Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
09 Oct 25
15:31
Joined:
Date Joined:
11 Aug 21
A multimillionaire “problem gambler” who blew nearly £1.5m on football wagers is suing Betfair for his money back in a landmark case, claiming it was under a duty to protect him from himself.
Buy-to-let property tycoon Lee Gibson told a court he placed more than 30,000 individual wagers through betting exchange Betfair during a “prolific” gambling period between 2009 and 2019.
Although he said he initially found it “enthralling and exciting”, his losses became “unsustainable”, and in March 2019, his account was suspended for good.
Mr Gibson, 47, of Leeds, went on to sue Betfair, the world’s largest betting exchange, alleging that it should have known he was a “problem gambler” and was under a duty to stop him sooner.
The case was rejected by a High Court judge last year, but his bid for about £1m in damages has now gone on to be heard this week by three top judges at the Court of Appeal.
Lawyers say the case could have huge ramifications for the online betting industry as it will clarify what duties online betting companies owe to gamblers.
His barrister, Yash Kulkarni KC, said Mr Gibson’s betting was focused on the tricky “correct score” football markets, sometimes in “obscure” games and in sums up to £20,000.
He said the judge should have found that Betfair “knew or ought to have known” that Mr Gibson was a “problem gambler” and that, because it treated him as a VIP with his own individual “relationship manager”, it had assumed a duty to look after him properly.
“The evidence showed that Betfair knew or had information available to them showing that Mr Gibson was chasing his losses, had borrowed money or sold something to gamble, and was gambling at a level beyond that which he could afford from his income after tax and expenses,” he said.
The court heard Mr Gibson, despite leaving school at 16, had made himself a multi-millionaire by buying and renovating properties in the Leeds area.
At its highest, his portfolio included 16 houses, which were rented to students, but some were later sold or remortgaged as his losses piled up.
He had begun gambling – mostly on football – using the Betfair exchange in 2009 and, although his account was at times in credit, by the end of 2012, he had lost £100,000.
His losses had grown to £500,000 by the end of 2015, £1m by January 2018, and, in March 2019, when Betfair suspended his account, stood at almost £1.5m.
He was treated as a VIP customer, being offered incentives such as hospitality at football matches and golf invitations, although the incentives decreased over time.
When quizzed under anti-money laundering rules about the source of his gambling funds, Mr Gibson explained to Betfair that he was a landlord with a substantial portfolio of properties.
Betfair eventually dropped Mr Gibson as a client in 2019, but he went on to sue, claiming they “knew or ought to have known” about his problem and should have stopped him sooner.
By treating him as a VIP client with an individual manager, the company had also assumed a responsibility to look after him, which it had failed to meet, his lawyers claimed.
He claimed in damages the amounts he lost while gambling in the six years prior to filing his court claim in 2021, totalling around £1m.
At the end of the trial of the case last year, Judge Nigel Bird said he was not convinced that Betfair should have known about his gambling problem, given that he had tried to hide it himself.
“Mr Gibson consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling, including his losses, and none of the information he provided to Betfair painted a different picture,” he said.
“The fact that he consistently satisfied anti-money laundering checks makes it impossible for Mr Gibson to argue that the size of his losses was, of itself, enough to raise reasonable concerns.
“Indeed, even after the trial, there is no real suggestion that Mr Gibson could not afford his gambling.
“He could, at least on the face of the information he gave to Betfair, afford to fund his gambling. He misled Betfair about his gambling and it is very difficult to identify a problem gambler who is not being honest.
“In my view, Mr Gibson did not simply fail to share information about his gambling problem, he took steps actively to hide it and to portray to the world at large, and to Betfair in particular, a wholly inaccurate picture.”
But at the Court of Appeal, Mr Kulkarni argued that the judge had been wrong in his finding about Betfair’s knowledge of Mr Gibson’s gambling problem.
“The judge ought to have found that Betfair knew or ought to have known that Mr Gibson was likely to be a problem gambler throughout the material time of the claim and his finding otherwise was plainly wrong,” he said.
