Scratchcards and under 16s

[ARW]

Is there any legal reason you cannot buy a scratchcard (in this case a
National Lottery one) for someone under 16 years of age?

--
Adam

[the Omrud]

On 24/12/2015 12:25, ARW wrote:
> Is there any legal reason you cannot buy a scratchcard (in this case a
> National Lottery one) for someone under 16 years of age?

I suspect there's very little to stop you buying it, but the under-16
person would not be entitled to claim any prize.

--
David

[Norman Wells]

"ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n5go37$mkc$1...@dont-email.me...

> Is there any legal reason you cannot buy a scratchcard (in this case a National
> Lottery one) for someone under 16 years of age?

"As a general rule, the minimum legal age for gambling in the UK is 18 years old.
This applies to adult gaming centres, betting shops, bingo halls, casinos,
racetracks and online gambling. The exceptions to this are the National Lottery,
lotteries and football pools – you’re allowed to take part in these from the age of
16 as well as some non-commercial gambling, or low stakes and prizes gambling.
However, some gaming machines, such as coin pushers, teddy grabbers and some lower
stakes fruit machines in family entertainment centres and amusement arcades don’t
have a minimum legal age and are open to anyone. Note that a person who is over the
age of 16 and under 18 who participates in gambling (not permitted under these
exemptions) is also guilty of a criminal offence."

http://www.gambleaware.co.uk/gambling-and-regulations-who-is-responsible

[ARW]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:de2don...@mid.individual.net...

>
> "ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:n5go37$mkc$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Is there any legal reason you cannot buy a scratchcard (in this case a
>> National
>> Lottery one) for someone under 16 years of age?
>
> "As a general rule, the minimum legal age for gambling in the UK is 18
> years old.
> This applies to adult gaming centres, betting shops, bingo halls, casinos,
> racetracks and online gambling. The exceptions to this are the National
> Lottery,

> lotteries and football pools - you're allowed to take part in these from

> the age of
> 16 as well as some non-commercial gambling, or low stakes and prizes
> gambling.
> However, some gaming machines, such as coin pushers, teddy grabbers and
> some lower
> stakes fruit machines in family entertainment centres and amusement
> arcades don't
> have a minimum legal age and are open to anyone. Note that a person who
> is over the
> age of 16 and under 18 who participates in gambling (not permitted under
> these
> exemptions) is also guilty of a criminal offence."
>
> http://www.gambleaware.co.uk/gambling-and-regulations-who-is-responsible
>

Thanks for the link that tells me that over 16s can buy scratchcards.

--
Adam

[Fredxxx]

On 24/12/2015 12:25, ARW wrote:

> Is there any legal reason you cannot buy a scratchcard (in this case a
> National Lottery one) for someone under 16 years of age?

This is what the National Lottery say:

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/gamestore/scratchcards/rules#int_Buying

"The following people cannot buy a Scratchcard (and Camelot will not be
liable to pay a Prize to them):
(a) anyone under the age of 16, whether that person is buying it
for themselves or anyone else;"

It's not difficult to find.

[Janet]

In article <n5jckf$jpd$1...@dont-email.me>, fre...@nospam.com says...

Far better to buy the under-16 some premium bonds. The chance of
winning lasts a lifetime or can easily be cashed in for the face value.

Janet

[tim.....]

"Janet" <nob...@home.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.30e7edb...@news.individual.net...

I suspect that it's not easy if they have been bought for a minor by a
relation

to cash them in later, the now adult is going to have to match the signature
of the purchaser, which isn't them

tim

[Robin]

ARW wrote:
> Is there any legal reason you cannot buy a scratchcard (in this case a
> National Lottery one) for someone under 16 years of age?

I think you knew already that someone under 16 cannot lawfully buy a
scratchcard :)

For what little it's worth, my (sadly) only slightly hungover view is
that the Omrud has already given you the right answer. But spelling it
out ISTM your question covers 2 possible scenarios:

(i) an adult buying a scratchcard as a *gift* for someone under 16
(the "Ho! Ho!" Ho! option"); and
(ii) an adult buying a scratchcard as *agent* for someone under 16
using the child's money (with a sub-set where the adult takes a profit
on the deal - the "Scrooge variation").

