Son used debit card without consent , advice needed.

Tiddlywinks

flashnazia wrote: »

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?

Thank you - a voice of reason in the midst of efforts to get someone else to blame / pay up.

zagfles wrote: »

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

BUT - I feel the OP needs to have feedback that parents do need to accept responsibility for the actions of the children in their care.

The child stole - he is 10 years old, so old enough to know that he shouldn't have done it.

zxspeccy wrote: »

The OP is fully responsible for the actions of their 10 year old child, and has to accept some (if not most) of the blame for what has happened.

From a moral point of view what would the OP want if the child took £20 from her purse? Would she be expecting the Bank of England to replace the missing note because it was not her fault? There is little difference between this and the unauthorised card usage other then a possible legal way of getting someone else to "cough up" for your son’s actions.

Accept the loss, punish the child and move on.

I agree with the above.

Why should someone else pay for the child's theft from his parent's account?

I also agree with another poster that asked how the OP failed to notice the purchase of £500 worth of games - that smacks of a complete lack of supervision of onliine gaming (dangerous for all sorts of other reasons as well).

The OP needs to suck it up and work with her son to ensure they both learn from THEIR mistakes.

zxspeccy

chattychappy wrote: »

No, because the promise is to the bearer!

Which is correct from a legal point of view, all Bank of England notes are "Bearer Bills". The point was from a moral point of view as stealing is stealing regardless of how it has been done.

BettySpofkins

In what kind of parallel reality is a small child at fault here? The parent should hang their head in shame for the flagrant irresponsibility they've shown.

Next you'll be giving him a box of matches and punishing him for setting the house alight.

lovinituk

BettySpofkins wrote: »

In what kind of parallel reality is a small child at fault here? The parent should hang their head in shame for the flagrant irresponsibility they've shown.

Next you'll be giving him a box of matches and punishing him for setting the house alight.

Sigh!! A 10 year old is hardly a small child who doesn't know right from wrong!! Sounds like you're in the other reality!!

antrobus

zagfles wrote: »

But all those examples involved use of the correct PIN (I'm surprised the FOS upheld the first one!). In the OPs case no PIN would have been used, so there isn't anywhere near the same level of proof.

Yes I know that. I was simply citing them as examples of the way that FOS approach the question of unauthorised card transactions in general; the standard of proof applied is that of the civil law rather than the criminal, i.e. balance of probabilities.

tyllwyd

lovinituk wrote: »

Sigh!! A 10 year old is hardly a small child who doesn't know right from wrong!! Sounds like you're in the other reality!!

I think you are being a bit unfair. Plenty of 10 year olds are quite immature and wouldn't think things through (and 10 years old as the age of criminal responsibility is younger than in many other jurisdictions). I can easily imagine a child of that age playing a game, then having a look online and seeing another game they liked, clicking on it, then finding that they can play it, so they go online, try again, wow, that one works too ...

lovinituk

tyllwyd wrote: »

I think you are being a bit unfair. Plenty of 10 year olds are quite immature and wouldn't think things through (and 10 years old as the age of criminal responsibility is younger than in many other jurisdictions). I can easily imagine a child of that age playing a game, then having a look online and seeing another game they liked, clicking on it, then finding that they can play it, so they go online, try again, wow, that one works too ...

Perhaps but describing a 10 year old as 'a small child' is silly and the box of matches thing is just ridiculous! My eldest son is 8 and he knows that matches are dangerous. A 10 year old generally knows the difference between right and wrong.

[Deleted User]

Just another point - is it worth going "through the motions" of buying something on the PS3 to see how obvious it is that it will cost money?

i.e. "Click here to download" vs "Click here to buy at a cost of £1.50".

He might not be as much at fault as made out.

electrobix99

The playstation store is bad for how easy it is to buy things. My boyfriend went to buy something and thought he would be taken to a screen to enter his card details and instead it charged it to my credit card without even asking for any confirmation or security password/password. I had bought him something a month before and the details were still stored. Aside from requesting password confirmation before a purchase is made (which is tied to the PSN account being used and nothing to do with the card holder) the checks are non existant.

supersally

pvt wrote: »

As a number of people have suggested your first port of call is to contact Sony and explain that the games were purchased by a 10-year-old who did not have your authority to use the card. I would be very surprised if they did not provide a full refund.

In the unlikely event that they don't, then you need to ask them what steps they took to verify the purchases were being made by the card holder rather than someone who had just had possession of your card long enough to have noted down the Number, Name, Expiry, and CCV.

Thank you I have already contacted Sony and they have told me they will investigate and get back to me within a week but I will mention what you said when they get back to me .