Tue 28-Jul-09 02:13 PM by Fosco

Hello

I have a client who won a large sum of money playing bingo and in line with a prior agreement distributed equal shares to her associates X, Y and Z.

Needless to say the DWP stopped her income support because they said she had too much capital and do not seem to accept that 3/4 of the money belonged to X Y and Z.

Does anyone know of any case law for when bingo syndicate agreements are binding in law? For example do they have to be in writing or can oral contracts be binding if all the other contractual conditions are met?

Thank you!

I am not aware that bingo syndicate contracts are different from any other contract relating to pure personalty - land is the only propert for which a written contract is required (oh, and guarantors, too). The problem in the absence of a written agreement is that of evidence, as always.
The terms are presumably that all the members of the syndicate agree that they will pay to play and that all winnings will be shared equally which indicates mutuality of consideration. As long as there is intention to create legal relations and the contract is not void as offending against public policy it should be OK. I don't think this would be regarded as a gambling contract (which is void). But as I say the problem is proving it. Can they show a previous course of dealings which would corroborate the oral evidence?
I am not aware of case law on bingo syndicates, but I seem to remember that there has been litigation in the High Court in relation to lottery sundicates, which will be much the same thing.

Thank you very much. My personal view is that this is a merely a contract law problem and the in the absence of a written agreement it might be difficult to show an intention to create legal relations.

I guess its more of a problem showing a contract when you have parties fighting over a potential share of a lottery/bingo win. However in the present case all the members of the syndicate have already been paid and so the question is not whether the members think there is a contract but whether the tribunal accept that there was one.

In any event even if the tribunal did not accept there was a contract i guess you could always argue that the client did not intentionally deprive herself in order to claim/increase her benefit so no notional capital.

has any other member of the syndicate won and given their share to your client.... this could prove there was then a obligation to divide the winnings

Yes they have always split their winnings. In my opinion the fact that they always used to split their winnings is evidence firstly that there was an agreement and secondly that the syndicate members intended to be bound.

All of which points to a legally binding contract. As i said i think even if the tribunal do not accept that there was a legally binding contract the fact that the client disposed of the capital thinking that there was a contract should be helpful when the DWP are trying to prove that the significant operative purpose was to get rid of the capital in order to gain/increase her benefit.

The only problem of course was proving the agreement in the absence of any written proof.

contracts (unless for the sale or disposition of land) do not have to be in writing. you have your client's evidence, and the other syndicate members evidence, that there was indeed a contract, and they have all acted, at various times, upon it.

Thank you for your reply, yes i completely agree. Will just need to see what evidence from the other syndicate members i can pull together.

The original post suggests that the DWP have treated the client as having actual capital even though she's already distributed it.

I would suggest that in the appeal you also cover deprivation of capital becuase if the argument about ownership fails then deprivation will be the next issue and, from what you say, probably a lot easier to argue on the same evidence. Even though the DWP has not yet considered it, I would ask the tribunal to do so otherwise the JC might do it next and your client will be left without income for considerable period of time.

I think i should have made my post a tad clearer. My fault really. Client definitely did not have any capital at the point of claim and therefore i believe the DWP treated has as having notional capital. Definitely need to consider the the depreciation of capital point. Thank you for your reply.