Duty of Care to Gamblers

[leclerc]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

I appreciate that you may not necessarily agree that the bank would ordinarily have a duty of care, however I would simply say that the bank concerned had an Executive Policy to "place restrictions on the account" when they become aware of a gambling problem from either the account holder or a family member. In fact the bank went further to state that they believe they would be at fault if they did not restrict borrowing or place restrictions on the account.

So what are we discussing then? If you have that then what are you doing here if they have breached that policy and you have it in writing?

[MissFM]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

Maybe he/she's asking how to enforce it?

[matth200]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

Since I know they did not stick to their policy I know they have done wrong but I do not know how this would be viewed and whether a court or FOS would agree that they should have restricted gambling transactions. If they did agree would they ask them to pay compensation?

I do not think it is as far fetched to expect the bank to pay compensation. You may recall a case in 2004 when a man took a casino to court and won £330,000 compensation because he sometime turned up drunk to the casino and he argued the casino should have known he was a gambling addict.

[leclerc]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

Evidence is the simple manner and written correspondence copies and bank responses.

SAR the bank for the information that they have received the said correspondence and their response.

With regards to restrictions on the account, I stand by what I have said in regards to debit cards. The example given by Matt is for Business accounts and that is not the same as a personal account.

[Eloise01]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

None, and I am not sure I like the use of the word "mental competence" in Eloise's post. There are things such as power of attorney over accounts where the person is "non compos mentis" ie alzheimers/Parkinsons disease.....

Sorry - not my interpretation but the laws. Doesn't matter whether it's in English or Latin - they mean the same thing. You are either memtally competent to have control of your own legal decisions, or you are not.

[leclerc]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

Since I know they did not stick to their policy I know they have done wrong but I do not know how this would be viewed and whether a court or FOS would agree that they should have restricted gambling transactions. If they did agree would they ask them to pay compensation?

I do not think it is as far fetched to expect the bank to pay compensation. You may recall a case in 2004 when a man took a casino to court and won £330,000 compensation because he sometime turned up drunk to the casino and he argued the casino should have known he was a gambling addict.

was the case above in the UK court?

[matth200]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

Sorry it is the same for personal accounts - they can restrict, they just don't do it from the start like they do with business accounts.

[matth200]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

was the case above in the UK court?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-casino.html

[MissFM]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

do you want to talk us through the figures matth?

[wales01man]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

So alcoholics have an illness? to drink you need to spend money so if you are skint your not ill?

[leclerc]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

Sorry it is the same for personal accounts - they can restrict, they just don't do it from the start like they do with business accounts.

Do you have evidence the bank failed in any duty of care? Ultimately, that is the only issue now because I still do not agree that there is a case at the moment based solely on what has been said on the thread so far.

The case referred to was from Austria and cannot be used in a UK court for any claim.

[MissFM]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

"So alcoholics have an illness? to drink you need to spend money so if you are skint your not ill? "

---

If you're skint and an alcoholic you drink wood alcohol and go blind

[matth200]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

Do you have evidence the bank failed in any duty of care? Ultimately, that is the only issue now because I still do not agree that there is a case at the moment based solely on what has been said on the thread so far.

The case referred to was from Austria and cannot be used in a UK court for any claim.

I don't know what duty it owes to a customer or a borrower in these circumstances. I only know what standards they set themselves and that they considered that there were at fault if they did not meet these standards.

[PlanB]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

The disclosure was in writing. The bank concerned marked the account holder as not vulnerable and ignored the disclosure despite a clear admission from the account holder about their addiction. They then proceeded to allow the overdraft to be increased 15 times over a 2yr period. There was no DD facility however the account holder was allowed to use the overdraft and make debit card transactions to gambling websites and the bank did not prevent this.

Were these overdraft limit increases specifically requested by the bank customer or 'forced' upon them even in a tacit way? I assure you this matters in any assessment of "irresponsible lending" never mind vulnerability or mental health issues :rant: Perhaps a formal complaint to the bank would be appropriate first and then take it to the FOS.

Read this: http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/.../irresponsible

[leclerc]

Re: Duty of Care to Gamblers

I don't know what duty it owes to a customer or a borrower in these circumstances. I only know what standards they set themselves and that they considered that there were at fault if they did not meet these standards.

Has a complaint gone in? If you have evidence that in this case the bank could have and should have placed restrictions on an account then make a complaint to the bank over a failure in their duty to their customer.

I do not see a case under the Lending Code section 9 in regards to debts and mental health.

As far as I am aware, in regards to lending money, the only issue is affordability rather than any other thing. If the person concerned remained within their overdraft facility and had funds coming into the account then clearly they were trustworthy.

If a letter stating about a gambling addiction was sent in, then the banks' response/acknowledgement would be of interest if one was ever received.