13 and overdrawn!!

blueberrypie

CHRISSYG wrote: »

i too believe the op needs to keep a tighter reign on her child's acc , if my dd wants to spend her money i take her to an ATM where she gets a mini statement , im trying to get her into the habit of checking before she spends.

Doing this wouldn't have helped the OP's child. An older transaction was processed after he spent money - had he checked his balance with the bank before spending the money, it wouldn't have told him another transaction was due.

It is not a good idea to rely on mini-statements, or full statements, or on-line balances, to tell you how much money you have available. The only way to know what it is available for you to spend is to know what is in your account *and what debits are due soon and outstanding*.

pqrdef

WhiteHorse wrote: »

At the bottom of this is the fact that the child has obviously not been told how a bank account works.

Kids aren't deaf (except of course those that are). A 13-year-old will know a lot about how his parents run their bank accounts.

I knew all about my parents' finances when I was 7.

plunt

I do think a lot of posters have now gone off the topic of advice and turned this into a "best way of parenting" debate.

In short i agree with the comments that financial institutions are terrified of TCF complaints (treating customers fairly). Take advantage of this and go against it. Dont get me wrong, i too agree that the sum needs to be paid back to the bank. But barclays will want to make sure this does not get publicized. I can see the head lines now "BARCLAYS reported a three per cent fall in 2011 pre-tax profits to £5.9bn" but never the less we managed to subsidies this fall by now going after 13 year olds!

I am sure you will be fine and i have threatened to go to the obudsman many many times., and as has been said, it is VERY easy and I along with everyone here will no doubt be willing to help and show support

best of luck

P

callum9999

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Sorry but this liberal trash of everything is ok for everybody is plain rubbish.:p

Yes being liberal is bad. Dictatorships are really what we all need...

I had a debit card from the age of 13 (and a hole-in-the-wall card since 11) and as it was my card and my money, not my parents, I had the card. I managed it perfectly fine and have been doing so ever since.

If you can't trust your children to do such a basic task (I know some can get carried away/overspend etc.) then fair enough, as I said it's a perfectly valid parenting stance. What it isn't however, is the template of good parenting. You are the one advocating a "one size fits all" policy here - not my "liberal trash"!

duchesspink1

callum9999 wrote: »

What do you mean "these days"? I had one 10 years ago as a "minor" and I was under no impression that it was a new thing.

And I hardly see how it's "crazy" to give young people better access to their money just because they are young. Yes this issue occasionally pops up but so what. No offence intended to the OP but the vast majority of minors wouldn't "burst into tears" at receiving that letter (though I do agree the tone was completely off for a letter sent to a child) and I hardly see it as a major problem.

well i'm 37 years old, have held bank accounts since childhood and the first ATM card I had was when I was 18 years old. Banks didn't give out ATM cards to under 18's in the early 90's. I only had a debit card for the first time when i got into my late 20's and got a switch debit card.

So when i say these days, I mean that 20 years ago when i was a teen, there were no minors given atm or debit cards. Not that difficult to understand is it?

I'm still not sure i'd want any child of mine to hold a debit card for the very reason of what has happened to to OP's son and obviously because I wouldn't want them ordering anything unsuitable online.

Having an atm card is sufficient access to your money if you're a teen in my opinon

Queenriderbrekke

I am so naive! I honestly thought it was against the law to give a minor an overdraft or credit!

My daughter (now 24) only had a cashcard with Barclays and I would have been furious if she had been allowed to spend money that wasn't hers to spend!

Bless her heart she had a paper round from the age of 14 and was very good at living within her means, luckily!

lolavix

Queenriderbrekke wrote: »

I am so naive! I honestly thought it was against the law to give a minor an overdraft or credit!

My daughter (now 24) only had a cashcard with Barclays and I would have been furious if she had been allowed to spend money that wasn't hers to spend!

Bless her heart she had a paper round from the age of 14 and was very good at living within her means, luckily!

But they haven't been given an overdraft or credit, and the bank have done nothing wrong, as explained in many previous posts. The pre-auth amount would have dropped off the system, allowing him to withdraw cash because the bank wouldn't have known another transaction was due

opinions4u

duchesspink1 wrote: »

well i'm 37 years old, have held bank accounts since childhood and the first ATM card I had was when I was 18 years old. Banks didn't give out ATM cards to under 18's in the early 90's.

Strange that. Girobank gave me a cheque book and ATM card age 15. My sister, guaranteed by my Dad, had a cheque guarantee card at 16. Halifax (then a building society) gave me an ATM card when I was 13. All this was in the 1980s.

So when i say these days, I mean that 20 years ago when i was a teen, there were no minors given atm or debit cards. Not that difficult to understand is it?

What's difficult to understand is your sweeping statement which is patently wrong when it comes to ATM cards.

I'm still not sure i'd want any child of mine to hold a debit card for the very reason of what has happened to to OP's son and obviously because I wouldn't want them ordering anything unsuitable online.

It's a matter of choice, trust and learning. My three kids all had debit cards from age 11. As minors, none of them got in to trouble with them. The youngest operates his money smartly online and has 3 savings accounts for different purposes as well. The older two have had their issues once they passed 18, but then they're in that phase where listening to Dad isn't going to happen.

Personally I think parents have a duty to provide financial education to their kids. These cards are a basic facility that rarely cause problems and enable that financial education to take place in the real world. I take your point about online purchases, but if you know how much money your child has, you will have a fairly reasonable idea as to how much potential trouble they could create by making the wrong decisions.

londonTiger

nitac wrote: »

Barclays response was quite frankly appaling. They sent a letter to him, using phrases like "escalating debt can lead to financial difficulty" which left him in tears, and when I called them they said that if this was not paid back quickly it would be passed to debt collection... he is 13!!!!!

sorry, i empathise with your situation, but i read that and lol'd for real.

at leas your 13 year old kid will have learned his lesson now

dzug1

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Of cause a minor can legally enter into a contract for non-necessaries

A contract cannot be enforced on a minor for non-necessaries and as such many companies decide it is not good commercial sense to enter into an agreement which is only enforceable by one side. It is a commercial decision not a legal one.

So if the offending transaction was for necessaries then it is enforceable?

They won't actually enforce it though - not worth the bother