home | about us | contact | site map | credits | disclaimer | bookmark

Online Casino News


Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The small claims court


Gambling operations located in the UK come under the authority of the UK Gambling Commission. O Happy Day, I hear you say - if it's Great Britain, it can only be great.

Well, no. In fact, it's actually potentially quite bad, because the Commission, uniquely amongst regulators, does not enforce payment or even investigate payment disputes against operators, requiring the matter to be dealt with by a third party which is, to cap it all, appointed by the operator itself and potentially anything but independent.


However, the bad news ends there. The good news is that a gambling operation located in the UK is subject to the UK legal system, and for payment disputes of £5000 and under there is a relatively simple procedure known informally as the Small Claims Court.


The Small Claims Court - or, more properly, the Small Claims Track, there being no actually distinct court which deals with these claims - comes at a maximum cost of £120 for claims up to the £5000 limit. However, as fees are subject to change, you'd be advised to check with the court at the time of your claim.


The first thing to do is to fill in the claim form:


Claimant: your name.

Defendant(s): the operation that owes you the money.

Brief details of claim: give a summary of the matter.

Value: how much you are owed.

Defendants name and address: name and address of the company that owes the money.

Amount claimed: the sum owed.

Court fee: see above - check with the court.

Solicitor's costs: hopefully you're not using one, so this will be "0".

Total amount: this should simply be the amount of the claim again, unless you want to try and claim back the court fee.

Particulars of Claim: a full, detailed description of the matter, including all action you have taken to the present moment, including your attempts to settle the matter amicably with the operation in question.



On that last point, it's a requirement of the system that you try to achieve a resolution first with the operator. If you do not do this, you can invalidate your claim. The courts are a last, not first, resort.


Once you've completed the form, send or take TWO copies to wherever you'd like the hearing to take place - you can use the court-finder to locate the nearest to you. Don't forget to include the fee, which you can pay by cash, cheque or debit card.


When the court receives your claim form, they'll forward it to the operation in question, who will decide whether or not to defend the action. By far the best option for you, assuming you have a watertight case, is that the operator decides at this point to forget about withholding your money and pay you.


If they decide to contest the matter things get more complicated, and you can find details of the whole procedure in the "for people whose dispute has gone to court" document.


In brief: you'll be sent further documentation to fill in, and you'll also have to liase with the defendant so that you each know what the other is submitting. Once this is taken care of, you'll be given a hearing date.

At any point in the procedure the operator may decide to settle your claim to avoid going to court.


According to information I received from my local county court by telephone: if you are not located in the UK and cannot come to the UK for any of the above procedures, you can write out an authorisation for someone to act on your behalf and sign it, which your representative will then give to the court when presenting your documents. If you cannot attend the hearing, you can write to the court and ask them to go ahead in your absence, which they will do.

I am not clear as to whether or not a representative can act on your behalf at the hearing, but this could be clarified once the wheels are in motion and the particulars of your case are on record.


Three other useful links:

Direct Gov: small claims hearings

This is money: how to make a small claim

Advice guide: small claims

HM Courts: civil and family court fees



2 Previous Comments


Hiya Caruso, eek here (long time no see)

You will find that there are precedents for gambling cases from decades ago.
The basic underlying principle is the courts want absolutely nowt to do with gambling disputes.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:42 am  


Eek baby, excellent to hear from you. Drop me an email or something.

Take a look here: Betfair Happy Hour resolution.

Now, fair to say that it was resolved PRE-court, but all documents were served on Betfair, and the thing was all set to go ahead. Frankly, what they want to deal with is their problem; if the matter lies within their jurisdiction, I'd say they're fair game to mediate.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 2:46 pm  


Post a Comment

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Gamcare advocates gambling education in schools


Gambling charity Gamcare announced a few days ago that it was advocating and advising the government on the inclusion of gambling education in the national school curriculum:


GamCare calls for responsible gambling education to be part of the school curriculum


One of GamCare's core aims is to ensure that gambling remains safe for all – and this is particularly relevant for young people.

