Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (page 817)

Email 3/3 My complaint is focused on the chargeback being declined by Barclays rather than Barclays stopping the transactions, this has already been specified previous communications.

Ideally this will be chargeback without delay as I have cleared my card under good faith to you yet I am now down circa £1425 which is causing me hardship.

• FOS general guidance – 75 days under this code so bank could be held liable for costs if not processed - Please note it's is over 30 days now.

• Multiple cases - numerous FOS guidance on cases that banks would be expected to raise without delay if scheme rules are satisfied, they are on mine, it has a chance of succeeding and as FOS state merchant can either accept or challenge. FOS also state not up to the bank to decide on the outcome as it can go as far as required via arbitration.

I will now set out further issues on the complaint, raised a complaint, multiple calls to the complaints department to discuss and provide further information, noting I am vulnerable this was logged last year. Gambling addiction is classed as mental health via NHS and the following should also be considered.

• The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides detailed information in relation to individuals who lack the ability to make informed decisions due to an impairment of the brain. I feel I lacked capacity in accordance with the act around spending and the addiction, noting I have been excluded from licensed gambling since 2019 (Evidence already provided to disputes team) As the "scam" went on, my mental state became increasingly worse. See previous this was raised last year so not new information. (See notes to Michael that these target people on Gamstop)

• The FCA expects firms it regulates to understand the scale and characteristics of vulnerability that exist in their target market and customer base. And understand the impact of vulnerability on the needs of consumers in their target market and customer base, by asking themselves what types of harm or disadvantage their customers may be vulnerable to, and how this might affect the consumer experience and outcomes. Why wasn’t my spending picked up almost £2700 over short sessions many with no 3ds.

• Gambling-related vulnerability can affect people’s engagement with financial services, adversely impact decision-making and lead to poor outcomes.

I don’t think the above points have been considered or adhered to.

Told disputes would evaluate all extra information sent showing the codes, FOS advice/decisions and the UKGC recording. 

I called disputes today told letter sent out 17th saying disputes rejected Section 75 doesn’t cover gambling that I don’t disagree with but chargeback does as no VISA exclusion (FOS cases as well).

Putting it right – Complaints to assess the additional information taking into account previous complaint September 2024 whereby 12.7 was raised exact same issues, assess all the attached information and the information in this letter, then disputes raised under VISA CHARGEBACK RULES 12.7 invalid data and offer of compensation for trouble and upset caused having constantly chase this effectively doing disputes job.

I have just submitted 3 parts of my complaint 1/3 and 3/3 under review yet part 2 is not?

Also check DRN - 5537071 another App Fraud Revolut.

That’s poor from them but should also form

the basis of the FOS complaint, Revolut won’t change their decision, I don’t think solicitor is worth it due to costs but definitely get it to FOS. Just make sure you cover everything including the following template (need to fill it in with information that relates to you)

Check this case out as well - R v Rigby and Douglas (2015-2017), make FOS aware case

law and Revolut could be held liable for facilitating illegal gambling.

Make sure you’ve tried to resolve it with the bank first.

FOS will want to see that you’ve raised the issue directly with your bank and that they’ve given you a final response or failed to resolve things after 8 weeks. In your complaint, mention that you attempted to resolve the matter but the bank either dismissed your concerns or put up barriers instead of helping — such as relying solely on time limits, ignoring clear evidence, or failing to investigate properly.

2. Set out a brief, factual summary.

Explain what you’re complaining about — for example, unauthorised or misrepresented gambling transactions, the bank’s refusal to investigate, or the way your case was handled unfairly.

3. Focus on the key issues that matter to FOS:

Unlicensed Gambling Sites: If any of the merchants involved are not licensed by the UK Gambling Commission, then they’re operating illegally under the Gambling Act 2005. Banks should not be allowing these transactions to go through unchecked.

