Son used debit card without consent , advice needed.

flashnazia

Your son messed up and you want the card issuer to reimburse you... for your negligence?

I know the current trend is to blame the banks for everything but seriously?

Can you imagine the sort of precedent that would set?

I agree with those posters who have advised the selling of his playstation. He needs to feel the consequence and you might get some money back.

POPPYOSCAR

MrChandlerBing wrote: »

This is as much a lesson for you as it is for your son. Don't let a ten year old have unsupervised access to your card details and then place him in a sweet shop otherwise bad things will happen.

Also, you have no chance of getting your money back, sorry. Take this one as an expensive lesson learned.

Btw - where did you think your son was getting all these new games from?

I do not agree.

We should be able to trust that our children will not do such things- but if they do take action accordingly.

Our son ran up a phone bill of over £360 talking to his girlfriend, he had been warned the last time the bill was high so we made him pay back every penny - he never did it again.

RobertoMoir

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

if your sons friend has purchased games from your account see his mum too and ask for the cash back at this age they know what stealing is.

what you do with the playstation is upto you, but i very much doubt youll get close to £500 for it be lucky to get £160.

youll get nothing from the bank and nothing from sony either.

Surely the biggest point of selling the console and any boxed games would be to teach the kid that their actions have consequences for them, not just other people.

zagfles

There's a lot of rubbish posted in this thread.

Firstly why is it negligent to leave a card in the house in say a handbag? Does everyone else keep their cards in their pocket at all the times when at home, or have a safe?

Secondly the retailer were arguably equally if not more negligent in not confirming the user of the card was the actual cardholder. Some retailers work on the basis that some transactions will be fraudulent and they don't really care too much, particularly for stuff like game downloads which don't actually cost them anything.

And thirdly negligence is irrelavent except for £50 if the account was overdrawn. So the bank could argue negligence but the cardholder would only be liable for the first £50 of the overdrawn balance if negligence is proved. The only argument the bank would have for not refunding is that the OP authorised use of the card.

However, the OP would have to explain how this happened, and effectively dob his/her son in. Not sure if any lasting consequences would arise, the son is over the age of criminal responsibility...

flashnazia

zagfles wrote: »

There's a lot of rubbish posted in this thread.

Firstly why is it negligent to leave a card in the house in say a handbag? Does everyone else keep their cards in their pocket at all the times when at home, or have a safe?

Secondly the retailer were arguably equally if not more negligent in not confirming the user of the card was the actual cardholder. Some retailers work on the basis that some transactions will be fraudulent and they don't really care too much, particularly for stuff like game downloads which don't actually cost them anything.

And thirdly negligence is irrelavent except for £50 if the account was overdrawn. So the bank could argue negligence but the cardholder would only be liable for the first £50 of the overdrawn balance if negligence is proved. The only argument the bank would have for not refunding is that the OP authorised use of the card.

However, the OP would have to explain how this happened, and effectively dob his/her son in. Not sure if any lasting consequences would arise, the son is over the age of criminal responsibility...

You seem to be blaming everyone else except the child and his parent a.k.a the person responsible for their children.

RobertoMoir

zagfles wrote: »

Secondly the retailer were arguably equally if not more negligent in not confirming the user of the card was the actual cardholder.

I'm sure that they did confirm it to the required levels for a cardholder not present transaction, probably meeting their legal obligations. I suspect therefore that a claim of negligence on their part would be futile.

Whether the CNP standards are rigorous enough to handle things like this is a whole other, moral, kettle of fish. And it won't get the baby bathed either way.

zagfles

flashnazia wrote: »

You seem to be blaming everyone else except the child and his parent a.k.a the person responsible for their children.

I suspect the OP wanted legal answers not parental advice or moral judgement.

zagfles

RobertoMoir wrote: »

I'm sure that they did confirm it to the required levels for a cardholder not present transaction, probably meeting their legal obligations. I suspect therefore that a claim of negligence on their part would be futile.

Whether the CNP standards are rigorous enough to handle things like this is a whole other, moral, kettle of fish. And it won't get the baby bathed either way.

Whether they did or not is irrelavent. The retailer/bank needs to prove the OP authorised the transaction. Not the other way round.

somethingcorporate

zagfles wrote: »

Whether they did or not is irrelavent. The retailer/bank needs to prove the OP authorised the transaction. Not the other way round.

But Sony already have the money....who do they need to prove it to?

pvt

Sally,

It's disappointing to see so many people advising you that you've been negligent or careless in any way.

To leave your debit card in your purse or wallet, in your own locked house, could in no way be construed as negligent, unless your 10-year-old or other household members have a track record of thieving.

You did not use the card or authorise the transactions, you stand every chance of getting the money refunded by Sony.

There is nothing inappropriate about you asking your bank to help you by obtaining a chargeback or refund for money that has been spent from your account without your consent, and without the payee having taken steps to establish that they were dealing with the card holder.

The simple fact is Sony have been defrauded by your son. Unless they're very stupid they will recognise they're on a hiding to nothing by holding out on a refund, or to subsequently pressing charges against a 10-year-old. They have not lost £500, because it is patently obvious your son would not have bought the games legitimately. And their actual loss will be very small.

And as his Mother, you are best placed to evaluate whether he knew the seriousness of his actions, and to therefore decide what punishment is appropriate. But I do counsel against teaching him violence and anger by smashing his playstation up in front of him.

Good luck