Xbox have taken £4000 pounds from our account

lovinituk

zagfles wrote: »

I'm not repeating everything again.

Go on! You know you love it. Particularly the word 'sanctimonious'!!

zagfles

AnotherJoe wrote: »

That doesn't mean that xbox or whoever it is wont take pity on them for such a large amount of money in a few days.

You really reckon it's "pity"? How many commercial businesses refund authorised purchases out of "pity"? They do it because they know they can't provide proof of cardholder authorisation. Why do you think VBV/Mastercard secure were invented? Why do you think CV2 numbers were invented? They are to protect retailers from chargebacks in CNP transactions where the cardholders denies they authorised. If retailers choose not to use these protections then they take the risk. Unless they can prove authorisation some other way, for instance a secure password protected account. Card details stored unprotected in any way, whether wriiten on statements, or in a gaming box, won't prove authorisation. And as above, a CPA can't just be hidden in T&Cs.

zagfles

lovinituk wrote: »

Go on! You know you love it. Particularly the word 'sanctimonious'!!

OK you were right. It's such fun. See above

custardy

zagfles wrote: »

You really reckon it's "pity"? How many commercial businesses refund authorised purchases out of "pity"? They do it because they know they can't provide proof of cardholder authorisation. Why do you think VBV/Mastercard secure were invented? Why do you think CV2 numbers were invented? They are to protect retailers from chargebacks in CNP transactions where the cardholders denies they authorised. If retailers choose not to use these protections then they take the risk. Unless they can prove authorisation some other way, for instance a secure password protected account. Card details stored unprotected in any way, whether wriiten on statements, or in a gaming box, won't prove authorisation. And as above, a CPA can't just be hidden in T&Cs.

You mean as in the default Xbox setting?

zagfles

custardy wrote: »

You mean as in the default Xbox setting?

I haven't got a clue what the default xbox setting is. See the first sentence in my first post.

custardy

zagfles wrote: »

I haven't got a clue what the default xbox setting is. See the first sentence in my first post.

Yes,much easier for me to read back multiple posts than simply post that sentence......

Topper1900

Suggest you contact Xbox and seek their assistance, how old is your son as if he's a young "teenager" it may help if he's been using your card without permission. At the end of the day Xbox haven't really lost £4,000 in hard goods like Xbox consoles so the real cost to them maybe nowhere near the £4,000 they've charged, so they maybe willing to reduce the charges substanially - if you're lucky!

Robgilkes

Weve got all the money back from xbox--- fraud as all difrent IP addresses!! Hacked I believe the correct term is..

zagfles

Robgilkes wrote: »

Weve got all the money back from xbox--- fraud as all difrent IP addresses!! Hacked I believe the correct term is..

Well done, excellent news! Good job you ignored the parenting advice here At least I hope you ignored it!!

AnotherJoe

zagfles wrote: »

You really reckon it's "pity"? How many commercial businesses refund authorised purchases out of "pity"?

In these kind of cases specifically, quite a few.
Same for huge charges run up for people on mobile phone bills.
Not necessarily "pity" , perhaps I shoudl have said "they might takea view its in their best interests overall to annul the charges" even if the user might be legally and commercially liable.

There are many examples you can find for gaming and telephony where an organization has reversed or massively lowered these type of huge costs even though the user, factually is liable

zagfles wrote: »

They do it because they know they can't provide proof of cardholder authorisation.

Thats just one reason. There are other grounds such as avoiding bad publicity, fear of a legal case (causing bad publicity or a preecedent) and I'm sure, because corporations are actually made of of people who sometimes have discretion to "do the right thing".

Your argument that they will only retract if there is no legal standing to charge is demonstrably wrong since there are numerous examples to prove the opposite.