Son used debit card without consent , advice needed.

[Deleted User]

ok im not wading thru all the post but can tell you from personal experience that unless you inform the police then they bank wont repay you,if you do then they will,again from experience the police are highly unlikely to seek prosecution but they may with your consent and you present give him a good talking to

zagfles

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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



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.




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.

The OPs card was used fraudulently by another person. It's up to any retailer who accepts payments online or over the phone to ensure that person ordering the goods is the cardholder. If they don't, and they can't prove it was the cardholder who ordered the goods, then they'll get a chargeback.

Many retailers are happy to accept that a small percentage of purchases will be charged back, especially for stuff like downloads where there is no or very little marginal cost. Because it's cheaper than verifying properly, eg by requiring ID before opening an account.

MSWannabe

I would be very surprised if Sony refunded any of the amount spent if it all came from one console. Where I can understand and appreciate that it is fraud, there is no proof that you did not purchase them if it came from just the one console.

Imagine if you were refunded the whole amount. A lot of people would try to claim money back after buying games they did not like from the Playstation Network store, resulting in no loss and playing a game they wanted to try out.

There is a reason why Parental Controls are on these gaming consoles these days to avoid such incidents. The parental controls are very flexible and you can set age restrictions, not allow purchases etc.

zagfles

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Indeed, otherwise it would be too easy to defraud banks or retailers. I don't think the FOS would have too much difficulty with the OPs case though...

[Deleted User]

Voyager2002 wrote: »

The law cannot really do anything to a child so young

Yes it can.

The age of criminal responsibility is 10.

zagfles

electrobix99 wrote: »

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.

Yes, this is a problem with a lot of retailers. Card details are stored and reused by default with no additional verification.

ahxcjb

Sounds awfully familiar to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155864/Schoolboy-12-uses-fathers-credit-card-spend-7-000-online-gambling-sites-WEEK.html

zagfles

ahxcjb wrote: »

Sounds awfully familiar to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155864/Schoolboy-12-uses-fathers-credit-card-spend-7-000-online-gambling-sites-WEEK.html

:rotfl:Typical Daily Mail journalism. "No fraud had taken place...."!! The kid signed up to a gambling site, he said he was over 18 when he was 12, and he used someone else's card! And no fraud had taken place?? So apparently it's not fraud to pretend to be someone else, lie about important details such as age, and use someone else's credit card? OK, right...

pvt

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.

As for the other child involved it shouldn’t be difficult to find out what downloads have been made and to what PSN account. If another child is involved then it is important that the do not get away with this either.

I've read some drivel in my time on this forum, and this thread is possibly one of the richest veins of crap advice I've yet waded through. But this post stands head and shoulders above most others!

The OP is "responsible" for the actions of her 10-year-old child - so why weren't the parents of John Venables and Robert Thompson locked away for life then?

WelshSun

pvt wrote: »

But this post stands head and shoulders above most others!
The OP is "responsible" for the actions of her 10-year-old child - so why weren't the parents of John Venables and Robert Thompson locked away for life then?

I've read some drivel in my time on this forum, and this post is possibly one of the richest veins of crap I've yet waded through.

So a parent isn't responsible for her child? Maybe I should stop feeding my kids as 'i'm not responsible,' of course...

While the poster was very direct in what they said, their argument was right.