The messy world of Self Exclusions

[colinsunderland]

I did have a default judgement (& a writ of control) but they finally responded to court proceedings and have applied for a set aside for which a hearing takes place in the near future (awaiting date).

I will keep the forum posted on how this develops.

Judges aren't stupid, and if you get a decent one he 'may' refuse to set it aside. It doesn't happen very often but it can.

So if you have moved to the enforcement stage are they saying not only did they not get the summons, but also the judgement?

If so you want to ask probing questions at the hearing like, have they had problems with the post, do they have a copy of the complaint to the post office, if they haven't complained, then why not. If they say they don't have problems with the post then make it clear you find it hard to believe they didn't receive not one, but two documents sent by the court, but all other mail is ok, if they say they do have problems then push as to why they haven't complained to the post office (which I'll bet they haven't). I would definitely contest the application though.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Judges aren't stupid, and if you get a decent one he 'may' refuse to set it aside. It doesn't happen very often but it can.

So if you have moved to the enforcement stage are they saying not only did they not get the summons, but also the judgement?

If so you want to ask probing questions at the hearing like, have they had problems with the post, do they have a copy of the complaint to the post office, if they haven't complained, then why not. If they say they don't have problems with the post then make it clear you find it hard to believe they didn't receive not one, but two documents sent by the court, but all other mail is ok, if they say they do have problems then push as to why they haven't complained to the post office (which I'll bet they haven't). I would definitely contest the application though.

They say they didn't receive the initial claim docs sent by the court, though they did acknowledge my LBA sent to the same address prior to that. They didn't respond to the claim docs at all so I applied for default judgement which I was given. I then had it transferred up to get a writ of control which was granted and handed to the HCEO I had engaged. But later that same day I was notified that they had applied for a set aside application hearing and the case was transferred to my local court. Obviously I let my HCEO know and under advice asked the HCEO to pause with any enforcement action (they were about to send their initial letter of enforcement). Since then I have received a copy of their set aside application which cites not receiving the initial court claim docs, an unawareness of any debt and being given extra time to defend claim. They have also applied to set the writ aside, so as you say their postal system works on some occasions.

I do intend to contest their set aside application and along the lines you suggest. It seems this sort of tactic is rife in money claims with defendants completely ignoring all process until a default judgement is granted. Even then in this case they waited almost 2 weeks to request a set aside application following DJ.

As others have noted, consumer law overrides any unfair T&Cs.

I did make one final attempt directly to them to avoid further action but their position on it remains unchanged. I did make it clear I have every intention of seeing it through right to the end though. Which I most certainly do.

 

[harmont]

I'm currently in the process of taking a major online operator to court to get a judgement on a failed self exclusion cross brand situation. I was self excluded for problem gambling reasons 4 years ago from one of their brands yet was able to open a new account with their other brand late last year using exactly the same information even down to the security question and answer. They didn't raise any concerns about a 5 figure sum being deposited and lost in a few weeks spread across many deposits with near 16 hour daily sessions and only spotted the cross brand self exclusion once I phoned them to close the account having lost everything. They're response was to finally implement the self exclusion on both accounts, but they point blank refused to refund the deposits citing their cross platform policy only came into effect 4 days after I opened my most recent account.

I'm fairly confident of defeating their arguments in court and whilst it has cost me another 4 figures to get to this stage I am glad I have taken this route, because I cannot be the only self excluded customer to have fallen foul of this major companie's failure to collate databases across their two huge brands. They know that any ruling in court could create a snowball effect of similar action from those same customers yet they seem determined to get into that court room where there will be no hiding place in regards to evidence and their internal processes.

I did have a default judgement (& a writ of control) but they finally responded to court proceedings and have applied for a set aside for which a hearing takes place in the near future (awaiting date).

I will keep the forum posted on how this develops.

I wish you all the best. Dealing with them can be daunting. I hope you get the outcome you deserve.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I wish you all the best. Dealing with them can be daunting. I hope you get the outcome you deserve.

Thanks, Harmont. And rest assured I will be shouting it from the rooftops so others, because there must be other self excluded accounts caught up in this mess, can take similar action and recover their lost deposits that should never have been accepted by either brand.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Short update - I've now engaged a solicitor with experience in these matters. And the set aside hearing is now scheduled in the new year.

 

[Arch Stanton]

A related point to cross brand self exclusions that has come to light. With so many mergers going on these days it appears some of these big names are actively seeking to avoid taking responsibility for their inherited self excluded customers, just as Paddy Power did when they acquired Betfair.

