Child using debit card online without permission

[Deleted User]

My view is this - you press charges, or you don't.

If you do, he gets a record with the police for what he's done.

If you don't, he's spared a record but you are deemed to be "allowing" the "crime" on this occasion.

[Deleted User]

zagfles wrote: »

Giving a child a contract phone is no better than giving them your credit card!! People don't seem to realise this!

Yes it is, if done right. Some networks let you cap contracts.

[Deleted User]

UglyJoe wrote: »

Don't just lock them in a cupboard where they will be neither use nor ornament.

Sell them, and put the proceeds towards paying off the amount your son has spent.

Or leave the Playstation where it is, but lock HIM in a cupboard.

cookyy2k

Ok, I'm an avid gamer so I'll throw my 2 peneth into this.

1) Yes, the PSN store saves your payment details so it would only need to be taken once and entered in then it could be used at will so I'd be right onto the PS3 to delete those details just in case the idea ever occurs to him again. (This is why when the PSN was hacked a couple of year's ago the hackers got everyone's card details).

2) If you went to the bank and said the money was taken without your permission they are required to pay it back, it wouldn't end there though. Does anyone think the bank will just "take the hit" without trying to recover that loss from the guilty party?

3) Your son has committed theft (dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it) in this case the property being the money. So if the bank decided to go after him for the money they could also involve the police. If he admitted guilt to the police he would probably get a caution which would mean a criminal record.

System

cookyy2k wrote: »

2) If you went to the bank and said the money was taken without your permission they are required to pay it back, it wouldn't end there though. Does anyone think the bank will just "take the hit" without trying to recover that loss from the guilty party?

You may be learning about criminal law but you are still woefully lacking in civil law and banking rules. Once you explain to your bank how the money was taken they would show you the door

zagfles

billbennett wrote: »

Yes it is, if done right. Some networks let you cap contracts.

Yes but watch out for exclusions, like roaming. Can't see the point in a contract anyway for typical kids' use, with wi-fi everywhere these days, and messenger services taking over from texts. My kids have PAYG smatphones which they're always on - they pay for the credit out of their pocket money, but they only top up about once every 6 months.

zagfles

cookyy2k wrote: »

2) If you went to the bank and said the money was taken without your permission they are required to pay it back, it wouldn't end there though. Does anyone think the bank will just "take the hit" without trying to recover that loss from the guilty party?

The bank would charge back to the retailer. The bank wouldn't take the loss.

magpiecottage

StuC75 wrote: »

Since the op's Son had possession of the card at the Time, that could be seen as authorisation.

The fact that it was in the son's possession does not mean it was authorised.

Furthermore, in these circumstances it is the bank, rather than the customer that makes the decision whether or not to go to the Police.

Otherwise if its just down to someone's 'word' that it wasn't authorised then it sets a route for 'buyers remorse' - i.e. buy a game as a download, not like it.. then claim - oh but my Child must have done that, can I have a refund..

Perhaps - but it is still for the bank to prove that, not the customer.

WTFH

cookyy2k wrote: »

1) Yes, the PSN store saves your payment details so it would only need to be taken once and entered in then it could be used at will so I'd be right onto the PS3 to delete those details just in case the idea ever occurs to him again. (This is why when the PSN was hacked a couple of year's ago the hackers got everyone's card details).

Thank you for saying that (I tried to bring it up earlier, but to no avail). So, once the card details have been entered against the account, then any future transactions ARE AUTHORISED.

All the people on here saying they aren't are basing it on their lack of knowledge of how gaming/smartphone accounts work.

The transactions were authorised. The bank is NOT liable, the bank has nothing to prove.
The physical card was not used to make each transaction, because it was not needed, because the account was already authorised to use the card.

StuC75

The bank would just confirm the purchases were used for transactions at the OP's address (PSN account will have the address), rather than a third party transaction originating half way round the world.

Unless the OP is willing to take other action against the child that demonstrates it wasn't authorised usage then there inaction could be seen as permitting this to have happened..

If it was me I would be speaking to a local police officer \ cso to see if they could put the frighteners on him to explain what could happen if it was taken further (in a off the record kind of way) and how that could affect in later life..


The simple fact here is that the OP's Child has stolen from them. I always treat my cards as being cash.

If the child had taken £20 and spent it at a shop.. Would the parent expect to get the money from the shop owner by taking back all the wrappers?

Parents need to take a closer interest in what there children can get upto online and what purchases can be made online. Rather than leave the console to be the childminder..

Really it has to be the child that loses out here and learns an important life lesson - rather than thinking oh I can blame the bank or the video games.. Nope you have to take responsibilities for your own actions in life..

magpiecottage wrote: »

The fact that it was in the son's possession does not mean it was authorised.

Furthermore, in these circumstances it is the bank, rather than the customer that makes the decision whether or not to go to the Police.

Perhaps - but it is still for the bank to prove that, not the customer.