Credit Card Used Without my Knowledge

lizziehalford

Hi all

Am new to posting on here. Friends suggested I come here for advice. I would very much appreciate any you could give.

My husband's business recently went bust. Before it did however, he used my credit card and spent £10,000 on materials to finish a contract that was going on. He did this without my knowledge.

I gave him the pin number, because he needed to pay someone we know well a couple of hundred pounds. I told him he could use my card for that. A few days later he hadn't given me back the card. When I asked for it back he confessed to what he'd spent. This was just before the business went under, and he assured me he or the business could pay it back. Suddenly, it's my debt because the business is gone and he has no money.

I know I am probably liable and was stupid to give him the pin number, but does anyone have any information that I possibly don't know about that may help my situtation?

TIA

Voyager2002

Since you gave him the PIN, there is no chance of getting the bank to cancel the transaction.

His use of the card without your consent was fraud, and so you would be within your rights to make a complaint to the police, but doing so is unlikely to strengthen your marriage! Although such a complaint would alter the status of your claim to any remaining assets of the business. You might like to take proper legal advice on this point.

lizziehalford

Thanks for the reply Voyager, I appreciate it.

mynameistallulah

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Since you gave him the PIN, there is no chance of getting the bank to cancel the transaction.

His use of the card without your consent was fraud, and so you would be within your rights to make a complaint to the police, but doing so is unlikely to strengthen your marriage! Although such a complaint would alter the status of your claim to any remaining assets of the business. You might like to take proper legal advice on this point.

I doubt the police would entertain such a complaint - the OP has impliedly given consent by providing the ex with her PIN.

Voyager2002

mynameistallulah wrote: »

I doubt the police would entertain such a complaint - the OP has impliedly given consent by providing the ex with her PIN.

No, she clearly did not give consent for this kind of transaction. Her husband's behaviour was like getting her to write and sign a cheque and then changing the amount.

mynameistallulah

Voyager2002 wrote: »

No, she clearly did not give consent for this kind of transaction. Her husband's behaviour was like getting her to write and sign a cheque and then changing the amount.

No, giving a cheque would imply permission for one transaction. Giving PIN and card would imply permission to use until she asked for the card back/ changed the PIN i.e. revoked permission. If not, why did she not withdraw the cash herself?

The police simply will not entertain it - the OP has no proof that she only consented to the one transaction. Indeed, her actions would imply that she consented to continued use of the card.

chattychappy

Clearly no consent here, but the question is whether the CC can hold the OP liable for the misuse. The FOS went into this a few years ago. See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

In summary, the CCA1974 allows a CC to impose liability on a cardholder for transactions undertaken by someone else using the card if the card was obtained with permission. (Ie it isn't necessary for the CC to show that permission was given to perform the transaction, only that the card was taken with permission.)

But note "allows a CC to impose liability". It isn't automatic - the FOS is of the view that the CC T+Cs must provide for liability in this situation else there will be no liability. Simple negligence (if provided for in the T+Cs) is capped at £50.

Note case 46/3 (similar circumstances):
The card terms said that the firm could hold Mrs G liable for all losses that arose from the misuse of her card by a third party who had possession of it with her permission. This provision was not inconsistent with the Consumer Credit Act, and we did not think it was unfair to allow the firm to enforce it. It was, of course, arguable that Mrs G had been grossly negligent. But that, of itself, would not have been enough to make her liable for the unauthorised transaction – because the act would have limited her liability to £50. The reason Mrs G was liable was because Mr D had the card with her permission; the card terms said that she would be liable for all losses arising in such circumstances.

So OP, look at the T+Cs very carefully. See if this type of usage is covered (unfortunately for you, it probably is!) If not you are entitled to dispute it on the basis it was an unauthorised transaction and you are not liable.