“Mr Gibson placed at least 20,000 individual bets in the six years prior to 22 January 2021, which is more than five per day,” he continued.
“The judge ought to have gone on to find that where a person appears likely to be gambling prolifically despite facing heavy losses, using money which appears likely to be at least in part from selling his business assets or loaning money against them, that person is likely to be a problem gambler.”
He said the judge was wrong in failing to find that it was a minimum requirement of Betfair’s licence to “refuse service to a customer who appeared likely, on the basis of all relevant sources of information, to be a problem gambler”.
The judge was also wrong to find that, in allocating him a VIP relationship manager, Betfair had “not assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care to prevent Mr Gibson from suffering economic loss”.
“Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler,” he argued.
“The judge ought to have held that because Mr Gibson had been allocated to a VIP relationship manager whose role was to interact with him to maintain or increase his betting, knew he was likely to be a problem gambler, and had exploited his betting habits to extend bonuses and offers likely to induce further betting, Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler.”
Betfair – listed in the claim as TSE Malta LP – is opposing the appeal application before three top judges, High Court chancellor Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Birss.
Its lawyers are arguing that Judge Bird’s decision was correct and are urging the Court of Appeal to uphold it.
For Betfair, Jonathan Davies-Jones KC told the judges that the company had “applied appropriate policies and procedures” to meet obligations under its licence.
And he urged them to conclude that the lower judge was entitled to find that the company had no knowledge about Mr Gibson’s betting problem at the time.
“On the facts, the judge was right – and clearly entitled – to conclude that Betfair had neither actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Gibson’s moderate gambling disorder and/or Mr Gibson’s ‘gambling problem’,” he said.
“In light of the repeated assurances from Mr Gibson that he was both wealthy and in control of his gambling, and the contemporaneous documents that Mr Gibson provided to Betfair, the factual premise of the alleged duty of care – that Betfair had actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Gibson’s gambling problem – failed.”
“In any event, even if Betfair did have actual or constructive knowledge that Mr Gibson was a ‘problem gambler’, as a matter of law that would not be sufficient to give rise to a duty of care to prevent Mr Gibson from suffering pure economic loss.
“Further, even if Betfair had owed Mr Gibson a duty of care, and even if it had breached that duty of care, there was compelling evidence before the court that Mr Gibson would have – and, in fact, did – gamble substantial sums on other betting platforms.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lee-gibson-betfair-court-case-b2841460.html
Buy-to-let property tycoon Lee Gibson told a court he placed more than 30,000 individual wagers through betting exchange Betfair during a “prolific” gambling period between 2009 and 2019.
Although he said he initially found it “enthralling and exciting”, his losses became “unsustainable”, and in March 2019, his account was suspended for good.
Mr Gibson, 47, of Leeds, went on to sue Betfair, the world’s largest betting exchange, alleging that it should have known he was a “problem gambler” and was under a duty to stop him sooner.
The case was rejected by a High Court judge last year, but his bid for about £1m in damages has now gone on to be heard this week by three top judges at the Court of Appeal.
Lawyers say the case could have huge ramifications for the online betting industry as it will clarify what duties online betting companies owe to gamblers.
His barrister, Yash Kulkarni KC, said Mr Gibson’s betting was focused on the tricky “correct score” football markets, sometimes in “obscure” games and in sums up to £20,000.
He said the judge should have found that Betfair “knew or ought to have known” that Mr Gibson was a “problem gambler” and that, because it treated him as a VIP with his own individual “relationship manager”, it had assumed a duty to look after him properly.
“The evidence showed that Betfair knew or had information available to them showing that Mr Gibson was chasing his losses, had borrowed money or sold something to gamble, and was gambling at a level beyond that which he could afford from his income after tax and expenses,” he said.
The court heard Mr Gibson, despite leaving school at 16, had made himself a multi-millionaire by buying and renovating properties in the Leeds area.
