Last Updated on by Top Slots Casino Online UK
Can You Get A Refund If You Are A Problem Gambler?
irresponsible gambling refund
Financial Ombudsman Service award in the vast majority of cases:
If a customer has a complaint about the affordability. If this is upheld, then interest will be refunded on the account. If there is still money owed on the account and you want cash, then the interest first clears this money and any remaining amount is refunded in cash.
Licenced by the UKGC UK Gambling Commission
Play Top UK slots online at TopSlotSite.com
Here at Top Slot Site we understand that Problem gamblers need help and often cannot afford to gamble. Companies are struggling to find solutions to this, but even if they do, gamblers cannot always get their money back. Problem gamblers have a variety of options available though, so they should be able to stop gambling without harming themselves.
Problem gamblers have been able to stop themselves from gambling or get back their lost funds by taking some steps, like self-exclusion, but it can't work for everyone and sometimes people need the services of a counsellor.
A definition and explanation on what constitutes as a problem gambler
The first place to start the discussion of problem gambling is with a definition of what it actually refers to. There's a big difference between gambling occasionally and being addicted to gambling. Problem gamblers are those who fall into the latter category rather than the former.
Problem gambling occurs when someone craves to gamble and the consequences of gambling are bad for them. The Royal College of Psychiatrists defines problem gambling as a “disruptive or damaging” phenomenon. It is estimated that 9 people in every 1,000 may suffer from this addiction.
To help figure out if you have a problem with gambling, the National Health Service has a list of questions to answer.
One question is “Frequently did you lose or gamble more money than planned on an online game?
Have you ever tried to win back your lost money from a gambling problem?
Has gambling caused any emotional or physical issues for you?
Have you ever felt guilty when you gamble?
If a person says that they gamble most of the time, then there may be an issue.
Can You Get A Refund If You Are A Problem Gambler?
Learn about Refunds for Problem Gamblers: the options you have if you are a problem gambler
Individual self-exclusion allows individuals to ban themselves from any site they choose. The self-exclusion service GamStop covers many sites, making it easier for people to quit gambling.
Self-exclusion is designed to prevent you from accessing gamblers sites, which are verified with the United Kingdom Gambling Commission, by restricting your access to the sites. You can choose to be self-excluded for 6 months, a year or 5 years with the Multipurpose Self Exclusion Scheme.
If you self-exclude yourself, then you will no longer be able to place bets with the specific company. You'll also stop receiving marketing materials and inducements to gamble. The goal is to help protect vulnerable individuals from gambling related harm.
Problems with obtaining a refund if you're a problem gambler
If someone identifies as a problem gambler and gambles but doesn’t look for assistance from self-exclusion schemes, they won’t automatically be eligible for money back after gambling. The main reason for this is that there is no proof that a person is a problem gambler.
Although people who identify as problem gamblers would be the most likely to request their money back, there needs to be a system in place to stop those who don’t have a gambling addiction from requesting it.
You can ask a many questions about gambling. For example, should a top uk slots sites company give back the money that they lost?
Problem gamblers can email for a refund of their money
Problem gamblers should be able to easily get help and gambling companies should do everything they can to help them self-exclude themselves. They shouldn’t be able to create new accounts and people who try to be sneaky should not either.
Some people who have self-excluded themselves are still able to gamble against their will. It’s not just a money issue, the people in question are frustrated that they are prevented from gambling.
Occasionally, problem gamblers who can place bets have had their money returned. The UKGC restricted these people from betting and then ordered sites to return money that has already been lost. This falls under a different bracket than just the money lost by problem gamblers.
Examples of refunds for problem gamblers
Examples of where problem gambler can get a refund
There are many examples of betting companies refunding money to customers because they were over doing it in an unchecked manner. One example is that in 2019 a person known as George who had brain damage was given a refund by multiple betting companies after it became apparent why he had been losing large amounts of money.
'George' played with the money he had won from being attacked outside of a nightclub. The issue is that he later found out that GamStop wouldn't give him his money back because they didn't notice that he had played so long after it happened. Even some companies wouldn’t give him his money back despite evidence that he did indeed have a brain injury.
An investigation by the Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation found 888 Australia to be in breach of legislation as they failed to prevent Karen Coughlan from gambling more than $/€/£130,000 in three weeks despite having told them she was self-excluded.
