Child using debit card online without permission

zagfles

chattychappy wrote: »

I think the OP has a good case against the bank. The OP didn't authorise the payment and it would be for the bank to prove otherwise. Of course there is an element of the OP's word against the bank's - and this is the problem. But presumably since no PIN was used, it is difficult for the bank to prove the OP used the card.

Banks can only release monies against the authority of the account holder. They could insist on security questions, face-to-face recognition, DNA testing, fingerprints etc. All that's impractical. So they use a plastic card as a proxy/token and "take the risk". Use of the card suggests cardholder authority - but it's not conclusive of that.

Reality is, if the banks accepted these stories on trust, the system would fall apart. Expect a struggle.

As for criminal charges against the child, that would be for the police/CPS to decide, not the bank. I doubt whether it would go very far. The courts are overloaded. Adult shoplifters steal more than this in an afternoon and can "get away" with a caution.

Yes. If the account holder didn't authorise use of the card then the bank must refund. The only argument the bank could use is gross negligence, which wouldn't apply in this case, or that the account holder did in fact authorise the transaction.

The fact that it was used by a family memeber is no different to if a cleaner or other vistor to the house had used it.

Of course this could mean the son gets into trouble... see example 46/2 here (this is slightly different as even gross negligence wasn't relevant as it was a credit card - the bank were made to refund cash withdrawals made by the account holder's son).

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

WTFH

...I'm guessing the MSE team are looking for a thread to post in this week's email "moral maze".

Don't blame Sony. You can ask them if they will help, but they are not duty bound to.
Don't blame the bank. It's not their fault. If you're going to try to claim money back from them, effectively you'll be committing fraud (some will argue otherwise but what it boils down to is "I know he did wrong, but I want you to pay for it")

Your other option is to cut up your wife's credit & debit cards and make your son repay the money.

tyllwyd

zagfles wrote: »

... The fact that it was used by a family memeber is no different to if a cleaner or other vistor to the house had used it. ...

But the card was used to authorise transactions to a Sony account registered at that address, so from that point of view there wouldn't have been anything to alert the bank that it was being used fraudulently - it must be completely standard for a parent's card to be used to make purchases for a child's account. A cleaner isn't likely to make a PlayStation purchase linked to the card holder's address. So in principle it might be the same, but in reality it is going to be much more difficult to argue.

lisyloo

It's not their fault.

It's nothing to do with fault.
If a bank offers credit cards then they have to abide by the statutory responsibilities thatc ome with that.

Airlines are not at fault for volcanic ash, but they have to obey the law on refunds for customers.

but in reality it is going to be much more difficult to argue

What's hard to argue about unauthorised use?
There are 2 adults at least who will testify/declare that the use was unauthorised. Probably the child won't lie about it either.

StuC75

Given that in the Opening Post the Child took the card , then the Child would have to lie about it.. this isn't a case of Cached payment details the child plainly took the card - so knew that the payment information was necessary for the transaction to go through.. So unless the OP is willing to pursue charges against there own son.. If that was my son the console & tv would be out of the room, and sold towards such costs..

lisyloo wrote: »

It's nothing to do with fault.
If a bank offers credit cards then they have to abide by the statutory responsibilities thatc ome with that.

Airlines are not at fault for volcanic ash, but they have to obey the law on refunds for customers.

What's hard to argue about unauthorised use?
There are 2 adults at least who will testify/declare that the use was unauthorised. Probably the child won't lie about it either.

zolablue25

Can't see how OP's wife was negligent, if she had given her son passwords, pins etc then I can see negligence, but failing to lock her cards in a safe I would not, personally, class as negligent. I would also consider not checking your bank for 10 days fairly normal behaviour. I would be interested to see the bank's data on how many customers regularly access their bank more than once every 10 days.

WTFH

lisyloo wrote: »

It's nothing to do with fault.
If a bank offers credit cards then they have to abide by the statutory responsibilities thatc ome with that.

Airlines are not at fault for volcanic ash, but they have to obey the law on refunds for customers.

What's hard to argue about unauthorised use?
There are 2 adults at least who will testify/declare that the use was unauthorised. Probably the child won't lie about it either.

So, in your mind, banks are responsible for teenagers spending their parents' money?
Let's just think about that for a minute. In your world, a parent can let a teenager use their credit card to buy whatever they want, then the parent can phone the bank and say "it wasn't me, my son did it". Or the parent can say that even if their son didn't do it, and you believe the bank then MUST refund the money?
I don't think so.

Also, the OP hasn't even had the politeness to come back with answers to simple questions about the payment and any authorisation codes that may have been required, so to assume that the use was unauthorised is a big assumption on your part.

zolablue25

Surely WTFH the system should be secure and no-one should be able to purchase without authority? Where was the security in this transaction?

Edit: I take your point that there has been no feedback from OP as to whether there was any security and assumed there was none. I withdraw my comment if this turns out not to be the case.

lisyloo

then the Child would have to lie about it

Sorry I don't understand.
If the banks invetigators did decide to interview the child why is it a foregone conclusion that the child would lie about taking the card?
If they did then it's a child's word against 2 adults.

the child plainly took the card

Well if that's 100% clear then the bank won't dispute that it was unauthorised use would they?

lisyloo

So, in your mind, banks are responsible for teenagers spending their parents' money?

Legally banks are responsible for authorised use (unless there is negligence).
Just as airlines are responsible for compensating passenger for volcanic ash.

If you are asking me whether they are morally responsible or at fault then IMO the answer is no.

I think you (and others) need to distinguish here between legal rights (which are pretty black and white) and morals which can be subjective.

a parent can let a teenager use their credit card to buy whatever they want

That's clearly not unauthorised use.

hen the parent can phone the bank and say "it wasn't me, my son did it"

That;s fraud which most good honest people with something to lose don't engage in.

Or the parent can say that even if their son didn't do it, and you believe the bank then MUST refund the money?

If it's a genuine case of authorised use then that's the law. So unless they bank think there is negligence or it's a fraudulent claim then yes they are obliged.

I don't think so.

If your serious about learning and advancing the legal discussion the please provide legal references as to why you dispute this, otherwise it's just an "on yes it is/oh no it isn't" pantomine discussion. Happy to engage is a discussion on the proper detail of the law.

so to assume that the use was unauthorised is a big assumption on your part.

I don't agree.

Surely WTFH the system should be secure and no-one should be able to purchase without authority?

You would think, but apparently where the computer is known, then the additional security is not always required.

In practice I personally would have sold the childs console and games, but that doesn't change the legal argument.