At its highest, his portfolio included 16 houses, which were rented to students, but some were later sold or remortgaged as his losses piled up.
He had begun gambling – mostly on football – using the Betfair exchange in 2009 and, although his account was at times in credit, by the end of 2012, he had lost £100,000.
His losses had grown to £500,000 by the end of 2015, £1m by January 2018, and, in March 2019, when Betfair suspended his account, stood at almost £1.5m.
He was treated as a VIP customer, being offered incentives such as hospitality at football matches and golf invitations, although the incentives decreased over time.
When quizzed under anti-money laundering rules about the source of his gambling funds, Mr Gibson explained to Betfair that he was a landlord with a substantial portfolio of properties.
Betfair eventually dropped Mr Gibson as a client in 2019, but he went on to sue, claiming they “knew or ought to have known” about his problem and should have stopped him sooner.
By treating him as a VIP client with an individual manager, the company had also assumed a responsibility to look after him, which it had failed to meet, his lawyers claimed.
He claimed in damages the amounts he lost while gambling in the six years prior to filing his court claim in 2021, totalling around £1m.
At the end of the trial of the case last year, Judge Nigel Bird said he was not convinced that Betfair should have known about his gambling problem, given that he had tried to hide it himself.
“Mr Gibson consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling, including his losses, and none of the information he provided to Betfair painted a different picture,” he said.
“The fact that he consistently satisfied anti-money laundering checks makes it impossible for Mr Gibson to argue that the size of his losses was, of itself, enough to raise reasonable concerns.
“Indeed, even after the trial, there is no real suggestion that Mr Gibson could not afford his gambling.
“He could, at least on the face of the information he gave to Betfair, afford to fund his gambling. He misled Betfair about his gambling and it is very difficult to identify a problem gambler who is not being honest.
“In my view, Mr Gibson did not simply fail to share information about his gambling problem, he took steps actively to hide it and to portray to the world at large, and to Betfair in particular, a wholly inaccurate picture.”
But at the Court of Appeal, Mr Kulkarni argued that the judge had been wrong in his finding about Betfair’s knowledge of Mr Gibson’s gambling problem.
“The judge ought to have found that Betfair knew or ought to have known that Mr Gibson was likely to be a problem gambler throughout the material time of the claim and his finding otherwise was plainly wrong,” he said.
“Mr Gibson placed at least 20,000 individual bets in the six years prior to 22 January 2021, which is more than five per day,” he continued.
“The judge ought to have gone on to find that where a person appears likely to be gambling prolifically despite facing heavy losses, using money which appears likely to be at least in part from selling his business assets or loaning money against them, that person is likely to be a problem gambler.”
He said the judge was wrong in failing to find that it was a minimum requirement of Betfair’s licence to “refuse service to a customer who appeared likely, on the basis of all relevant sources of information, to be a problem gambler”.
The judge was also wrong to find that, in allocating him a VIP relationship manager, Betfair had “not assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care to prevent Mr Gibson from suffering economic loss”.
“Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler,” he argued.
“The judge ought to have held that because Mr Gibson had been allocated to a VIP relationship manager whose role was to interact with him to maintain or increase his betting, knew he was likely to be a problem gambler, and had exploited his betting habits to extend bonuses and offers likely to induce further betting, Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler.”
Betfair – listed in the claim as TSE Malta LP – is opposing the appeal application before three top judges, High Court chancellor Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Birss.
Its lawyers are arguing that Judge Bird’s decision was correct and are urging the Court of Appeal to uphold it.
For Betfair, Jonathan Davies-Jones KC told the judges that the company had “applied appropriate policies and procedures” to meet obligations under its licence.
And he urged them to conclude that the lower judge was entitled to find that the company had no knowledge about Mr Gibson’s betting problem at the time.
“On the facts, the judge was right – and clearly entitled – to conclude that Betfair had neither actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Gibson’s moderate gambling disorder and/or Mr Gibson’s ‘gambling problem’,” he said.
