This topic was closed on 2019-03-08. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/06/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/06/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

We won £3980! Cheque received yesterday which includes the full sheebang right down to allocation questionnaire and no confidentiality agreement. Thanks for all your help guys particularly rbrears whose response to the stock defence is truly great. Shall be making a donation of £100 when the cheque clears, sorry it's not 5%. Survey to be completed now and if a mod should be so kind to paste the following into the (already started Dave J vs Natwest) settled thread i would be very grateful. Dave J's Mum V Natwest Claim Number 6QZ34474 (Epsom Co Court) Started 31/05/06 Settled in full 02/08/06 £3980.49

Nice one caro well done. Smile are ok I suppose but you really do need to take control with them. Enjoy

I'm not advocating going after firms that he has sent forged documents to or bet in his mums name I must make that clear once again.

The bookies are in a no win situation. Of course they are and should be, if they allow people under the age of 18 to gamble then they should not be able to profit under ANY circumstances. I'm fully aware of KYC procedures and the current courses of action they take to prevent under age betting. But, once again this was not the case in the past. They neglected it and should pay the full price as a result.

'According to his own post he didn't just lie about his age did he!' This is exactly what he did in three cases btw.

I'm sorry if i am not making myself clear. I believe that the three firms with which he did not forge any documents and bet in his own name should not be entitled to profit from his losses. I would not suggest any further action be taken where he has forged documents or bet on his mums card.

No gambling debt is recoverable by law of course. But how can it be a valid gambling debt when it is between a minor and an organisation with a bookmakers licence contravening a core aspect of that licence. It's well known in the industry that firms have tightened up the procedures with regard to underage users, but in the past it was entirely possible for someone with a solo or electron card to use online. 'Three of the six firms that I gambled with online accepted my Solo card without first checking whether I was over 18' They also did not require ID. With regard to your point about a con, i do not believe this to be the case. I'm sure he didn't go into it with the prior intention of reclaiming losses. The Government have decided rightly or wrongly that those under 18 should not be able to gamble, I presume this is because under 18s are not capable of the same decisions as their elders. An online gambling firm turns a blind eye to this, or refuses to dedicate sufficient resources to enforcing it (despite it being an implicit term of their licence). In my opinion the consequence of this to the gambling firm should NOT be to make a profit from said situation but rather to have to surrender all monies made and receive a firm wrist slapping for doing so. I cannot agree that by returning monies owed that any bookmaker would be a legitimate victim of a 'con'.

Isiris, If there is one thing this site has taught me is that terms and conditions are not the be all and end all. If a term in a contract is outside of the law then it is null and void. How can a gambling debt between a minor and a company who has a licence only to provide betting facilities to those over 18 be valid? 2.No person under the age of 18 may be registered. (taken from online gambling act 2001) Presuming that all he had to do was lie about his date of birth i cannot see how this constitutes a reasonable effort by the provider to ensure compliance.

I didn't think you came to this thread seeking to be judged so unlike others I won't do that. I would say that anything you did in someones name other than your own the company could not be expected to refund your losses. However, if you made transactions while you were underage in your own name, and funded by your own means then I think you would have some case against the operator. After all they did not take reasonable steps to prevent a minor from funding the account. Check out the gambling regs on the net. This is not advice legal or otherwise.

Received defence dated the 3rd July along with stock CPR part 18 request. Told them they were naughty for doing so but as i'm such a nice guy I will provide what i know. Used a lot of rbrears helpful legal answers to show my point without directly addressing the points they made in order. Also sent a breakdown of charges. Court copied in on all of this of course. I also have the allocation questionnaire but will wait a little while before submitting that as hopefully i will receive a full offer by then. Will keep you up to speed.

Hi Closey, May i recommend sending a secure message to "general" on the site, they should be able to forward it on. Smile will pay back your money, they just need to be told strictly and reminded of their deadlines. Good luck Dave

http://www.barclaycard.co.uk/Products/Apply/tandc.html We will charge you for any reasonable costs or losses we incur if you break this agreement, including the following charges: £20 if you do not make at least your minimum payment by the payment due date; £20 if you exceed your credit limit at any time; £20 if a direct debit, cheque or other item is not paid when first presented. I mean how easy do they want to make it, confirming the breach and the fact it IS a penalty. They will have to prove their costs and they can't.