Merchant Misrepresentation: Many gambling sites deliberately use incorrect or misleading Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) to disguise their transactions as retail, software, or other non-gambling services. This misleads both consumers and banks, and your bank has a duty to spot and act on that — not ignore it.

Breach of Credit Card Rules: If you have evidence that these sites advertised or accepted credit card payments, that’s a clear breach of FCA rules (the UK ban on gambling via credit card). Including screenshots or examples can really strengthen your case.

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Obligations: Banks are legally required to monitor for suspicious transactions, especially involving illegal or high-risk sectors like unregulated gambling. If there were repeated payments to unlawful operators and the bank did nothing, that’s a failure under AML regulations.

Consumer Duty Failings: If your bank appeared unaware of the nature of your transactions, or if things spiralled over time without them stepping in, that may breach the FCA’s Consumer Duty — which requires firms to act in their customers’ best interest and prevent foreseeable harm. It’s worth mentioning if they missed warning signs or ignored patterns of escalating harm.

Misuse of Chargeback Time Limits (e.g. 120 Days): If the bank dismissed your claim on the basis of a strict time limit, explain why that doesn’t fairly apply — especially if you only later realised what the transactions were or discovered that the merchants were acting illegally.

4. Show you have relevant evidence — but don’t overload them at the start.

Let the Ombudsman know that you’re happy to provide evidence such as:

A list of the merchants and transactions

Proof that certain casinos are unlicensed

Screenshots of MCC misrepresentation

Evidence of credit card breaches

Examples where other providers (banks, e-wallets, etc.) investigated or refunded similar claims

5. Be clear about what you want.

Whether it’s a refund, a proper investigation, or for the bank to be held accountable under consumer protection rules, explain what resolution you’re seeking and why.

Final tip: Keep it factual, focused, and fair. The Ombudsman doesn’t need legal arguments — they just need to understand what’s happened, why it wasn’t handled properly, and how you’ve been let down. The stronger and clearer your key points, the better chance you’ll have of getting a fair outcome.

DRN - 5214077 also relates to push fraud crypto scam remember very similar to gambling, Revolut 100% refund. It is out there just have to search and word everything to suit your circumstances.

Give us a shout if you get stuck but you will need to give it some thought and focus on the banks failings, and why they have promised you one thing then rejected etc

hey 🙂 I saw that you had the contact of DSSERVLTD 5 months ago. Could you send it please

Hi mate just phoned my bank and they’ve told me the "SANTEDA" payments are processed as online games…. This should help

You’re cooked…. Your payments are bank transfers bro and bank transfers to Falcora finance who seem impossible to trace

hi, how long did it take for them to email you back and to process refund? I emailed on the 26th and haven’t had a reply yet!

I have responded to your email

It took about 5-8 working days

Message them and ask for a refund, usually within the terms there is a section to say they would refund if requested less an admin fee. Although there are usually terms saying if self excluded then they don’t have to return the money.

Hi Jim do you have any knowledge of a site called betswagger? They claim to be putting the payments through as actual gambling transactions it's pyd*Pprocessing.Ive looked into this and it's actually correct.

I'm on gamstop do you think I have a chance of getting my deposits back. What would be the best way to approach this?

I also was not able to withdraw winnings they wouldn't verify my account until I'd spent my winnings any advice would be appreciated Thanks.

No experience with Bet Swagger.

It would still follow the same process though.

Are you Visa or Mastercard?

The basis will be despite using gambling codes that it is illegal to operate without a UK licence, would need to argue likely 13.5 Misrepresentation on VISA (see below Mastercard)

Did you have gambling blocks on your card? If not and it is coded correctly, chargeback will be extremely difficult to obtain, Visa may have a chance as it states must be licensed on the country, Mastercard if they have been coded correctly the only way would be to lie and say no funds hit the account ( I am not recommending this just you could do that)

Gamstop works on UK licensed sites and with the exact details you use to sign up, this may help by challenging the casino but other than that the banks don’t seem to care about Gamstop.