An unnamed gambler lost more than $/€/£134,000 playing blackjack and roulette online in eight years. He claims he didn't actively try to self-exclude himself from certain gaming sites, however; lawyers for the man argued that he was a problem gambler and bookmakers should have done more to protect him.
Betfair was ordered to give back more than $150,000 including $150,000 for one customer's withdrawal request when it was discovered that he was exhibiting red flag behaviors.
What the Law says about problem gambling
Future of online betting: The law on gambling is unclear, but the Gambling Commission was created to regulate companies who are interested in operating in UK territory. In order to serve customers in the UK, companies will have to have a permit from the Gambling Commission.
Labour has spent years trying to overhaul the legislation around online gambling, but it doesn't go far enough.
Labour's objection is that the Gambling Act was made into law in 2005 and it is not suitable for a digital age. Cases where Ladbrokes agreed to pay $1 million to victims of gambling problems and promised not to report it provides evidence that the current law might be ineffective.
The UK Gambling Commission has 3 objectives that will protect the most vulnerable from online casino, betting & gambling-related harm. One of these is protecting individuals by ensuring operators have a social responsibility.
The UKGC wants companies to proactively interact with their customers early enough and in the appropriate way so that customers will not lose control of their gambling. The Gambling Commission wants this approach to be sustainable for businesses in the long run.
How the gambling industry can be reformed
If problem gamblers cannot get their money back after the Gambling Commission has not broken the rules, there is an argument for a complete overhaul of the Gambling Act.
The major concern for the industry is that it encourages vulnerable people to start betting, even though the industry is responsible for protecting them. It has not done enough to stop money laundering and does not fulfill its social responsibility obligations.
Experts believe that about 500,000 people are problem gamblers and wonder if we should do anything to protect them. Some betting companies even stand to make a profit at the expense of problem gamblers because it helps gambling addicts keep gambling for money. Should an addict be able to indulge without any repercussions?
A balance must exist between economic freedom and social protection, but that is what Alan Budd was trying to find in his review of the gambling industry in 2001. Most would argue that it didn’t work, because we now know how technology has finally changed the industry.
A significant question is one of time: Budd’s report was published in 2001 after it was compiled for a year. It took four more years until the Gambling Act was brought in, three more before it became implemented in its entirety. If the next Act is created and takes as long to be made into law, it won’t come into effect until 2027.
Due to a lack of regulation, gambling only serves to increase problem gambling, as people are unable to have their debt repaid. The laws from the Gambling Commission say that the company has an obligation to stop problem gamblers and instruct them not to gamble if they contact them.
Companies should use their own will to protect the vulnerable from gambling, rather than relying exclusively on punters self-excluding themselves.
GET MONEY BACK Gambling
Gambling – get refunds from loans, credit cards & overdrafts
Gambling addiction - even access to easy credit doesn't fix gambling, it can make it a lot worse.
Gambling addicts were provided out-of-their-range credit, which blew their budget. They continued to gamble, incurring more debt and financial woes.
If a credit agreement is not affordable, you can ask for the money paid in interest and charges back. If you suspect that the lender will refuse, then you can take a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman where it is reviewed for validity.
But some people are finding it difficult to get a loan or credit card because of their gambling habits.
Gambling is a rapidly growing industry in Western nations, but many are struggling with gambling addiction
A lender should not give out a loan if they know the person has a gaming addiction.
It's not just payday lenders who are guilty of this. Major high street banks get involved too.
It doesn't really matter what type of credit you're lending with, as the approach is almost always the same. FOS adopts a general strategy across all lenders and different types of credit.
Find out how easy access to credit fuels gambling addiction
How FOS ↗ helps people get refunds
If a lender has included a form and the borrower forgot to answer that they have a gambling problem, they cannot argue that the borrower should have disclosed this.
Gambling isn't a discretionary expense
Bank and credit card statement showing gambling
Lenders should check all of a client's accounts when the client is applying for a loan
Warning signs that lending is causing debt
Check what the customer has to say about their experience with Easy Credit
Learn about complaints with gambling
Discover the “standard” compensation
Get a refund with FOS!
Get a refund from loans, credit cards and overdrafts gambling online - easy access to credit makes it difficult to recover
Complain for refunds - tell your gambling story
Gaming Addiction: Resources and Prevention
FOS for the gambling industry - how does it work?
A lender is not allowed to argue that the borrower should have said something different on their loan application.
In this case, if the customer bets on horse racing or basket ball, it is not relevant.
