still some disbelief here in the facts of this case. i'll try again to convince you:
i had a full risk account, with 20k deposit limit. the deposit factor on ftse was 80 at the time this all took place, so £200pp long would require 16k of deposit limit, so i could put the bets on from a deposit limit perspective.
then i have to have funds in the account to cover the 16k in deposit limit. i had 1.8k in cash, 4.3k in running profits and ig gave me a 'waived deposit limit' (where they effectively advance you more credit under another name) of 12.5k. so i had 18.6 in 'funds' at the time, enough to put the 16k bet on.
this bet did go wrong. ig think they have the legal right to pursue this debt. as uktradergirl pointed out, betting debts are now apparently enforceable in law. i asked a solicitor who deals in litigation to look at it. they said that, according to the T&Cs and the documents i signed, ig have a legal claim, but that a barrister would be able to give me a better idea on this. the barrister's costs run into the thousands for a legal opinion, so i'm pushing that option to the back of the queue (unless i can find people in similar circumstances through forums like this to launch a class defence with).
ig have rejected my complaint on compliance grounds, so this will now go to the FOS. if they rule against me, i will have to look at the barrister option alone if necessary.