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

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?

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.

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.

societys_child

the purchase was not only unauthorised

Wrong, when the card details for the account were entered, future purchases were authorised. The op made no attempt to limit use of the card.

18cc

future purchases were authorised as long as the card holder made them ? or any future purchases by anyone?

karljt2013

Halifax refused to refund point blank so I am taking them to the ombudsman. Letting so many rapid fire transactions through in a matter of minutes is a total failure of their responsibilities to monitor suspicious money movements. I don't care what many of you you "Holier than thou" types who frequent these forums say.

Microsoft, on the other hand were amazing (roblox was downloaded through the windows 10 store) . As soon as they found out her young age they refunded every penny. £465.00 but they made it clear if it happens again they won't be so accomodating.

DCFC79

karljt2013 wrote: »

Halifax refused to refund point blank so I am taking them to the ombudsman. Letting so many rapid fire transactions through in a matter of minutes is a total failure of their responsibilities to monitor suspicious money movements. I don't care what many of you you "Holier than thou" types who frequent these forums say.

Microsoft, on the other hand were amazing (roblox was downloaded through the windows 10 store) . As soon as they found out her young age they refunded every penny. £465.00 but they made it clear if it happens again they won't be so accomodating.

This could have been prevented if certain measures were made, takes a matter of minutes to setup.

I dont see how Halifax can be at fault.

karljt2013

It only takes a few minutes to set up if you are tech savvy enough to understand that it needs setting up in the first place. When you are a working parent with a boy and a girl - the boy plays fortnite and the girl plays roblox and you already have a thousand jobs to do this can be VERY easy to miss. The pester power can be immense. And the consequences of that mistake should not be your entire damn bank account being cleaned out by dozens and dozens of identical transactions.

Many of you guys are quick to judge without looking at it from a human level. We aren't all Sheldon Cooper from the big bang theory.

The week we have had getting this refund back has made me realise there needs to be an MP (or a public champion like Martin Lewis) who investigates these companies and I will explain why.

When we first rang Halifax in shock they said something quite peculiar on the phone. They revealed that they have a very close working relationship with roblox. And if you put on your conspiracy hat you start to wonder "Why the hell would a high street bank have such a close relationship with a computer game company?"

in our case the child spent £465 without permission. That was too much of a loss to shoulder so we had to approach all three companies (Halifax, Roblox and Microsoft) to plead our case.

Just think of the many thousands of times this has happened where the amount lost is too little to kick up a fuss. Anything under £100 and the vast majority of people would just scrap it as a loss. It's took us nearly a week to communicate with all three.

I maybe ranting here but underneath the surface something seems to stink to high heaven with these "In game purchases".

I wouldn't be surprised if somebody did some serious investigative digging there would be some pretty scandalous facts revealed. That is why I am taking halifax to the ombudsman. This is no longer about the money. I want to suggest to the ombudsman that there is some kind of mutually beneficial/symbiotic relationship between banks and these massive game companies.

Rant over.