If the machine had looked at Mr H’s bank statements, it would’ve realized Mr H was gambling and that he couldn’t afford to pay back the money. I think Mr H shouldn’t be compensated because Mr Lender failed to do proportionate checks.
Gambling not just an extravagance In All Cases
Case 2: Payday UK argued that when looking at the affordability of a loan, gambling transactions did not count because they are not essential.
What does the Ombudsman consider when assessing claims for gambling refunds?
Based on bank statements, Mr C was spending a lot of his income on gambling by this point. So if the company Payday UK (with a full understanding of his circumstances) was thinking about what Mr C would have available next month, I would guess that he would have spent similar amounts on gambling.
I disagree that spending money on gambling is discretionary.
How gambling is making it onto bank statements
Case 3: SafetyNet Credit found that the borrower had access to their bank accounts. In this case, the borrower had income coming in from a good job:
Mr. M received $3,000 monthly, some months with a bonus included. However, his income doesn’t cover all the expenses he has because of the bonuses given to him
[SafetyNet Credit] had enough information about Mr M’s financial position to accurately inquire about it. The article mentioned that he was likely living beyond his means because of a gambling habit.
It is possible that the loans from SafetyNetCredit, and other lending services, were used for gambling purposes. As it seems he was stuck in a vicious cycle of borrowing and gambling.
Case 4: Vanquis increased a customer's credit card limit despite significant amounts of gambling transactions on the credit card. They decided that they would, despite evidence of user having spent a lot gambling online, continue to increase their credit card limits to the customer - without first making it clear that this would affect the customer’s spending habits).
I am not convinced that remortgaging the property for another 300 thousand pounds is an option for Mrs B. She has had thousands of pounds in gambling transactions and deteriorating credit.
Vanquis told this service that they would not discriminate against any account holder, and that it doesn’t matter how someone uses their account. Their claim is reasonable, but I still believe that the company could use deposits for gambling as a reason to close the account.
How lenders & regulators should monitor loans, credit cards, gambling accounts
In case 5, a borrower receives an overdraft limit increase and large loan despite gambling showing on his bank statements.
A cursory look at the statements of Mr. B shows he gambled significant amounts in the lead up to an overdraft increase. The month before, Mr. B had already exceeded his credit limit and was close to exceeding it again when the new rate was applied.
I felt that Mr B would have difficulty paying back the loans in the future because he couldn't sustainably repay what was already owed.
Considering the monthly loan payments of $/€/£800, I found that RBS shouldn’t have provided Mr B with a loan. They also shouldn’t have increased his overdraft limit in April 2019 when he was already struggling financially.
Case 6: Nationwide gave a customer a credit card with a large limit, $/€/£6,500, despite gambling showing on bank statements.
Worries arose when reviewing Ms B's account. She was consistently overdrawn, often by significant amounts and close to the overdraft limit.
Nationwide reported that they would not decline someone's credit application as long as they have been maintaining a consistently overdrawn balance with the company. However, despite this, it would still be expected that the consistently bad performance on Ms B's current account should be of concern and that a more in-depth check should have been done.
If Nationwide had checked the transactions in a current account of Ms B they would have released that her bank transactions included a high number of gambling transactions, which means they should have reached a different decision when approving credit accounts for Ms. B.
How lenders can spot gambling addictions
Lending Stream loaned customer over several years and argues that
The bank would not make further checks if the loans looked affordable. It was for you to provide accurate information about your income and expenses.
The Ombudsman agreed that Lending Stream did enough checks on the first loan and was entitled to rely, at that point, on the customer’s information about his outgoings.
This Lending Stream report has revealed that Mr. P is heavily in debt to several lenders who all have a claim on his funds. This means that, by the time he had borrowed from two of these lenders, his debt had greatly increased.
I think Lending Stream would have made a responsible decision if, before granting P further loans, it had looked into his current financial situation, and decided that his need for extra funding was a sign of addiction.
The customer's testimony
The Ombudsman ruled in favor of the customer and against Everyday Loans noting that it was unnecessary to inspect the account further.
Mr. C had significant gambling expenditures. He spent an amount in excess of his normal income before he applied for the loan.
The earlier bank statements show he spent large amounts on online gambling transactions. His statements were clear evidence that the spending wasn’t related to the summer football tournament as he suggested, but rather as evidence of addiction to gambling.