“In light of the repeated assurances from Mr Gibson that he was both wealthy and in control of his gambling, and the contemporaneous documents that Mr Gibson provided to Betfair, the factual premise of the alleged duty of care – that Betfair had actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Gibson’s gambling problem – failed.”
“In any event, even if Betfair did have actual or constructive knowledge that Mr Gibson was a ‘problem gambler’, as a matter of law that would not be sufficient to give rise to a duty of care to prevent Mr Gibson from suffering pure economic loss.
“Further, even if Betfair had owed Mr Gibson a duty of care, and even if it had breached that duty of care, there was compelling evidence before the court that Mr Gibson would have – and, in fact, did – gamble substantial sums on other betting platforms.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lee-gibson-betfair-court-case-b2841460.html
Show More
Where's my Relationship Manager and free tickets!!
I'd be embarrassed to make this public, not because he was a mug gambler chasing his losses but the fact he's letting everyone know he was a mug gambler chasing his losses, should just of dusted himself down, accept he was a beaten man, that gambling wasn't for him and just walked away, to lose your dignity by making this public and begging the courts to give him his money back is pretty shameful, take responsibility for your own actions ffs. Kind Regards.
He's just chancing his arm, 1.5 million in the pot
if he can prove betfair owed him a duty of care.
There's been a few cases like this with judges more
or less deciding mug punters would just go elsewhere
to lose their monets.
if he can prove betfair owed him a duty of care.
There's been a few cases like this with judges more
or less deciding mug punters would just go elsewhere
to lose their monets.
What are the chances this case isn't even no win no fee
anyone remember the big drifts on 0-0s just before KO during that timescale? 0-0 landed more than once. Biggest loss was Atletico Madrid-Leverkusen champs league. 1st leg score was 4-2 to madrid, in the second leg 0-0 drifted to 38 for thousands and ended scoreless.
Good job he didn't blow the lot, but maybe that actually
harms his chances in court.
Leeds fans few and far between on here,
harms his chances in court.
Leeds fans few and far between on here,
think bf should give him the £1.5M back so he can use it on the correct score markets again
At its highest, his portfolio included 16 houses, which were rented to students, but some were later sold or remortgaged as his losses piled up.
So he's still a buy to let landlord with multiple properties and he's still lying to get his bets on? People like this deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions. How much is the lawyer costing for this rubbish?
So he's still a buy to let landlord with multiple properties and he's still lying to get his bets on? People like this deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions. How much is the lawyer costing for this rubbish?
The bloke does not deserve to be recompensed. However, Betfair should be reprimanded and fined heavily for knowingly and intentionally allowing this individual to bet and lose persistently and heavily for a very long period.
The affordability factor should not be the be-all and end-all; the conduct of Betfair in allowing this individual to carry on betting and losing heavily should. It clearly contravenes the responsibility and conduct of Betfair as stipulated in the code of ethics of the Gambling Commission.
Betfair should have known (no excuse for not) this individual was a gambling addict, and was chasing his losses. Instead of Betfair putting a stop to his addiction (or illness) Betfair knowingly facilitated his addiction (or illness) ie profit being the sole aim of Betfair.
The bloke does not deserve to be recompensed financially. But, Betfair should be heavily fined financially and reprimanded for their misconduct and greed in this case.
Bookies should be held responsible if knowingly acting against the code of conduct and ethics set by The Gambling Commission.
The affordability factor should not be the be-all and end-all; the conduct of Betfair in allowing this individual to carry on betting and losing heavily should. It clearly contravenes the responsibility and conduct of Betfair as stipulated in the code of ethics of the Gambling Commission.
Betfair should have known (no excuse for not) this individual was a gambling addict, and was chasing his losses. Instead of Betfair putting a stop to his addiction (or illness) Betfair knowingly facilitated his addiction (or illness) ie profit being the sole aim of Betfair.
The bloke does not deserve to be recompensed financially. But, Betfair should be heavily fined financially and reprimanded for their misconduct and greed in this case.
