'winning scratchcard' dispute

[Jen17 10]

2 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

They can do but after this length of time it is worthless as evidence,  as all sorts of things may have happened to the scratchcard since it was first presented.

 

If Camelot were serious about it, they would have asked the retailer to withold the card and return it to them as part of the claim process. Even then the bloke could claim that anything could have happened to the card once it left his possession which a court would have to accept unless the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it hadn't.

 

It is not on for certain people on here to conflate spending benefits on whatever the claimant chooses and benefit fraud. It is illegal to make a claim for benefits that you are not entitled to. If you are entitled to those benefits, then it is absolutely up to the claiment what they choose to spend their money on.

…… and then expect other people to provide food for them when they have been provided with the money for food !

[RollingJ 1,999]

2 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

They can do but after this length of time it is worthless as evidence,  as all sorts of things may have happened to the scratchcard since it was first presented.

 

If Camelot were serious about it, they would have asked the retailer to withold the card and return it to them as part of the claim process. Even then the bloke could claim that anything could have happened to the card once it left his possession which a court would have to accept unless the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it hadn't.

 

It is not on for certain people on here to conflate spending benefits on whatever the claimant chooses and benefit fraud. It is illegal to make a claim for benefits that you are not entitled to. If you are entitled to those benefits, then it is absolutely up to the claiment what they choose to spend their money on.

I think, and I hope @mayfa will back me upon this, irrespective of what is on the face of the card, it is the bar-code and check digits on the face which determine whether a scratch-card is a 'winner', not whatever the holder claims. These can't be altered, so it doesn't matter how long it is before it is seized as evidence.

[mafya 243]

7 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I think, and I hope @mayfa will back me upon this, irrespective of what is on the face of the card, it is the bar-code and check digits on the face which determine whether a scratch-card is a 'winner', not whatever the holder claims. These can't be altered, so it doesn't matter how long it is before it is seized as evidence.

Yes that is correct, I have lottery machines in my shops and that is how a winning scratch card is confirmed.

i suspect this whole story may have been concocted to make money from selling the story to the newspapers and that is why the guy is refusing to hand the ticket over for inspection as it will become evidence in any fraudulent claim charges.

[RollingJ 1,999]

Thanks, mayfa - although I think our comments will be disregarded by those who choose to think there is no security/checking on these cards.

 

It will be interesting to see what, if any, response we get.😀

Edited December 16, 2018 by RollingJ

[Top Cats Hat 10]

14 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I think, and I hope @mayfa will back me upon this, irrespective of what is on the face of the card, it is the bar-code and check digits on the face which determine whether a scratch-card is a 'winner', not whatever the holder claims. These can't be altered, so it doesn't matter how long it is before it is seized as evidence.

I think that you are missing the point.

 

Nobody is arguing that the ticket is valid, it clealy isn't. But to prosecute the dude for fraud, a court has to be shown evidence that he deliberately tampered with the ticket. If he says, "Oh, yes I caught my toddler and her sister messing about with the ticket and that is probably how it was defaced", a prosecution would have to prove that that either hadn't happened or was very, very unlikely. This would be heard in a magistrates' court where the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the guy had deliberately altered the ticket with the express intention of making a false claim. Short of a confession, there is no way the CPS would ever deem this case as reaching the evidential threshold for prosecution.

[RollingJ 1,999]

9 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I think that you are missing the point.

 

Nobody is arguing that the ticket is valid, it clealy isn't. But to prosecute the dude for fraud, a court has to be shown evidence that he deliberately tampered with the ticket. If he says, "Oh, yes I caught my toddler and her sister messing about with the ticket and that is probably how it was defaced", a prosecution would have to prove that that either hadn't happened or was very, very unlikely. This would be heard in a magistrates' court where the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the guy had deliberately altered the ticket with the express intention of making a false claim. Short of a confession, there is no way the CPS would ever deem this case as reaching the evidential threshold for prosecution.

To me, the fact that the guy tried to claim on it when it was (a) clearly defaced and (b) more than the set boxes had been scratched off shows he was attempting fraud, even though the chances of it succeeding were miniscule, to say the least.

 

BTW, are you a solicitor?

Edited December 16, 2018 by RollingJ

[jane2008 15]

On a scratch card you don't have to scratch any boxes off to  know whether it's a winner.  Just scratch the security code off and present it to the retailer.  You can also scratch all the boxes off it doesn't invalidate the ticket.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

6 hours ago, RollingJ said:

To me, the fact that the guy tried to claim on it when it was (a) clearly defaced and (b) more than the set boxes had been scratched off shows he was attempting fraud, 

It could show lots of things but to secure a conviction for theft or fraud, this would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court.

 

As I said earlier, unless the guy 'fesses up to fraud, the CPS will go nowhere near this.

[kidley 48]

6 hours ago, RollingJ said:

To me, the fact that the guy tried to claim on it when it was (a) clearly defaced and (b) more than the set boxes had been scratched off shows he was attempting fraud, even though the chances of it succeeding were miniscule, to say the least.

 

BTW, are you a solicitor?

You mean you know all the details please tell, with the law in the u.k the claimant is innocent, please tell us what you know ? 

[RollingJ 1,999]

8 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

It could show lots of things but to secure a conviction for theft or fraud, this would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court.

 

As I said earlier, unless the guy 'fesses up to fraud, the CPS will go nowhere near this.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or am I missing something here ? The man tries to claim on a card which is defaced (see picture un The Star), and when it fails, as it would, he tries to claim 'he's been robbed' How many more times do we have to point out that the validation is carried out via the barcode and check digits on the card?🤔

 

9 hours ago, jane2008 said:

On a scratch card you don't have to scratch any boxes off to  know whether it's a winner.  Just scratch the security code off and present it to the retailer.  You can also scratch all the boxes off it doesn't invalidate the ticket.

Thanks @jane2008

[Cyclone 10]

8 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

It could show lots of things but to secure a conviction for theft or fraud, this would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court.

 

As I said earlier, unless the guy 'fesses up to fraud, the CPS will go nowhere near this.

It seems like a fairly easy case of attempted fraud if he altered the ticket and tried to claim a prize.

[RollingJ 1,999]

8 hours ago, kidley said:

You mean you know all the details please tell, with the law in the u.k the claimant is innocent, please tell us what you know ? 

I refer you to the original story - and my reply to TCH above.

Just now, Cyclone said:

It seems like a fairly easy case of attempted fraud if he altered the ticket and tried to claim a prize.

Thanks Cyclone. I get the feeling some on here are just being intentionally thick.