Recently Ladbroke Coral was formed from 3 different brands. Pre that merger Ladbrokes self excluded accounts were automatically self excluded with their sister brand Betdaq and vice versa. However, this is not carried through between Ladbrokes/Betdaq and Coral accounts despite them all being the same company.

In fact Ladbroke Coral okayed this approach with the Gambling Commission before it arose. They actively sought to absolve themselves of any responsibility in this important aspect of their operations.

How can it be sensible or morally right that a problem gambler SE'd from Ladbrokes and Betdaq can hold an account with Coral when Ladbroke Coral know full well that account holder is a problem gambler and SE'd from their other sites?

Unbelievable really and shame on the GC for green lighting the arrangement.

 

[colinsunderland]

Not sure how I missed this, but,
an unawareness of any debt
how can they claim that if they admit to getting the LBA?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Colin - Well, quite. I'll find out in about a month.

 

[Rach23]

Any update on the court case?

Thanks

 

[peter160682]

Ahy updates on how this turned out? Please tell me well for u Arch?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Ahy updates on how this turned out? Please tell me well for u Arch?

Still on going in the court system. Set aside application for them was successful but they had to pay my barrister costs which they did. Case has been put in the fast track, just awaiting further direction from the court.

Anyone thinking of doing likewise, be aware of the time frames involved. This has been over a year since bringing the claim and after the set aside hearing the judge asked me to expand and amend my claim details which I did and sent registered to the court and defendant. The court somehow lost those docs though wasting 6 weeks and I had to resubmit. I'm still confident I have a strong case and the amended claim details sets it out very strongly the various areas where they failed. If it gets in a court room and I win, then I'd expect many others will start similar actions for very similar reasons. Remember the Gambling Act specifies licensees have to abide by any code of conduct the Gambling Commission sets out in writing (the LCCP). In this case the operators did not.

 

[peter160682]

I have a similar issue with a large online bookmaker. You seem very knowledgable on the issue, i hope it all works out for you. Best of luck & keep us posted!

 

[colinsunderland]

Anyone thinking of doing likewise, be aware of the time frames involved.

Also be aware of the law and be sure you have legal basis for claim. Too many times I've seen people stick some half assed claim in that is a waste of time and can cost you a lot of money if it gets kicked out and they are awarded costs.

Arch Stanton, I would (if you haven't already) do a SAR on them too, specifically request copies of live chats, account history, all notes on the account, any telephone calls recorded. What you actually want are the account notes (but request everything so it doesn't stand out), as it goes to the DPO rather than the legal team they might not know about the legal action, and give you notes saying they got the original claim or something equally as bad for them.

 

[peter160682]

Still on going in the court system. Set aside application for them was successful but they had to pay my barrister costs which they did. Case has been put in the fast track, just awaiting further direction from the court.

Anyone thinking of doing likewise, be aware of the time frames involved. This has been over a year since bringing the claim and after the set aside hearing the judge asked me to expand and amend my claim details which I did and sent registered to the court and defendant. The court somehow lost those docs though wasting 6 weeks and I had to resubmit. I'm still confident I have a strong case and the amended claim details sets it out very strongly the various areas where they failed. If it gets in a court room and I win, then I'd expect many others will start similar actions for very similar reasons. Remember the Gambling Act specifies licensees have to abide by any code of conduct the Gambling Commission sets out in writing (the LCCP). In this case the operators did not.

 

[peter160682]

I don't know if this information helps, hinders or has any relevance to your case but i self excluded from Ladbrokes 04/04/14. I was permitted to open an account with Betdaq 10 days later 14/04/14 completely unaware the two were one & the same company (& had been for a year or so previously). This was only brought to my attention earlier this year.

I put this to Betdaq & even though they & ladbrokes had been together for a year or so, Betdaq claimed a term in their T's & C's freed them from responsibility.


2.5 From 8th April 2014, BETDAQ and the Ladbrokes website (

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

) have operated a joint self exclusion program (the "Program"). Under this Program, any exclusion requested after 8th April 2014 (and not before) on the BETDAQ website will result in your details being sent to the self-exclusion team at Ladbrokes who will close any account held with

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

with the same details within a reasonable period, such period will be detailed on the Ladbrokes terms and conditions

 

[brizman]

Any update on how this case ended?

 

[slot_zombie]

Any update on how this case ended?

Probably with a judgment for the claimant or the defendant.