Friend's Daughter has spent £450 on Roblox without her knowledge

robatwork

colsten wrote: »

They can make a claim - a real claim, not a fraudulent claim - but the likelihood that such a claim will result in a refund is next to nil.

Think about it - if all you need to do for a refund is say your child made the purchases without your knowledge o. authorisation, everybody would have a rogue child and claim their money back after having played their games,

DCFC79 wrote: »

The excuse would only work a set number of times before the banks would work out what was happening and dont pay out.

This is how Amazon's algorithm works - if you return a certain number of items (even if completely genuine faults) they will at some point refuse to have you as a customer.

18cc

i dont think you can 'authorise' a minor to make the payments.

IanManc

18cc wrote: »

i dont think you can 'authorise' a minor to make the payments.

You're authorising payments from that card until you cancel the authorisation.

No one is suggesting that anyone can, or has, authorised a minor.

ThePants999

IanManc wrote: »

You're authorising payments from that card until you cancel the authorisation.

That's surely not right, or companies that store your card details would be allowed to take whatever they want from it. You're not authorising payments from the card, you're authorising them to retain your card details. You only authorise a payment when you make a purchase.

jonesMUFCforever

ThePants999 wrote: »

That's surely not right, or companies that store your card details would be allowed to take whatever they want from it. You're not authorising payments from the card, you're authorising them to retain your card details. You only authorise a payment when you make a purchase.

..........And you make a purchase by someone pressing a button on a computer using the card details you put on their systems?

IanManc

ThePants999 wrote: »

That's surely not right, or companies that store your card details would be allowed to take whatever they want from it. You're not authorising payments from the card, you're authorising them to retain your card details. You only authorise a payment when you make a purchase.

Of course it's right. You are setting up your card details to be used every time a purchase is made, according to the T&Cs you've accepted, until you cancel the arrangement, which you are free to do at any time.

:wall:

ThePants999

But it's the making of a purchase that authorises the card to be charged. That distinction is definitely there. If you want to argue that it's not an important distinction, fine.

Someone making a purchase through a system that holds your card details is the same as someone taking your card to make the purchase. In neither case was it the cardholder who authorised the charge, but that may be irrelevant.

Ergates

It's the linking of the card to the online account that authorises it's use. You're saying "I authorise this card to be used to carry out purchases from this account", and that card will remain authorised for use on that account until you say otherwise.

Also, as I said above - if the card holder wants to go down the "This was an unauthorised/fraudulent transaction" then the individual committing the fraud was her daughter, which probably isn't an issue they want to force.

IanManc

ThePants999 wrote: »

If you want to argue that it's not an important distinction, fine.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. That is not what I am saying. What I have said in my posts has been very clear, and your spin on them and your opinion on the situation faced by the OP's friend are simply wrong.

18cc

yes agree the card holder may not want to go down the route of implicatong her daughter.

nevertheless since the purchase was not only unauthorised but made by a minor she would get her money back.