Scotland simple procedure

[Abcd123]

Hi any help would be appreciated. An independsnt bookmakers has taken me to court in scotland using the simple procedure claiming i have a debt outstanding. I submitted a defence disputing the bslance since they had only selected certain bets to show a debit bslance when in fact the account was in credit. I have repeaedly requested recovery of documents to prove the balance i.e. receipts and customer statement but these have been blankly refused with a claim that rdcords are destroyed after 6 months. I subsequently lodged a counter claim for a winning bet which was a higher value than the debit. I have taken advice from hmrc, gambling commision and the independent betting adjudication service who all state that records should have been kept much longer. A case management discussion was held and i was told the onus is on me to prove the higher value bet. Dispite the records being witheld by the bookmakers. Any advice how to proceed at the proof diet?

Thanks in advance

[jaguarsuk]

When the credit has been advanced did you enter into a credit agreement with the book maker?

Also, are they authorised by the FCA to provide credit?

[Abcd123]

No written agreement. Not sure uf FCA operate in scotland? According to gambling commission credit can be offered for bets if certain checks are made. They weren't, but cant be proven without records. My defence is based on requesting them to provide the records. But it seems to have turned at the case management discussion to the onus being on me to prove my counter case. Is it now too late to change defence?

[jaguarsuk]

No written agreement.

The problem is that you have basically admitted a loan was given by virtue of your counterclaim. I think you need to post up, with identifying details removed a copy of your response forms.

Not sure uf FCA operate in scotland?

They do and anyone lending money without being authorised by them is doing it illegally.

According to gambling commission credit can be offered for bets if certain checks are made. They weren't, but cant be proven without records. My defence is based on requesting them to provide the records. But it seems to have turned at the case management discussion to the onus being on me to prove my counter case. Is it now too late to change defence?

I'm not au fait with Scottish procedure, so don't know what the process or cost would be to amend a defence.

Of course the burden of proof is on you to prove your counter claim because without reading the defence based on what's written here you have basically admitted the loan and are saying no money is owed because you are owed what is in your counter claim. Therefore you need to substantiate the counter claim for your defence to succeed.

You have kind of done the other sides job for them.

[Abcd123]

Thanks for the advice. And is it feasible to withdraw the counterclaim? Are there implications of doing this

[jaguarsuk]

Thanks for the advice. And is it feasible to withdraw the counterclaim? Are there implications of doing this

You can end the counter claim, but that won't change the fact you have basically admitted the loan.

You defence should have been that the bets were free bets, you didn't take out a loan, produce a credit agreement and your not registered to provide credit.

Anyone here is shooting blind with advice though because we haven't seen either the claim, your defence or counter claim to be able to truly advise you of position.