For the vast majority, gambling is a pleasurable leisure pursuit. But we also know that at any one time some 60,000 12-15 year olds may already be problem gamblers – a prevalence rate of 2%, more than twice that for adults. The answer to this must lie in better education – for teenagers, parents and teachers.

The DfE's review gives us the chance to make the case that the PSHE curriculum should raise awareness about the potential risks of gambling and include information about understanding risk and probability, and how to gamble responsibly.



You can also read the consultation response document, in which the charity lays out its case in full, and concludes thus:


It is for these reasons that we would strongly recommend that responsible gambling be taught as a core element of PSHE education, particularly since it cuts across the themes of health and personal finance.



Well, yes and no. Or maybe yes/no and no.


In the first place, you couldn't make a much better case for closing the door after the horse has bolted than the current situation. This new found exposure to gambling in the UK is in large part a consequence of New Labour's 2005 Gambling Act, which facilitated much greater access to the activity. Gamcare acknowledges this in the above document:


At the same time - as allowed by the changes in legislation brought in by the Gambling Act 2005, implemented in 2007 - there has been a significant increase in advertising (allowed on broadcast media for the first time) television sponsorship and celebrity endorsement of gambling products.



Given that the UK was set for a new level of gambling saturation, why not put the education in place first? All this proposal does is to effectively put a sticking plaster on an open wound that is not going to close. If Gamcare is concerned about "problem gambling", why did they not offer opposition to the government before the legislation was passed and the floodgates opened? Why did they not offer a programme of education in the first instance, in the name of responsibility?


Writing in the Daily Mail, columnist Melanie Phillips argues that to create a problem then seek to inadequately address it is wrong in principle:


GamCare's chief executive says that one of its core aims is to ensure that gambling 'remains safe for all'. But gambling is 'safe' for no one. The overwhelming likelihood is that at the very least the gambler will lose his or her money on the bet.



This is largely correct. A very, very small proportion of gamblers see a positive return on their stake in the long run. The vast majority loses. This is because to win in the long run you need a mathematical edge, and the process of gaining that edge over gambling operations is very difficult, requiring a level of skill and knowledge to which the vast majority can never aspire.


It may be surprising to see this rather free-and-easy attitude towards gambling on the part of Gamcare, until we note that it has substantial funding from the gambling industry itself - here is a list of sponsorship acquired for Gamcare by the Great Foundation, which includes a few big names.

Bet365 Ltd
William Hill plc
Microgaming Software Systems Ltd
Sportingbet plc
Betfair
Aspinalls Club Ltd
Camelot Group plc
Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers
Gala Coral Group
London Clubs International

So, not exactly disinterested sponsorship.


Of course, having allowed the horse to squarely vanish from the stable without a whimper of protest, Gamcare can make a case for education to address the problem that they, in part, created through their earlier inaction. They do not give any specifics in the consultation document, beyond saying:


GamCare believes that an understanding of the ways in which gambling activities operate including probability and risk management should be built in to this element of the PSHE curriculum.



The reference to "risk management" is largely nonsensical when the reality is complete loss of funds. If I throw five £20 notes in the fire, I am not "risking" anything, I am losing my money. The issue of probability is relevant, although I do not expect Gamcare to present this topic in such a way as to dissuade.


And the irony is that it would not be difficult to put together a simple programme of education which would have the result, at least in large part, of stopping youngsters from gambling. Having written the content of this site, I would have no such difficulty myself in explaining the unbalanced nature of odds (maybe using the simple example of a roulette wheel) and the way in which bookies generate commission in almost the exact same way that retail banks do, where rates for savers do not match the rates for loans.


However, on the basis of what we've seen to date, I don't expect any dissuasion tactics from Gamcare; I expect talk about not risking more than you can afford to lose; how responsible gambling can be an enjoyable pastime if not taken to excess; and other variations on that theme.


Maybe if Gamcare was not itself funded by the industry that creates the problems it ostensibly seeks to address, it might do a more creditable job in the care of gamblers that appears to be its mandate.