Bookies should be held responsible if knowingly acting against the code of conduct and ethics set by The Gambling Commission.
If this guy had won £1.5m would betfair have been able to sue him for compensation?
What an adult chooses to do with their own money -- as long as it is legal -- is their business and nobody else's.
What an adult chooses to do with their own money -- as long as it is legal -- is their business and nobody else's.
Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler,” he argued.
“The judge ought to have held that because Mr Gibson had been allocated to a VIP relationship manager whose role was to interact with him to maintain or increase his betting, knew he was likely to be a problem gambler, and had exploited his betting habits to extend bonuses and offers likely to induce further betting, Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler.”
This is the important argument, but, it's likely that
betfair were simply pitching for a bigger piece of his
losses that were bound to occur.
Betfair didn't owe him a duty to teach him to become
a successful punter, that does not exist.
Although undoubtedly some people have very much learnt
to improve their punting via betfair.
“The judge ought to have held that because Mr Gibson had been allocated to a VIP relationship manager whose role was to interact with him to maintain or increase his betting, knew he was likely to be a problem gambler, and had exploited his betting habits to extend bonuses and offers likely to induce further betting, Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler.”
This is the important argument, but, it's likely that
betfair were simply pitching for a bigger piece of his
losses that were bound to occur.
Betfair didn't owe him a duty to teach him to become
a successful punter, that does not exist.
Although undoubtedly some people have very much learnt
to improve their punting via betfair.
surely the problem here would be betfair would be robbing the other side of the bets IE the winners so therefore making / encouraging more losing punters, in betfairs model its those laying his bets who were to blame if their was any blame for his losses,what do you want betfair to do reprimand their winning punters ?,
on betfair the winning punters are the BOOKMAKER,s not BETFAIR ,their just taking a cut or at least that's the concept we were sold by betfairs creator,s
on betfair the winning punters are the BOOKMAKER,s not BETFAIR ,their just taking a cut or at least that's the concept we were sold by betfairs creator,s
Probably claimed to have greened up on forum
Nobody loses on betfair.
Nobody loses on betfair.
From judge in first ruling
6. I formed the view that Mr Gibson was an unreliable witness. He accepted that the account
given in his witness statement of falling into panic very early in his gambling relationship
with Betfair was not true. Detail he had provided in his witness statement, which might
have been taken to support his evidence, was shown to be untrue. For example, Mr
Gibson quickly accepted that the forensic detail he had given about the 7 November 2015
incident was fundamentally flawed in that he may have the date wrong. In fact, I am
satisfied that Mr Gibson only changed his evidence on the point because he was aware
that Betfair’s disclosure revealed that Mr Rourke was not at the specified match. Further,
when faced with any difficult question Mr Gibson sought to pass the blame to others,
often Mr Rourke. He maintained throughout that Betfair had destroyed WhatsApp
messages between him and Mr Rourke in order to deliberately bolster their case. That was
a serious and wholly unsupported allegation. It was also clear from Mr Gibson’s evidence
that he had misled Betfair within the litigation by failing to give a candid explanation of
his gambling after his relationship with Betfair had ended and there was evidence (which
led to a reminder of his right to assert a privilege against self-incrimination) that he had
made untruthful applications for bounce back post-covid loans.
6. I formed the view that Mr Gibson was an unreliable witness. He accepted that the account
given in his witness statement of falling into panic very early in his gambling relationship
with Betfair was not true. Detail he had provided in his witness statement, which might
have been taken to support his evidence, was shown to be untrue. For example, Mr
Gibson quickly accepted that the forensic detail he had given about the 7 November 2015
incident was fundamentally flawed in that he may have the date wrong. In fact, I am
satisfied that Mr Gibson only changed his evidence on the point because he was aware
that Betfair’s disclosure revealed that Mr Rourke was not at the specified match. Further,
when faced with any difficult question Mr Gibson sought to pass the blame to others,
often Mr Rourke. He maintained throughout that Betfair had destroyed WhatsApp
messages between him and Mr Rourke in order to deliberately bolster their case. That was
a serious and wholly unsupported allegation. It was also clear from Mr Gibson’s evidence
that he had misled Betfair within the litigation by failing to give a candid explanation of
his gambling after his relationship with Betfair had ended and there was evidence (which
led to a reminder of his right to assert a privilege against self-incrimination) that he had
made untruthful applications for bounce back post-covid loans.
https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/LM-2021-000010-Lee-v.-TSE-Malta-LP-t.a-Betfair-FINAL.-docx.pdf
..
