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.

I don't like these guys much, Anyway sent DPA a while back got May 2004, decided to pay for statements £54 worth and was going to add to claim. Waited a month and received no statements so I've just rung them and been told they were never ordered!!! I was refunded the £54. Anyway going to have to estimate which makes it a bit more tricky. Prelim going today for £700 + £100 interest, i think it is more likely about 460 but as I've been suprised by the scale of other charges I don't want to underestimate. I think legally barclaycard is a penalty kick, the terms and conditions leave them no room to negotiate whatsoever although I understand it might take me a while. Updates to follow.

Hi Caro I really would try giving them a deadline, even if it's via secure message. Something like I am sorry you are unable to respond in a timely manner, as I have provided adequate warning I shall be commencing proceedings on (insert day here sometime in the next 4 days). When I did this I got a message saying don't do it, please don't commence there is a letter on its way. Easy as that.

Hi all, Data received, 2 letters sent, 2 letters firmly told no. Court action taken, acknowledged two days ago. Total claim is £3837.29 including debit interest and 8% court interest. Now it gets interesting and time to start a thread, will keep you guys informed.

Thanks for your reply surreyscouse, I was wondering if anyone had anything more definate in response? My moneyclaim online says judgement issued, would it say entered if it were final? I may write to RBS head office informing them of the judgement and try and get them to pay up anyway.

Ok this has gone a bit further and i've not posted an update for a while, i now need a bit of advice please. I filed the claim against the following defendant MINT ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC Unfortunately when sending the judgement to the register it was picked up in the queries department because it had two names instead of one. They wrote back to me asking to clarify the name. Unfortunately I have to pay £35 for this draft order before I would be able to issue my warrant of execution. Can I add this £35 to my total claim from MINT? Dave

Hi Stonelaughter I have a pending claim against MINT but for some strange reason I found the address of a branch of RBS and served it on that nowhere near where I live. However, i have since decided I should have used the RBS London Head Office Address at 135 Bishopsgate, London, United Kingdom, EC2M 3UR OR the one on the statement which would be MINT, Milton Keynes, MK77 1QA I would probably stick to the first one though. Take care to use either RBS or MINT only on the defendant name section. I tried to use both MINT and RBS and it's done nothing but confuse the court people into thinking it might be two companies setting me back at least a month!

Nickmack What address did you use to file your claim? Would be really useful as it's a bit tricky with these guys. Thanks Dave

Data Request Dated 3/3/06 (received a reply saying its X per statement) Unhappy reply these are your DPA responsibilities letter sent 14/03/06 Prelim sent 26/4/06 LBA 10/05/06 Paid today 27/05/06 Nearly three months.

Jacksy i'm at work at the moment, i'll give you a breakdown of times late this evening.

Hi Jacksy They do not want to go to court, when the 14 days are approaching from the 2nd letter (LBA) make sure they realise the implications. Re-iterate the deadline as much as you can, they really are running scared.