Dealings with SpreadEx

I had an account with Spreadex and Sporting Index which I used mostly for 50-25-10-5 bets on horseracing. Both accounts were closed even though I only won a small 4 figure sum over a period of six months approx.

They can charge you interest, but write tham a sob story, redundancy etc. and it's likely they will cancel the interest imo.

As you've been paying them monthly for two years with interest, they might even write the balance off.


Pity you hadn't posted two years ago!

Unless they have it in their t&c's



They do anfield. Far better to write tham a sob story imo.

"Unless they have it in their t&c's"

"They do anfield. Far better to write tham a sob story imo"

Doesn't make a jot of difference if it is in their t&cs or not, quite frankly.

Have they acted fairly? Reasonably?

I think not. I've never heard of a bookmaker adding on interest to gambling debts. Especially as if your credit rating was that poor you should never have been allowed to owe that much.

Get some proper legal advice, but you can start with googling "The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999"

I would tell them that you are going to pay back the balance of 1k, and if they want any more, they can take you to court (1.01 they won't)

Good luck. (If this is a serious thread)

*correctly

"TheMaskedAvenger, no offence, but anyboby on here with spread betting experience will know that, not only do spread firms have different rules from bookmakers, but thay also are a law upon  to themselves. They have greater powers than credit card companies. If I'm wrong, no doubt somebody on here will have me stood correteds prompmtly.

No offence taken, stewartyb. However, you are wrong.

The only difference that used to be the case from a legal point of view was that spread betting debts were recoverable. Obviously this has changed so that all gambling debts are recoverable since the Gambling Act came into force in 2007.

To say "they are a law unto themselves" makes no sense whatsover, they have to abide by the laws of the country they are registered in and take bets from. (I am of course assuming that the OP lives in the UK).I would be almost certain that adding on any form of interest to a gambling debt, let alone the extortionate amount indicated by the OP would be deemed "unfair" under the UTCCR that I referred to previously.

My original advice stands.

It is quite correct that pre 2007 they operated in a different manner and were more like companies who sold shares, this was because they were regulated by the FSA, (I assume they still are?) as opposed to bookmakers who were effectively unregulated.

But I still maintain that they would have no legal basis for charging anything like that amount of interest (if anything!)

Don't forget, it was found that banks were acting unfairly by charging a customer up to £40 simply for a cheque bouncing or being overdrawn by a few pence. Maybe it needs another court case here to decide if this is the same

This customer clearly got in way over his head and the company were unquestionably negligent in allowing him such a level of credit.

Despite this, they have paid back almost all of what they owe over a reasonable time frame in a responsible manner.

I've calculated that the person has paid back £292 per month on the original debt, and for a normal situation this would be paid off in another 3-4 months. As it is, he will be paying this amount for an additional year.

I've further calculated that he is being charged a rate of 2% per month, and he will have paid almost 4k in interest on top of the original 8.

Many companies have had to write off debts (either in part or in full) when a person has got into financial difficulty. They are lucky that the OP clearly has shown that they are willing to repay it.

It's probably more than they deserve for not doing proper checks on him, I see no reason why they should be enriched as a result.

*Martin Lewis is his name.

Don't forget, it was found that banks were acting unfairly by charging a customer up to £40 simply for a cheque bouncing or being overdrawn by a few pence. Maybe it needs another court case here to decide if this is the same Confused


Heres a cracker for you TheMaskedAvenger from today's paper......



Bank faces probe call......



"It comes after radio 4's Money Box found Santander customers overdrawn by £100 for []28[/b] days must repay £200-an APR of 819,100 per cent.

Yes you read that figure correctly. Where are the FSA for this cracker?????


That figure doesn't even come close to the legalised money lenders allowed to operate on our high streets in our country.


I'd rather borrow from Paul Ferris......

Ferris would have run a credit check on you and your whole family. . . .




Not mine, but even he couldn't beat that bank with -an APR of 819,100 per cent......