The Lemon Fool

My 14 year old daughter uses her own debit card from a junior bank account to purchase goods on-line.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't monitor all the sites she uses, trust her not to buy inappropriate stuff. Just gives her a bit of independence buying clothes, make up, craft bits, and managing her own money.

I understand some sites have age conditions in their T & C's, but not sure how this is enforced, or if a child's bank account can be detected by the type of card used.

Problem is, a few months ago, she purchased from a site abroad, and did not understand that UK taxes were not included, until an invoice arrived several weeks after the goods were received. The invoice is from a 3rd party Co, who claim to have paid the VAT on her behalf, and have also added on their fees.
I contacted them by phone, and was told verbally that the invoice would be cancelled, as a child could not be pursued. They did ask if she paid using MY bank card, but she never. Yet my daughter is still getting chaser letters threatening Debt Collection Agencies.

I can afford to pay, not sure if I should just pay the VAT and refuse their fees, or just keep replying explaining that they are invoicing a child?

Or is a parent responsible for a child's debt?

Thanks in advance
TOFAT

This link (https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk ... .htm#40.96) summarises the position relationg to debts incurred by a minor:

Under common law, a contract involving a minor (that is, someone under the age of 18) is voidable at the minor’s option. [.....]

Enforceable debts are those that are for ‘necessaries’, which are goods suitable to the condition of life of the minor, and to his/her actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery. In general, necessaries may include whatever is reasonably required for maintaining his/her particular lifestyle within the normal standards of his/her particular society, depending upon his/her status. In comparison, necessities, in relation to which debts are not enforceable, are essentials required by all for subsistence or survival. Necessities may include, but are not limited to, food clothing, medicine, lodging, essential services and teaching.

So it may depend on what was purchased.

Are you sure this company is legit? I have never heard of a company pursuing payment AFTER the goods has been delivered. Normally shipping companies hold the goods until the tax is paid. Surely, even an adult has no obligation to pay here, as they had no contract with this "third party"?

Gryff

Hmmm

I don't think the items purchase in this case can be classed as essential.

But she is being pursued for VAT and the Third Partiy Company's charges for the privilege of administering it.

I believe the company are legit, as appear to b a household name for the kind of 'service'. Though questionable why goods were delivered rather than being held until any costs settled.

Maybe they have a ceiling below which they outlay and bill later?

gryffron wrote:Are you sure this company is legit? I have never heard of a company pursuing payment AFTER the goods has been delivered. Normally shipping companies hold the goods until the tax is paid. Surely, even an adult has no obligation to pay here, as they had no contract with this "third party"?

Gryff

I remember DHL (or some other major courier) behaving in the same for for something that I bought from the states. It was some years ago so rules may well have changed but the OP didn't ring any alarm bells in that respect.

I've imported quite a bit for business needs for years (and still do privately mainly for hobby items) and I've frequently been billed for duty/VAT and costs after delivery, AND in some cases the actual delivery has not been by the original carrier/importer themselves but by another agent contracted by the carrier. So I don't think it's completely exceptional to be billed after delivery or by a perhaps unexpected carrier. It should be fairly easy to determine if the carrier and claim are genuine though.

The contract is with the seller of course but payment of local import costs aren't likely to be included in the sale contract (they're usually specifically excluded OR have a specific option for prepayment which is usually cheaper). If VAT wasn't prepaid I don't think you can somehow claim that there's not a contract with HMRC for its collection. It would still be payable on the import (on the value) even if payment for the goods had been defaulted and it's up to HMRC how they choose to collect.

The goods were paid for at the time of ordering.

The company that have invoiced claim to have paid tax and import duty direct to customs.

They are billing for the tax plus their charges.

The name on the bill is my 14 year old daughter (who was actually 13 at the time of puchase).

TooOldForAllThis wrote:The goods were paid for at the time of ordering.

The company that have invoiced claim to have paid tax and import duty direct to customs.

They are billing for the tax plus their charges.

The name on the bill is my 14 year old daughter (who was actually 13 at the time of puchase).

I imagine clitheroekid may join this thread soon but, in the meantime, if you wish to fight this charge you may get some helpful wording from a post of his, over at The Motley Fool , back in September:

http://boards.fool.co.uk/i-expect-there ... 29978.aspx

Extract only:

"I am the father of [daughter's name] who is aged 14, and in the event of court proceedings being required I will be acting as her litigation friend. ... As my daughter is a minor any contract with the Company into which she may have purported to enter into is automatically voidable. This letter constitutes notice on behalf of my daughter that the contract is hereby avoided {voided?} ab initio."

TooOldForAllThis wrote:Hmmm

I don't think the items purchase in this case can be classed as essential.

But she is being pursued for VAT and the Third Partiy Company's charges for the privilege of administering it.

The VAT is due to HMRC, and I don't see that being a minor allows your daughter to avoid it, unless she voids the contract ( i.e. returns the item ).

I don't know on what basis the shipper is claiming a charge for collecting the VAT, and a quick google doesn't establish it.

genou wrote:

TooOldForAllThis wrote:
But she is being pursued for VAT and the Third Partiy Company's charges for the privilege of administering it.

The VAT is due to HMRC, and I don't see that being a minor allows your daughter to avoid it, unless she voids the contract ...

Presumably the VAT is payable by the third party company to HMRC (via their VAT return) rather than necessarily recompensed by the minor to the third party.

PinkDalek wrote:

genou wrote:

TooOldForAllThis wrote:
But she is being pursued for VAT and the Third Partiy Company's charges for the privilege of administering it.

The VAT is due to HMRC, and I don't see that being a minor allows your daughter to avoid it, unless she voids the contract ...

Presumably the VAT is payable by the third party company to HMRC (via their VAT return) rather than necessarily recompensed by the minor to the third party.

