Question of Money: aged 16... and £6,000 overdrawn

I can assure you that if my son were in any way involved in this, we would have known: he would suddenly have had lots of cash and £6,000 is a lot of money to hide.

JILL REPLIES: Your son gave NatWest permission to discuss the situation with me, and I’m afraid what the bank told me has been difficult for you to hear. NatWest believes that your son has not been as open with you as he should have been, and that he has, either willingly or unwillingly, been involved in a fraud against the bank.

The payments into and out of the Adapt and cash Isa accounts indicate that he was persuaded to allow his current account to be used by a third party in return for a £250 fee. The reason for this may have seemed entirely plausible at the time, such as the fraudster claiming not to have a bank account in Britain.

His bank statements show £3,500 in cash was paid into the Adapt account twice on April 10 last year, and £250 was immediately withdrawn through a cash machine — NatWest believes this was the fee earned by your son.

Someone started to transfer the rest of the money in tranches to his cash Isa. There were 159 transfers in all, totalling £6,360. This money was then paid out of the Isa to a third party. On that same day, someone made a £6,734 transaction using your son’s Adapt account at a Post Office bureau de change.

It took three days for all these transactions to show up on your son’s account. Once the payment to the Post Office had gone through, his account was left with an overdraft of £6,383 — slightly less than the sum withdrawn because he had cash of his own in there.

NatWest says it would be impossible for anyone to use accounts and transfer money in this way without the help of the account holder. It could not be done simply by using a stolen debit card.

The bank initially said it might take legal action against your son to recover the £6,383 and pass information about the debt to credit reference agencies. But it has now confirmed that, as he is still under the age of 18, it does not propose taking any action to retrieve the money, which has been written off as a loss.

As he is under 18, he does not have a credit record to worry about. However, he will have a marker put on the accounts closed after being used for improper purposes. This will be registered with Cifas, the fraud prevention organisation, and will stay on its database for six years.

It will be very difficult for him to find a bank that is prepared to allow him to open an account during that time.

Fraud has clearly taken place, but how your son may be involved is not clear. If he has any details about how this happened, I would urge him to talk to you or NatWest, as this information could help prevent other teenagers from being targeted in the future.

If your son still denies any involvement or you believe NatWest has got its assessment of this case wrong, you can take your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. You can also dispute the warning registered against your son’s name with Cifas (tinyurl.com/cifasmarker).

Phone wrangle exposes problem with paypal
I ORDERED a reconditioned iPhone 5C for my daughter as a Christmas present at the end of October. The essential selling point for me was that it was in “excellent condition”. I ordered via eBay and paid £180 through PayPal using my debit card. As it was a Christmas present, I checked to see everything was there when the phone arrived but otherwise left it unopened.

My daughter tried the phone in early January and it became apparent I had been sold a pup. The phone kept switching off, the screen had a flicker and it then stopped working altogether. We tried everything recommended by Apple to ensure it was not a battery or software problem. I then approached the vendor, a Chinese company.

Its suggested solutions were unacceptable. I was outside the period covered by eBay’s 30-day money-back guarantee , but it put me in touch with PayPal. About eight days later, I was told the vendor had responded and that I could expect a decision by the end of March. I do not know what the vendor said.

PayPal rejected my claim on the basis that the iPhone was in accordance with the description given, including in “excellent condition”.

The amount of money involved is small but I am annoyed by a system that makes decisions without asking for any documentation that supports the customer’s account of a problem, does not disclose what information it receives in response and provides little or no reasoning for its decision.

JILL REPLIES: I normally love the magic words “I paid by debit card”, as they should mean it is possible to ask for a chargeback refund. However, you were not covered by the chargeback rules because you went through PayPal.

The seller offered three solutions: a refund of £12, and you get the phone mended yourself; a 5% discount on a new phone, with no need for you to return the faulty one; or returning the phone to the retailer for repair.

You were not prepared to accept any of these, so the seller suggested a £20 refund or 15% discount. You again refused and the seller stopped communicating with you.

PayPal was also quite uncommunicative, simply telling you it had completed its review and, unfortunately, it was not able to decide in your favour. “If you wish to pursue this issue, we encourage you to contact the seller directly for resolution,” it said.

Your complaint was complicated by the fact that you had not discovered the fault for several months. But your experience of struggling to get recompense for faulty goods from an unfamiliar and foreign website was similar to those of other Sunday Times readers, so I asked PayPal to reconsider your complaint. PayPal told me, twice, that it would be unreasonable to expect the seller to provide a refund on an iPhone that had been in your possession for months. I pointed out, twice, that had you used a credit card to make the purchase rather than PayPal, you would still have the option of a section 75 refund claim under the Consumer Credit Act. Section 75 offers protection for items or services valued from £100 to £30,000, paid for at least partly with a credit card.

Two days later, PayPal told me it had changed its mind. “Our aim is always to strike a balance between the interests of the buyer and the seller,” it said. “However, in this case we should have done more to communicate with the reader. As a result, we have refunded the full amount.”

A double take-off
LAST October, we missed our Thomson Airways flight from Birmingham to Cyprus. I went on the Thomson website to book flights out the next day, costing £102 in total. All was fine until the final part, when a web page said the transaction was not successful and gave a number to call. The number was for a shop that could not help me, so I bought tickets at the airport the next day.

When we arrived home, I found that Thomson had taken the payment for the abortive transaction. I contacted the airline and sent it my current account statement. Nothing happened. Eventually its technical department told me to contact my bank but by then I was outside the 120-day deadline for a chargeback on my card.

JILL REPLIES: I sent a copy of your bank statement to Thomson showing payment for both sets of flights and asked it to expedite your refund. The company then called you, apologised for the delay and said the £102 would be sent by cheque. You also negotiated a £50 payment to cover the cost of calls and general irritation.

There has been no explanation as to why the mistake happened, though. You told me: “I am positive that we would not have had this outcome without your intervention. Poor isn’t it?”

Yes, it is.