..
90. The account was re-opened on 6 December 2016.
2017
91. In 2017, Mr Gibson attended two Manchester United home games, one against Wigan in
January the other against West Bromwich Albion in April. On each occasion he took three
guests. Internal records at Betfair show that on each occasion Mr Gibson was a good
guest, engaged fully with others, and contributed to a convivial atmosphere. He was
invited to other games but was unable to attend.
What Mr Gibson did after the Betfair account was closed
136. After Betfair closed down his account, Mr Gibson continued to gamble on other
platforms both in his own name and using an account of a friend. Between 29 March
2019 and 18 November 2020, and despite the introduction of the new and far more
stringent social responsibility code provisions in place for most of that period, he appears
to have lost at least a further £406,978.80.
137. Using an account in his name, between 29 March 2019 and 30 January 2021 he lost a
total of £326,178.80.
a. Between 29 March 2019 and 30 January 2021, he deposited a total of
£502,000 with ****. He withdrew a total of £220,715.62. He therefore
incurred losses in his own name over that period of £281,484.38. There were
over 600 occasions when Mr Gibson won or lost more than £2,000 on ****.
b. On 21 April 2020, he deposited £1,000 with Bet365 Poker and lost £995.64 on
the same day.
c. Between 12 July 2020 and 17 September 2021, he deposited £20,020 with
Skybet and lost all but £4.01 and £8,500 with bet365 losing all but £17.26.
d. Between 28 July 2020 and 31 October 2020, he deposited £33,200 with
William Hill and lost everything.
138. Between 26 May 2020 and 8 June 2020, he used an account in the name of James
Smith to continue to bet at Betfair. In that time, he deposited £80,000. Between 4
September 2020 and 18 November 2020, he deposited £80,800 with **** using an
account in Mr Smith’s name. Using Mr Smith’s account, he therefore appears to have lost
a further £160,800 between 26 May 2020 and 18 November 2020, taking his total losses
to £406,978.80
139. Mr Gibson signed up to GAM
2017
91. In 2017, Mr Gibson attended two Manchester United home games, one against Wigan in
January the other against West Bromwich Albion in April. On each occasion he took three
guests. Internal records at Betfair show that on each occasion Mr Gibson was a good
guest, engaged fully with others, and contributed to a convivial atmosphere. He was
invited to other games but was unable to attend.
What Mr Gibson did after the Betfair account was closed
136. After Betfair closed down his account, Mr Gibson continued to gamble on other
platforms both in his own name and using an account of a friend. Between 29 March
2019 and 18 November 2020, and despite the introduction of the new and far more
stringent social responsibility code provisions in place for most of that period, he appears
to have lost at least a further £406,978.80.
137. Using an account in his name, between 29 March 2019 and 30 January 2021 he lost a
total of £326,178.80.
a. Between 29 March 2019 and 30 January 2021, he deposited a total of
£502,000 with ****. He withdrew a total of £220,715.62. He therefore
incurred losses in his own name over that period of £281,484.38. There were
over 600 occasions when Mr Gibson won or lost more than £2,000 on ****.
b. On 21 April 2020, he deposited £1,000 with Bet365 Poker and lost £995.64 on
the same day.
c. Between 12 July 2020 and 17 September 2021, he deposited £20,020 with
Skybet and lost all but £4.01 and £8,500 with bet365 losing all but £17.26.
d. Between 28 July 2020 and 31 October 2020, he deposited £33,200 with
William Hill and lost everything.