But I don't think that difference matters since in both cases:

a. they can't touch you for it. It ain't like tobacco, alcohol etc
where there are laws against giving them to children and against proxy
purchases; but
b. the child can't claim the prize: the right to a prize is not
transferable.

FWIW it occurs to me there may be a "legal avoidance" scheme on the
lines of:

a. you buy a scratchcard;
b. you pass the card physically to the child (but without any
transfer of ownership in it) with the promise that if the child
scratches it and passes it back to you then you will give the child all
(or some) of any winnings.

But I don't think you can make it an enforceable contract where the
minor gains a legal right to your winnings in return for the scratching.
And you're on your own if it turns out not to be *legal* avoidance and
eg social services still come after you for child labour or whatever.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[polygonum]

I suspect few people buy a hundred scratch cards (assuming £1 each).

NS&I say "have £100 or more to invest".

--
Rod

[Janet]

In article <n5lksk$s02$1...@dont-email.me>, tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk
says...

P-bonds are purchased in the child's name. From age 16, they have full
control of their holding, and can manage it by phone or online, no
signature required for cashing in.

Though as Robin reminded me, minimum PB investment is now £100.

Janet.

[Robin]

Janet wrote:
>
> Though as Robin reminded me, minimum PB investment is now £100.
>

Have I been calumninated[1]? I never touched her!

[1] I wonder if that is on the list of trigger words :)

[Alycidon]

What it does not say is whether Camelot is bound to pay out if a person
under 16 gets a winning scratchcard as a gift (or finds one). Can they
not be gifted, and if so, no rule I see says an under-16 cannot be a
giftee. 6.2(g) says they won't payout if a card was bought "on behalf
of" someone under 16; but a gift by definition is not "on behalf".

[Robin]

Robin wrote:

> Janet wrote:
>
> [1] I wonder if that is on the list of trigger words :)

But then again it won't be as I'm sure the immaculate, all-knowing Mods
would not have mistyped calumniated :((

[Roger Hayter]

I don't know what part brackets play in legal drafting, but there seems
no obvious limit to the generality of:

"The followiing people .. and Camelot will not be liable to pay a Prize
to them...


(a) anyone under the age of 16, ..."


Which would seem to state that they don't have to pay a prize to anyone
under 16 in any circumstances.






--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <1mg1gaw.11y0v161jlos4gN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 13:12:18 on
Sat, 26 Dec 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>"The followiing people .. and Camelot will not be liable to pay a Prize
>to them...
>
>(a) anyone under the age of 16, ..."
>
>Which would seem to state that they don't have to pay a prize to anyone
>under 16 in any circumstances.

If it was a gift, the over-16 donor could claim the prize, and split it
with the under-16, although there's some potential for dispute over the
amounts, I agree.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

That is just to state the obvious, if a person over 16 *says that it his
scratchcard* he can claim the prize. However, if there is a legal
sense in that it could be proved to really belong to the under 16 year
old then Camelot could presumably reclaim their money. It would seem to
be perfectly legal to offer an under 16 any prize one gets for the next
scratchcard on purchases, provided that it is an unenforceable promise?



--

Roger Hayter

[Janet]

In article <n5m15v$1un$1...@dont-email.me>, rb...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Janet wrote:
> >
> > Though as Robin reminded me, minimum PB investment is now £100.

> >
>
> Have I been calumninated[1]? I never touched her!

Sorry Bobby, I calumniatificated the wrong calumnee.

What is wrong with Mods these days, letting the wrong name slip through?
I blame the parents.

Janet.

[Oliver Crawford]

Ok, it's the USA and a different age limit but same principle:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2015/12/23/Iowa-lottery-winner-denied-100000-prize-for-being-underage/9991450901313/

[Steve Walker]

On 26/12/2015 13:16, Janet wrote:

> What is wrong with Mods these days, letting the wrong name slip through?
> I blame the parents.

Sorry Janet, I'll ask my dad to pull his socks up... :-)

[Janet]

In article <dege6e...@mid.individual.net>,
persi...@byzantium.invalid says...

Now that's what I call service

:-)

Janet.