The borrower did not disclose the full circumstances in George Banco's guarantor loan application.
George Banco is a questionable lender because it only views repayment rates for payday loans, without any regard for the cost. Without knowledge of the continued income or the cost, George Banco has no way of making a fair lending decision. Furthermore, there are leading indicators that Joe S is struggling with his money and may have problems repaying this loan.
Examine the difficult to win complaints
Online gambling – getting refunds from loans, credit cards, and overdrafts
When the loans are small, it is difficult to win cases regardless of gambling. The lender didn't have enough information to see that the borrower would be in trouble and loans were so small detailed checks can be overlooked.
The lender agreed to remove the interest from only the last loan and accept a repayment plan while the Ombudsman said that doing so was fair because the six loans were less profitable.
It is hard to win cases when gambling becomes a problem now. If you have excellent credit and are well-paid, potential lenders may not see any red flags.
The best options for getting a refund from gambling addiction
FOS award in the vast majority of cases
If a customer has a complaint about the affordability. If this is upheld, then interest will be refunded on the account. If there is still money owed on the account and you want cash, then the interest first clears this money and any remaining amount is refunded in cash.
The result of this debt problem is that people can repay the original amount owed, but not any additional charges or interest.
Easy credit allows compulsive gambling
Normally when an account has been successfully disputed and falls under irresponsible lending, the lender would have to remove it from the borrower's credit file.
The refunds and credit records must now take into account payments made to a debt collector if the debt had been sold, and remove any CCJ, which stands for “court judgment.”
Learn how you can get refunds for loans, credit cards and overdrafts if you gamble online
People don't take people with a gambling problem seriously, until they need to borrow money.
In this case, Lloyds made an initial loan to the customer in order to buy a car. Lloyds later gave another large loan to the same customer and then found out that both loans were for gambling purposes instead of for buying a car. The second loan was not checked thoroughly before given, and the Ombudsman determined that Lloyds did not take steps to verify whether or not she would use it for gambling purposes.
A gambling block was supposed to have been activated on account 1, but funds were sent to a betting company the day thereafter. Lloyds says it used a third-party service to make the transfer, thereby negating the gambling block. I’m not entirely persuaded by this argument, as payments went to a well-known third-party payment service that transfers transactions to a high street betting company which has been informed about blocked transactions.
Lloyds decided to loan money in these circumstances, despite the fact that it was reasonably foreseeable that
if you gamble money away and don’t have it anymore, then you cannot use the money to repay your debt
It is fair and reasonable for you to eliminate the outstanding balance on my loan by writing it off. I think the circumstances of this case, the financial hardship I will experience if I am forced to pay back the money I do not have, lead me to conclude that this course of action is fair.
I think it's fair and reasonable for Lloyds to reflect what I'm asking it to do in relation to the outstanding balance on the loan and record it wrote off a balance on this loan while keeping the adverse credit information in Miss D's file.
How to voice your opinion and share your story
The complaint letter templates are not specific enough for people who would like to complain about gambling, but there is a template that can be used in most situations.
You can’t submit a complaint to the FOS if your lender has rejected it. You need to send it through the ombudsman.
Don’t let yourself think that it was your fault if you were gambling. Even if a gambler, they might not get the same results as others. Nonetheless, FOs doesn’t position themselves to blame you for gambling.
When you send a case to FOS, open the case explaining how the gambling problem interacted with the borrowing from this particular lender.
Do you need a refund from your loan, credit card or overdraft?
But If you are still gambling, it helps to do this
If you still owe the lender money, you can file an affordability complaint.
It is pointless to complain about being in debt if you still have a gambling problem.
Gambling for addicts, is a vice that is hard to overcome. I know you want to get your finances on better track, so for now you need to stop spending money gambling -- this will give you time to work on rebuilding your finances.
There are two articles you can read. "How to escape from the bad credit trap" discusses a way to escape the cycle of debt and get back on track. "Gambling wrecks your finances" looks at different ways to tackle gambling addiction, or to avoid it in the first place.
Can You Get A Refund If You Are A Problem Gambler?
The Financial Ombudsman Service Award In The Vast Majority Of Cases: If A Customer Has A Complaint About The Affordability. If This Is Upheld, Then Interest Will Be Refunded On The Account. If There Is Still Money Owed On The Account And You Want Cash, Then The Interest First Clears This Money And Any Remaining Amount Is Refunded In Cash.