety order.

If you feel strongly about it you can write a complaint. I haven't seen the T+Cs you agreed to, but remember that just because something is written in T+Cs doesn't mean it's legally enforceable. You would have to argue on the grounds that the terms are onerous/unfair/unclear. Undoubtedly they will refuse, but you do have the right to escalate to the FOS. I don't want to get your hopes up - but for £80 they might simply charge it back and if enough people have a moan about this something might change.

Poor advice IMO, the OP ought to recognise their responsibily as a parent and get their own house in order, rather than involving blameless companies.

sharpy2010

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

You are correct - you will have to pay up or report your son to the police.

Firstly, the advice you are giving there is purely to obtain a response. Thats called being a keyboard warrior, and is a bit spineless and sad.

Secondly, Of course they aren't going to report their son to the police. Its likely their son didn't even realise what he was doing.

The OP may well have to take an £80 hit on the chin.

chattychappy

Degenerate wrote: »

Whichever company they pursue could then rightfully insist that the fraud commited by the Op's 9 year old son is a criminal matter to be reported to the police.

I disagree. If the OP argues successfully that the transaction was unauthorised, it does mean that the child was involved in any kind of fraudulent use of the card. I don't know how these games work, but as a simple example imagine there is a subscription of £20 and each time you play a premium game you pay £10. The OP signs up to the account but it is not clear that the £10 is autocharged when a game is chosen. The game is offered - the child chooses it. No fraud by the child who may have no awareness of the charging arrangements.

Degenerate wrote: »

Poor advice IMO, the OP ought to recognise their responsibily as a parent and get their own house in order, rather than involving blameless companies.

You are probably right, but the OP did refer to a possible "lesson learnt" and I wanted to give him/her the best crack of the whip.

The OP will have to decide whether the deal was fair/transparent or not. I'm not familiar with these devices, perhaps you are. I'm cynical about these arrangements and can believe the company might not be entirely blameless.

Degenerate

chattychappy wrote: »

I disagree. If the OP argues successfully that the transaction was unauthorised, it does mean that the child was involved in any kind of fraudulent use of the card. I don't know how these games work, but as a simple example imagine there is a subscription of £20 and each time you play a premium game you pay £10. The OP signs up to the account but it is not clear that the £10 is autocharged when a game is chosen. The game is offered - the child chooses it. No fraud by the child who may have no awareness of the charging arrangements.

If it is such a system, then I grant you it's not fraud. It's equivalent to a child running up their parent's telephone bill, which is still down to parental supervision, or lack thereof.

jonesMUFCforever

sharpy2010 wrote: »

Firstly, the advice you are giving there is purely to obtain a response. Thats called being a keyboard warrior, and is a bit spineless and sad.

Secondly, Of course they aren't going to report their son to the police. Its likely their son didn't even realise what he was doing.

The OP may well have to take an £80 hit on the chin.

How else will OP get his money back?
He either has to say it is fraud or take it on the chin.
Back to you .

lisyloo

Its likely their son didn't even realise what he was doing.

If this is the case then I think the OP has to accept some responsibility.
They signed a continuous authority and then gave the boy access to their account.
You wouldn't give a 9 year old your credit card and PIN number would you?

Whether others think this is unmypathetic or not I think the OP should be aware that they are liekly to face that kind of attitude eslewhere.

tali

Hello, just to clarify i did not give my son access to the account -its just that he figured out how to do it -which isn't very hard actually - and no security inputs such as pin numbers are required -and given the recent hacking breach i'm not surprised at how easy it was.
Although PS3 could argue that is no proof a 9yr old accessed it- and i can't prove it either- in fact the age of the unauthorised access is a side issue really in this case as unauthorised use is irrespecrive of age really
Also as they were download items -this complicates matters as PS3 could argue that i actually purchased them and am now trying to get money back as i didn't like the games-or i was using on a trial basis
Can i kindly ask we please stick to the technical aspects and avoid the moralistic parental discussions(please read my OP before evangelically firing off) - although i admit it is natural for such arguments to enter the thread.
Btw I'm not trying to force/demand the issue of reimbursement (again please read my OP )- just a general clarification

bigpoops

sharpy2010 wrote: »

Firstly, the advice you are giving there is purely to obtain a response. Thats called being a keyboard warrior, and is a bit spineless and sad.

Secondly, Of course they aren't going to report their son to the police. Its likely their son didn't even realise what he was doing.

The OP may well have to take an £80 hit on the chin.

I wonder if you need to take your own advice, and consider your own replies before being spineless and sad.......