1 Previous Comments


Sounds like a good way to introduce children to gambling, who otherwise would'nt bother play.

By Blogger Sandracer, at 3:19 pm  


Post a Comment


May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | Atom feed
© 2005 hundred percent gambling

ONLINE CASINO NEWS

• Online casino news


2016

• Can't split 10s?
• Overbetting
• EV charts
• The IPCA
• Basic strategy master
• Back to the future
• Site hack

2015

• Better comp value
• Pit bosses are a pest
• 32Red buys Roxy Palace
• Winneronline is gone
• Paradise Win Casino
• Blackjack simple strategy

2014

• Court refuses Ivey winnings
• Phil Ivey versus Crockfords
• 32Red does the right thing
• Wizard Of Odds sold
• Gambling addict sues Ritz
• Better blackjack conditions
• FL: the beat goes on
• Phil Ivey and the Borgata
• LadbrokesFOBT profit
• Chat with the Met
• "Bonus abuse" and the Met
• Casino industry crooks.
• Debate to curb the FOBTs
• Labour idea to ban FOBTs

2013

• Ruby Fortune: terms buried
• Royal Vegas: bad outcome
• Russia illegalises gambling
• RV: player breaks no rules
• Gib casinos and UK laws
• The GGC (GRA) useless
• BetFred rigged games 9
• BetFred rigged games 8
• Betfred rigged games 7
• BetFred rigged games 6
• BetFred rigged games 5
• BetFred rigged games 4
• Phil Ivey: is he entitled?
• BetFred rigged games 3
• Betfred rigged games 2
• BetFred: rigged games 1
•  UK GLA Act 2013
• 888.com and Facebook
• Crockfords denies Phil Ivey
• Bad dealers
• Betfair Blackjack test
• Playtech software update
• Cheap blackjack
• Hippodrome Casino

2012

• The UK's FOBT addiction
• Conan Casino beware
• Intercasino misleading
• Fortune Lounge
• UK Gambling Commission

2011

• Small Claims Court
• Gamcare
• Full Tilt Poker saved
• Full Tilt ponzi scheme
• Casino Barcelona
• Irakli Kacharava
• Betfair processor no pay
• Full Tilt licensing meeting
• UK Gambling Commission
• Full Tilt Poker investors
• Full Tilt license suspended
• Twitter
• Betfair resolution
• Casino Web Scripts 2
• 32Red bonus marketing
• Casino Web Scripts 1
• Poker domains seized
• eCOGRA independent?
• Easystreet Sports theft
• Betfair to Gibraltar
• Rigged blackjack 2
• Betfair responses
• Rigged blackjack
• 888.com theft
• Betfair poker problem
• UK gambling controls
• Harry Reid

2010

• eWallet Xpress
• Kevin Stillmock
• Blog back up
• Betfair happy hour
• Ladbrokes bonus increase
• Absolute Poker tricks US
• Absolute Poker rigged
• Last position no difference
• Basic strategy simplified
• Online casino bonuses
• Righthaven LLC
• Ladbrokes bonus rules
• Malta LGA nonsense
• Purple Lounge theft
• UK affiliates issue
• Online casino problems
• GPWA code of conduct
• One Club Casino problems
• Rushmore theft resolved
• Realtime Gaming cheats
• Absolute Poker Ultimate Bet
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Ask gamblers service
• Intercasino bonus terms
• Profitting from poverty
• Gambling dooms UK to ruin
• Want To Stop Gambling
• Gambling Therapy
• Gordon Moody Association
• Breakeven
• Online gambling jobs
• Gamblock
• Gamble Aware
• Gamblers Anonymous
• Gamcare
• Video poker auto hold
• Gambling Wages help offer
• Blackjack double down
• Intercasino rules
• Tradition Casino warning
• Tradition Casino problem
• Be The Dealer
• eCOGRA approved casinos
• UK underage gambling
• iGaming Super Show
• eCOGRA reputable portals
• eCOGRA exposed
• Slots Oasis warning
• Slots Oasis problem
• HR 2267 comments
• HR 2267 proposed bill
• Search fully functional
• Gambling hearing delayed
• Betfair download blackjack
• Betfair blackjack
• The Federal Wie Act
• Casino Rewards warning
• Kahnawake dumps GP
• GP dumps Microgaming
• UK online gambling
• Gambling checklist
• Online casino problems
• Gambling Grumbles
• Casino Rewards
• Brian Cullingworth
• Casino Wager Tracker
• Grand Prive affiliates
• Jackpots Heaven Casino
• Kahnawake commission
• UK gambling problem
• eCOGRA and Grand Prive
• Bet365 misleading bonus
• Mastercard and Visa
• Online gambling rules
• 32Red sign up bonus
• Ladbrokes data theft
• Ladbrokes unfair settlement
• Palace group bonus rules
• Grand Prive and eCOGRA