138. Between 26 May 2020 and 8 June 2020, he used an account in the name of James
Smith to continue to bet at Betfair. In that time, he deposited £80,000. Between 4
September 2020 and 18 November 2020, he deposited £80,800 with **** using an
account in Mr Smith’s name. Using Mr Smith’s account, he therefore appears to have lost
a further £160,800 between 26 May 2020 and 18 November 2020, taking his total losses
to £406,978.80
139. Mr Gibson signed up to GAM
bf wasn't a bookie, until they introduced cashout to cream fortunes off the markets.
Why don’t betfair find his renters of his buy to let properties,
And fund them suing him for overcharging rent to pay his mortgages off.
Which actually has more teeth than his idiotic case.
If ever a case highlighted the rental market more it’s this.
It’s perfectly fine to basically take mortgages out in your name,but then get someone else to pay them off,but if he loses a few bets,he demands his money back.
The fact this idiot can make a good living from renting houses,just shows how being a landlord should never be seen has a career option.
And fund them suing him for overcharging rent to pay his mortgages off.
Which actually has more teeth than his idiotic case.
If ever a case highlighted the rental market more it’s this.
It’s perfectly fine to basically take mortgages out in your name,but then get someone else to pay them off,but if he loses a few bets,he demands his money back.
The fact this idiot can make a good living from renting houses,just shows how being a landlord should never be seen has a career option.
It’s a tricky one this..
A lot of the time,when a punter has lost loads of money,they ve been robbing it from their business,family friends etc.so given all the new gambling commission etc.the bookie may have to explain what they knew,when did they know it,why did they allow it.
With people who have wealth,but are just blowing it,it’s a more difficult problem.
If you are earning millions and blowing millions,fair enough,but if you’ve got a million and are blowing a million,then clearly it’s going to end in chaos.
Given he was a vip client,you’d presume they knew he could lose it.
Bookies shouldn’t allow someone to blow loads of money,if they know,they ll soon run out of it.
It’s tricky,how involved should a bookie be in your finances,they shouldn’t really,but if they’re a vip client and have a personal account manager ,then clearly they’re involved.
A lot of the time,when a punter has lost loads of money,they ve been robbing it from their business,family friends etc.so given all the new gambling commission etc.the bookie may have to explain what they knew,when did they know it,why did they allow it.
With people who have wealth,but are just blowing it,it’s a more difficult problem.
If you are earning millions and blowing millions,fair enough,but if you’ve got a million and are blowing a million,then clearly it’s going to end in chaos.
Given he was a vip client,you’d presume they knew he could lose it.
Bookies shouldn’t allow someone to blow loads of money,if they know,they ll soon run out of it.
It’s tricky,how involved should a bookie be in your finances,they shouldn’t really,but if they’re a vip client and have a personal account manager ,then clearly they’re involved.
ye can bet £500 on the spin of an effing live gameshow wheel on here. bf know exactly who is losing and how much they are doing in.
on 365 score6 game I recently won 25 free spins, never touched their casino cack before, won 30 pence
It must be tough being a Betfair relationship manager.
Oh tough luck on the £500k you lost this week. Anyway, would you like tickets for Man Utd versus Wigan.
Oh tough luck on the £500k you lost this week. Anyway, would you like tickets for Man Utd versus Wigan.
helps when the client hasn't the sense to workout that WIGAN at home is the only UTD home game they cant give the tkts away for 
https://images.onesite.com/community.betfair.com/user/comingupthehill/5bf987b582f75cd83517f1187ec5b3a9.jpeg?v=220800
I think they’re happy to lose,just to get a free lunch,
I think they’re happy to lose,just to get a free lunch,
The free spins awarded in the 365 score6 game used to be 10p per spin. Now, only 1p per spin. As such, the winnings are pence.
Could never understand why on spins you can use a 10 spin and “win “ 5 p.
How can that be a “Win “!,
How can that be a “Win “!,
Judgment is in. The appeal is lost.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1589
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1589
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539