Xbox live, child purchases; anyone successfully claimed money back?

peachyprice

zagfles wrote: »

Why do you think 12 year olds aren't allowed credit cards?

What do children not having credit cards have to do with anything?

My children all have had their own debit cards since they were 11, that is what is linked to their xbox, itunes, playstore, paypal etc., accounts. They sure as hell don't have free access to my bank account/credit cards.

Their accounts contain limited resources and if they choose to spend their own money that's up to them. I bet OP's son would have noticed the payment screen PDQ if he knew the money was coming out of his own account.

wealdroam

zagfles wrote: »

Why do you think 12 year olds aren't allowed credit cards?

I can help you there.

I know why children aren't allowed credit cards.

It is simply a commercial decision by the card issuers.

The reason they follow that line is simply because contracts are not enforcible against minors.

Now, the bit that I don't know is... why did you ask that question?

zagfles

wealdroam wrote: »

I can help you there.

I know why children aren't allowed credit cards.

It is simply a commercial decision by the card issuers.

The reason they follow that line is simply because contracts are not enforcible against minors.

Now, the bit that I don't know is... why did you ask that question?

It was a rhetorical question, if that wasn't obvious

zagfles

WTFH wrote: »

Because if they were, their parents would have no qualms about blaming the credit card company when the children use the cards to buy things, and the parents would be given advice which would not be moral or ethical, but could be twisted round (via lying) to be just about legal.

Shame that personal and parental responsibility are less important than greed and teaching children selfishness, or at least that's what it looks like based on the advice given by some on this forum.

Oh, cut the sanctimonious drivel. There are two possibilities here, the kid made a mistake, or the kid deliberately spent a large amount of money he knew would come off his parent's card.

If the retailer had done a most basic security check, like asking for the CV2 number, we'd know which. The retailer chose not to.

wealdroam

zagfles wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question, if that wasn't obvious

No, it wasn't obvious.

Now that you have made that clear, I still do not understand your response.

peachyprice

zagfles wrote: »

If the retailer had done a most basic security check, like asking for the CV2 number, we'd know which. The retailer chose not to.

They did, when the parent first linked the card to the xbox live account, and they agreed that Microsoft could take payment from that card

6.3. Billing. By providing Microsoft with a payment method you, (i) represent that you are authorized to use the payment method that you provided and that any payment information you provide is true and accurate; (ii) authorize Microsoft to charge you for the Services using your payment method; and (iii) authorize Microsoft to charge you for any paid feature of the Services that you choose to sign up for or use while this Agreement is in force.

And before you say that it was the child, not the parent who made the purchases, the parents also agreed that:

1.8 How can associated accounts be used? For some parts of the Services, you may be able to set up additional accounts that are dependent on your account (“associated accounts”). You agree to be bound by this Agreement for any associated accounts (including those for minors) you hold now or create later and that you are responsible for all activity that takes place with your Services account and any associated accounts. You agree that we may take action against your Services account in response to activity on any of your associated accounts, including limiting who may use your Services account or any associated accounts; limiting the number of devices from which you may access the Services; and/or removing your Services account or any associated accounts. If you allow or enable a minor to use an associated account, then:

You represent that you are the parent or legal guardian of such minor;

They also agreed that:

You acknowledge that some features of the Services, and some content available through the Services, may contain or expose users to material unsuitable for minors. You agree to supervise usage by minors whom you permit or enable to use the Services. The Services are not intended for use by children under 13 without adult supervision;

zagfles

peachyprice wrote: »

They did, when the parent first linked the card to the xbox live account, and they agreed that Microsoft could take payment from that card

As per my first post the T&Cs aren't the be-all and end-all. Payments still have to comply with the payments services directive, BCOBS, the consumer credit act etc.

For instance most banks' T&Cs will say that a customer is liable for the full amount of unauthorised transactions on a credit card if they were grossly negligent. But the CCA overrides this - the liability is £50 max - see example 46/2 at the bottom of this page http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

ladymagpie

zagfles wrote: »

As per my first post the T&Cs aren't the be-all and end-all. Payments still have to comply with the payments services directive, BCOBS, the consumer credit act etc.

For instance most banks' T&Cs will say that a customer is liable for the full amount of unauthorised transactions on a credit card if they were grossly negligent. But the CCA overrides this - the liability is £50 max - see example 46/2 at the bottom of this page http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

But it's not unauthorised. The OP authorised Microsoft in taking payments when they download things by giving them his card details. The onus is not on Microsoft to make sure its the cardholder who is pressing ok, especially when they provide passwords.

wealdroam

zagfles wrote: »

As per my first post the T&Cs aren't the be-all and end-all. Payments still have to comply with the payments services directive, BCOBS, the consumer credit act etc.

For instance most banks' T&Cs will say that a customer is liable for the full amount of unauthorised transactions on a credit card if they were grossly negligent. But the CCA overrides this - the liability is £50 max - see example 46/2 at the bottom of this page http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

Do the PSRs* have anything to say about how authorised transactions can somehow become unauthorised?

That's not a rhetorical question by the way.


*PSRs = Payment Services Regulations.

unholyangel

zagfles wrote: »

As per my first post the T&Cs aren't the be-all and end-all. Payments still have to comply with the payments services directive, BCOBS, the consumer credit act etc.

For instance most banks' T&Cs will say that a customer is liable for the full amount of unauthorised transactions on a credit card if they were grossly negligent. But the CCA overrides this - the liability is £50 max - see example 46/2 at the bottom of this page http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

You mean this part?

complaint rejected
The card terms said that the firm could hold Mrs G liable for all losses that arose from the misuse of her card by a third party who had possession of it with her permission. This provision was not inconsistent with the Consumer Credit Act, and we did not think it was unfair to allow the firm to enforce it.
It was, of course, arguable that Mrs G had been grossly negligent. But that, of itself, would not have been enough to make her liable for the unauthorised transaction – because the act would have limited her liability to £50. The reason Mrs G was liable was because Mr D had the card with her permission; the card terms said that she would be liable for all losses arising in such circumstances.

You do realise the complaint was rejected.....right?