2009

• Blackjack in the UK
• Seminole Hard Rock
• The APCW and MG
• Sportsbook.com
• Slot beaters slot strategy
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Paddy Power affiliates
• Slots
• 888.com problem
• The UIGEA
• Neteller contest winner
• 888.com bonus problem
• Casino Club meeting
• Online casino directory
• 32Red debit card bonus
• Blue Square Casino
• Budapest Affiliate Expo
• Rushmore payment issues
• Modern Blackjack volume 1
• Eurolinx certain insolvency
• Buzzluck winnings theft
• PaddyPower removed
• 32Red lawsuit
• William Hill Casino Club
• Betfair video poker
• APCW underage children
• Odds page updates
• VP Genius
• Video poker page updates
• Blackjack page updates
• Progression page updates
• Single deck page updates
• Betfair Playtech license
• Cherry Red Casino
• Online gambling debate
• William Hill & Teddy Sagi
• Rogue casinos section
• Pontoon correction
• Microgaming poker scandal
• Casino Club confiscation
• Casino Club steals €8000
• Villa Fortuna Casino
• Grand Prive affiliate issue
• CAP and Cardspike 2
• Virgin Casino bad results
• CAP and Cardspike 1

2008

• iNetbet removal from site
• Mario Galea and Malta LGA
• Cold Mountain Resort
• The AGCC
• Moneybookers privacy
• Virtual Casino rebranding
• Captain Jack Casino
• Royal Ace Casino
• Ringmaster Casino
• Catseye Casino
• Lucky Palm Casino
• Pharaohs Gold Casino
• Goldstream Casino
• Plantet 7 Casino
• Betfair bonus confiscation
• Malta LGA worthless
• The GIA
• Interwetten theft of £5000
• Lucky Ace winnings stolen
• The KGC and Absolute

2007

• HippoJo Casino
• Microgaming All Aces VP
• Neteller issues
• Lou Fabiano responds
• Lou Fabiano selling stats
• Betfair Zero Lounge
• ICE 2007 brief visit
• RTG cancels ICE visit

2006

• Crystal Palace Casino theft
• eCOGRA & Jackpot Factory
• English Harbour cheating
• Boss Media single deck
• Bella Vegas / Grand Prive
• The KGC worthless
• Gambling Federation
• Playtech sued
• Meeting Andrew Beveridge
• Playtech confirmed listing
• African Palace Casino
• G-Fed ICE discussion
• Playtech ICE meeting
• Playtech issues escalation
• Chartwell hands off

2005

• Crystal Gaming silence
• Price Waterhouse Cooper
• Crystal Gaming flotation 2
• Vegas Frontier
• Crystal Gaming flotation 1
• Playtech public listing
• African Palace & Indio
• Kiwi Casino
• Rochester Casino
• G-Fed theft 2
• Warren Cloud best avoided
• Golden Palace stupidity 3
• Golden Palace stupidity 2
• G-Fed theft 1
• Golden Palace stupidity 1
• Russia online expansion
• Wan Doy Pairs Poker
• Microgaming CPU usage
• Net Entertainment RNG
• Cryptologic & William Hill
• Casino growth slow
• English Harbour paying
• Fraudster or not
• Blackjack surrender
• Integrity casino group audit