child spending money on playstation.

powerful_Rogue

VictorCharlie wrote: »

These are not presented as opinion, but as statements.

Most others in this thread are giving opinions based off information given by the OP, you seem to be injecting facts to fit your 'opinion'.

Of course the child has done wrong. He's spent £245 on purchases which he was entitled to. Thats a fact.

He also knew what he was doing. He didnt accidentally click on something, he went through the process of the purchase, and considering the amount spent, he must have done this quite a few times.

Whether he knew what he was doing was going to cost money or if he knew right from wrong, only that can be established with extra information from the OP.

halibut2209

"He also knew what he was doing"

Prove it.

VictorCharlie

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Of course the child has done wrong. He's spent £245 on purchases which he was entitled to. Thats a fact.

I didn't say anything about it being right or wrong.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

He also knew what he was doing. He didnt accidentally click on something, he went through the process of the purchase, and considering the amount spent, he must have done this quite a few times.

Whether he knew what he was doing was going to cost money or if he knew right from wrong, only that can be established with extra information from the OP.

In my opinion, those two paragraphs contradict each other.


You are clearly claiming to know for a fact that this child knew what they were doing. But you don't know that. So stop spouting rubbish until you know more facts.

powerful_Rogue

Spouting rubbish! Just because you disagree you dont have to be so rude about it.

How do you spend £245 on purchases if you dont know what your doing? Whether he knew it was costing money, or whether he knew it was right or wrong will only be established if the OP comes back with further information.

Cant really see whats so difficult to understand about that. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

powerful_Rogue

halibut2209 wrote: »

"He also knew what he was doing"

Prove it.

The fact he ran up a bill of £245 shows he knew what he was doing. Whether he knew it was costing money, or whether he knew it was right or wrong will only be established if the OP comes back with further information.

halibut2209

So you mean he knows how to play on a playstation, not that he knows the consequences. That was not clear. As I said before, my 5 year old knows how to use a game console, but would certainly not understand the consequences.

unholyangel

We're all still debating over something theoretical?

Could be the uncles account the kid was playing on. Could be it stores the details automatically (i'm not sure if this is the case, but it was the reason i always bought ms points for xbox and never used my card). Does BIL have kids? If not, certainly explains why he doesnt really know about childproofing (heck lots of parents dont even know how to do it!). How did the details get on there in the first place without parents knowledge (i presume if uncle had bought him a present it would be with parents knowledge)?

There are a hundred and one different questions which (i think) would affect exactly how the baby should be split (not literally, in terms of liability). But IMO not one of those questions means the OP paying £0. Even if just purely because its family and her son likely will/has had use of the purchases.

And perhaps a talk with the son about reading what you agree too - everyone on this forum (given its nature) should be able to respect that its a valuable lesson. Don't mean punish, just a talk.

fridge_raider

What I find hilarious here is that anyone would have the audacity to call their brother in law and say 'my kid's just spent £245 on your credit card with the details you left on the Playstation, sorry you'll have to pay that' [bearing in mind we don't even know that the Playstation was at OP's house, it could be have been in BIL's house and the OP's kid using it].

If this were me, I would fully expect to be paying the brother-in-law. He can't be expected to foot the bill for someone else not supervising their child correctly. If he left £20 on the counter, and a four year old tore it up and flushed it down the toilet because they didn't realise what it was, would you just turn around to them and say 'hard cheese, you shouldn't have left it lying around'?!

marliepanda

Its a bit of an odd one.

I can see how it isnt, and is, the OP's fault.

I would like to think if I, for example, ordered something at a friends house and my account became auto linked, that they wouldnt just spend all my money and then say tough. Child or no child.

rustyboy21

The OP isn't going to come back, by the looks of it. But Looking at it Morally, How may of the above posters, if in the OP's shoes, Turn around and say to the BIL '' Tough luck, it's your own fault and don't start shouting at little Tommy'' and not pay him back?


I feel that is what the OP was asking and the first pages of posts, nearly all say to them, that is is ok to put 2 fingers up at the BIL and tell him where to go.


Not good on Morals, a number of people on here.