I don't believe so. The importer is liable for VAT. The oddball bit here is that the shipper released the item without being paid. I'm not sure what argument you can make about "you paid it, your problem" , but the ultimate responsibility for the VAT lies with the UK purchaser.

I don't believe the company chasing are the shipping company.

The invoice arrived several weeks after the goods were delivered. So no option to return as had already been used by then.

TooOldForAllThis wrote:... not sure if I should just pay the VAT and refuse their fees, or just keep replying explaining that they are invoicing a child?

Or is a parent responsible for a child's debt?

Answering the second question first I would say the answer in a situation like this is yes - but only in the sense that a parent should accept responsibility for their child's actions.

In a purely legal sense what chas49 said is correct, in that a contract entered into by a minor is only normally enforceable if it's for necessities. It's inherently unlikely that anything bought by her on the internet would qualify as a necessity, so the company probably could not pursue it, even if they were inclined to, which is unlikely.

You should also check the T's and C's of the purchase agreement. It may say that the contract is governed by a foreign law, where the rules may differ from ours (though such clauses are often unenforceable anyway).

It surprises me that this loophole isn't used more often by unscrupulous buyers. It would seem to be very easy to order expensive goods in the name of your minor child to escape civil liability.

With regard to whether you should pay the VAT etc then again the short answer is yes, you probably should. Imports from outside the EU are normally subject to VAT and import duty, and this should have been factored in when agreeing to buy them (yes, I know your 14 year old daughter wouldn't have known, but ignorance of the law etc).

I've purchased many items from overseas, and I have never once had them detained pending payment of the VAT and import duty, neither have I had to pay the delivery firm. You normally just get an invoice from the shipper (e.g. DHL) for the amount due and pay them in the UK. In passing, I have to say that it seems a very high risk option for them, as I bet a very large number of people simply never pay, and the amounts involved would hardly justify going to court. Perhaps they have a deal with the seller whereby the seller underwrites the debt.

With regard to the amount of VAT and duty payable there's a very useful quick calculator here - http://www.dutycalculator.com/

Clitheroekid wrote:...

It surprises me that this loophole isn't used more often by unscrupulous buyers. It would seem to be very easy to order expensive goods in the name of your minor child to escape civil liability.

Surely the catch would be that the supplier can get his goods back under equity?

genou wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:...

It surprises me that this loophole isn't used more often by unscrupulous buyers. It would seem to be very easy to order expensive goods in the name of your minor child to escape civil liability.

Surely the catch would be that the supplier can get his goods back under equity?

I think the loophole is sort of moot as there will be a clause somewhere, or a tick box, or something in the terms that the buyer checks to say they are over 18. I am 99% sure the daughter will have had to confirm that at some point even if not very obviously.

We have had similar issues with the 'stepson', who is now 15 and has both Amazon and Ebay accounts. Amazon were persuaded to close the Prime thing they opened for him and charged him £80 for but they pointed out that he must have agreed to the terms which say you must be 18.

In which case it could presumably be fraud and that is a crime and the age of criminal responsibility is 10.

It's pretty impossible to stop kids doing this sort of thing, though I agree with CK that parents should take responsibility (not being the parent myself I can of course say that, I have very little control or say over what is and isn't allowed!).

Mel

melonfool wrote: he must have agreed to the terms which say you must be 18. In which case it could presumably be fraud and that is a crime and the age of criminal responsibility is 10.

The fact that a child may have lied about their age in order to enter into a contract, whilst indicating dishonesty, is not necessarily a case of fraud. The 2006 Fraud Act requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly AND that they acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another.

So whether it's reasonable to presume that an allegation of fraud would stick would depend not just upon proving the misrepresentation but also upon proving the intent to gain from it. Which leaves open the question of whether not paying a VAT bill to a third party constitutes proof that it was criminally and fraudulently intended from the outset.

If not, then this would remain a civil matter, and the ability of a child to cancel a contract would inform whether the contract could be enforced.

Lootman wrote:

melonfool wrote: he must have agreed to the terms which say you must be 18. In which case it could presumably be fraud and that is a crime and the age of criminal responsibility is 10.

The fact that a child may have lied about their age in order to enter into a contract, whilst indicating dishonesty, is not necessarily a case of fraud. The 2006 Fraud Act requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly AND that they acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another.

So whether it's reasonable to presume that an allegation of fraud would stick would depend not just upon proving the misrepresentation but also upon proving the intent to gain from it. Which leaves open the question of whether not paying a VAT bill to a third party constitutes proof that it was criminally and fraudulently intended from the outset.

If not, then this would remain a civil matter, and the ability of a child to cancel a contract would inform whether the contract could be enforced.

You have missed the point I was replying to and taken my comment out of context.

I was replying to someone who wondered why people don't get their kids to do all their ordering and then say 'ha, they're not 18, you can't hold them to the contract' - my reply was as above and, if an adult had done that it would meet the criteria you list.

Please stop twisting what I have posted.

Mel

melonfool wrote:
Please stop twisting what I have posted.

You know, you accused me of misrepresenting you yesterday and, although I had quoted you accurately, I decided to let it go. But now you've done it again and I am calling you out on it this time. You have a tendency to not fully appreciate how your comments can be perceived and then, when someone corrects you, you partially quote what they wrote out of context and claim misrepresentation.

So in fact you were misrepresenting me, and I ask you to stop doing that. Everything I stated is factually correct and adds information to the topic. If you have nothing new to add to the topic, best to not comment at all rather than take shots at others.

Lets not argue.
All facts useful to the understanding of age related legality and VAT are welcome.
Quoting and replying are often confusing when multiple people post on a single topic, lets leave it as a miss understanding and move along please.