Unauthorised apple purchase

Undervalued

dhow1809 said:

JJ_Egan said:

Typical poster don't get the answer they  want and then start abusing posters .Result no sympathy for OP .

Here we go! I don’t want sympathy and I have listened and taken advice. I didn’t ask for an “answer” I asked for any help or advice people may have. I haven’t placed blame on any developer or apple. I was asking for ADVICE! I wasn’t abusing anybody, I have pointed out many times that I can for advice on the situation regarding a possible refund, not parenting advice. That’s all. Isn’t that what this forum is for?

It is a discussion forum. Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you own it and can dictate what type of responses are allowed. 

The thread is for the benefit of all that read it, not just the originator. Sometimes the best "advice" is that which you least want to hear. Sometimes views put forward are of more use to others that read them rather than the person that started the thread.

So, with that in mind, to recap.....

Either the App is faulty and allows purchases when it shouldn't, in which case you are entitled to a refund.

or

It functions correctly and within Apple's rules in which case it is "operator error" as a result of allowing a five year old unsupervised access. In that case you are not entitled to a refund. That doesn't mean you won't get one, you might as a "gesture of goodwill" and everybody will have their own views on the rights and wrongs of that.

dhow1809

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I go back to my original advice: if you get no joy from the developer or Apple, get yourself in the paper with your best sad face and finger pointing at the ipad.  It might embarrass them into a goodwill refund, but it will also be embarrassing, so be prepared for that.

Thanks, but I don’t consider this to be news. There’s a pandemic atm, I think it’s a bit ridiculous to call this news, in comparison. Just my opinion, of course 😉

BooJewels

I don't know if this is the latest legislation on the matter, but I was trying to remember something I saw on TV about the clarity of in-app purchases a while ago and a search turns this OFT document up - Principles for online and app-based games:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288360/oft1519.pdf

It outlines details like how in-app purchases should be highlighted outside of normal gameplay etc. especially for young users - where making the distinction is more difficult.  Might be worth looking through, see if the game used complies with these principles - especially 6, 7 and 8.  Although if you've now deleted it, might be more difficult. 

Edited to add these guidance notes to parents:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432443/Children_s_apps_and_online_games.pdf

George_Michael - indeed, people can spend their money how they wish, but in-app purchases of £185 seems excessive to me for a game, especially where the game is certified for youngsters to play.

Manxman_in_exile

Wasn't there a similar thread three or four months ago?  I seem to recall that the general consensus was that the OP just had to live with it, but I seem to recall there was one very knowledgeable poster who advised the OP what to do and the OP did get some sort of refund.  Anybody recall it?  (Or maybe I'm making it up - it seems very similar).

And just for my enlightenment, what are you actually paying money for during the playing of a game?  What do you get for your £185?

elsien

No, there was a similar thread. Only I dislike the new search function so intensely I’m not planning to try to track it down. Although I have a feeling it was one of the “I was right, I’ve got my money back” threads where they didn’t actually say what they’d done to get to that point. 

born_again

Undervalued said:

It functions correctly and within Apple's rules in which case it is "operator error" as a result of allowing a five year old unsupervised access. In that case you are not entitled to a refund. That doesn't mean you won't get one, you might as a "gesture of goodwill" and everybody will have their own views on the rights and wrongs of that.

Actually if a minor does it without permission. There is a right to a refund.
Apple, google etc will all refund once. if it happens again. Well that is life and customer has to deal with it.

jon81uk

born_again said:

Undervalued said:

It functions correctly and within Apple's rules in which case it is "operator error" as a result of allowing a five year old unsupervised access. In that case you are not entitled to a refund. That doesn't mean you won't get one, you might as a "gesture of goodwill" and everybody will have their own views on the rights and wrongs of that.

Actually if a minor does it without permission. There is a right to a refund.
Apple, google etc will all refund once. if it happens again. Well that is life and customer has to deal with it.

I don't think there is any legal rights to that effect?

Manxman_in_exile

jon81uk said:

born_again said:

Undervalued said:

It functions correctly and within Apple's rules in which case it is "operator error" as a result of allowing a five year old unsupervised access. In that case you are not entitled to a refund. That doesn't mean you won't get one, you might as a "gesture of goodwill" and everybody will have their own views on the rights and wrongs of that.

Actually if a minor does it without permission. There is a right to a refund.
Apple, google etc will all refund once. if it happens again. Well that is life and customer has to deal with it.

I don't think there is any legal rights to that effect?

Presumably it's because minors can't (generally) enter into a legally binding contract?

Manxman_in_exile

elsien said:

No, there was a similar thread. Only I dislike the new search function so intensely I’m not planning to try to track it down. Although I have a feeling it was one of the “I was right, I’ve got my money back” threads where they didn’t actually say what they’d done to get to that point. 

Yeah - I didn't search for it because the new search is crap.  But I'm curious now so I might try a quick look.

I thought the poster who argued that a refund was applicable had a cogent argument, so I thought the OP might really have been succesful.  Wasn't it where where the purchases had been made on the grandparents' computer or something "without" permission?

[EDIT:  I think it was this one.  Ironically found it straight away!  I think born_again (see above) was one of the posters who said the OP should get a refund, but the OP actually said she used an article in the Guardian that steampowered had referenced.  And I'd always suspected steampowered was a lawyer or had legal training

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6125208/son-has-racked-up-huge-bill-on-amazon-purchasing-in-game-transactions/p1  ]

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

jon81uk said:

born_again said:

Undervalued said:

It functions correctly and within Apple's rules in which case it is "operator error" as a result of allowing a five year old unsupervised access. In that case you are not entitled to a refund. That doesn't mean you won't get one, you might as a "gesture of goodwill" and everybody will have their own views on the rights and wrongs of that.

Actually if a minor does it without permission. There is a right to a refund.
Apple, google etc will all refund once. if it happens again. Well that is life and customer has to deal with it.

I don't think there is any legal rights to that effect?

Presumably it's because minors can't (generally) enter into a legally binding contract?

They can't but a parent can be held responsible for the consequences of the child's action. As I said earlier in this thread, if an unsupervised child damaged some expensive property, perhaps by running wild in an expensive shop, the parent may be liable. 

If the App was not at fault then ultimately this is the parent's responsibility. They may (well) get a full or partial refund as a gesture of goodwill but that doesn't mean they are legally entitled to one.