Forums

General Betting

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Lay Low
16 Nov 09 16:25
Joined:
Date Joined: 07 Sep 02
| Topic/replies: 81 | Blogger: Lay Low's blog
Can someone with legal knowledge consider two questions for me?

The Banks were found to be acting unlawfully when they imposed penalty changes on accounts that they (the Banks) considered to be less profitable for the bank. How does this differ from Betfairs PC, which is calculated on
Pause Switch to Standard View PC and precedence
Show More
Loading...
Report Treble_Underscore November 16, 2009 4:26 PM GMT
Very good post, I look forward to the responses from any knowledgeable people on the subject. If there are any on here!
Report CLYDEBANK29 November 16, 2009 6:51 PM GMT
The Tote system by definition produces a risk free profit
Report CLYDEBANK29 November 16, 2009 6:52 PM GMT
Indeed so do exchanges - unless they are seeded
Report Blessington November 16, 2009 9:31 PM GMT
Good question.

But its looks too deep for most of us on here, to give the answer a go. :^0
Report phaedrus November 16, 2009 11:34 PM GMT
The issue with the banks concerned whether or not the fees they imposed on customers were a charge for a service (which would have been ok) or a penalty for breach of contract by customers (which has to be limited to the banks' loss). The courts decided that the fee was in fact a penalty for breach of contract and now the FSA is determining what a fair charge should be.

There is no suggestion that the Premium Charge is a penalty imposed by Betfair for breach of contract and therefore no analogy with the banks.
Report Deadly Earnest November 17, 2009 5:50 AM GMT
Nice post Phaedrus. So we can say then the PC is a charge for a service. Fair enough, you can charge what you want and if people choose to pay it the law won't protect you from making agreeing to a bad bargain.

Yet there might be a couple of ways the law could help. Could the PC be said to be an unfair term of our contract with them? Unfair for being unclear at least?

The other one I have seen metioned on here is competition law. Are Betfair breaching this by abusing a monopoly position in imposing htis charge?

Would be interesting to get further legal opinion on those questions. I just wonder if all PC payers joined together in a class action whether that could go anyhere on either of the above points...
Report iz77778 November 17, 2009 6:26 AM GMT
So we can say then the PC is a charge for a service.

interesting....the spiel regarding the trust account where all customers money is kept doesn't mentioned that b/f can debit 'charges'.....only 'commission'.

The account which holds your money is called TSE Clients and it is rigorously audited by KPMG, one of the big four global accountancy firms. TSE Clients can only use the trust money to pay winning punters, commission to Betfair, transaction fees to the Royal Bank of Scotland and pay money back to Betfair customers whenever they request it.



(p)
Report Deltâ November 17, 2009 6:45 AM GMT
are you the original Lay Low, now residing over at WBXXX?
Report Laurie de Loser November 17, 2009 6:49 AM GMT
So we can say then the PC is a charge for a service

Was the "service" deemed to be an extra service or was the "service" deemed to be a facility provided for all customers.

Reason I ask is that I can't see any extra facilities being provided to PC payers. If these customers were receiving extra attention/facilities in return for their account size then the decision bcomes relevant again IMHO
Report Lay Low November 17, 2009 8:34 AM GMT
are you the original Lay Low, now residing over at WBXXX?

I have been on this forum for seven years and I do not know what WBXXX means. There was a lay low (lower case) who posted on the horseracing forum about 2-3years ago. He changed his name to laylow21 to avoid confusion.
Report Lay Low November 17, 2009 8:47 AM GMT
The Tote system by definition produces a risk free profit

Yes this is true, I was referring to the Totegate scandal. Tote bets could only be placed on the course and dividends were declared on that on that basis. The Tote then took out a bookmakers' licence and opened a chain of High Street betting shops. These shop, as well as normal activities, accepted tote best at tote declared dividends. The problem was that the technology did not exist in 1979 to send these to the course. In mid-week mid winter days there would be only handful of punters at some of the smaller courses. The Tote's answer was to wait for the result then phone around the the betting shops, then find out the course tote calculated dividends before they were announced. They would then purchase winning tickets at the course knowing that every penny shaved of the dividends was worth hundreds of ponds the the betting shops.
Report phaedrus November 20, 2009 10:24 PM GMT
[bDeadly Earnest 17 Nov 06:50
Nice post Phaedrus. So we can say then the PC is a charge for a service. Fair enough, you can charge what you want and if people choose to pay it the law won't protect you from making agreeing to a bad bargain.

Yet there might be a couple of ways the law could help. Could the PC be said to be an unfair term of our contract with them? Unfair for being unclear at least?

The other one I have seen metioned on here is competition law. Are Betfair breaching this by abusing a monopoly position in imposing htis charge?

Would be interesting to get further legal opinion on those questions. I just wonder if all PC payers joined together in a class action whether that could go anyhere on either of the above points...][/b]

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations basically requires contractual terms to be fair otherwise they are void. One way in which a term needs to be fair is in its language. It must not be overly complex or ambiguous. So yes, in principle you can challenge a term if it is reasonable to say it is incomprehensible to the consumer. I would imagine that the premium charge term is clear enough and I believe Betfair inform you when you become in danger of having to pay it and also how much you will need to pay. I think it would be tough to argue that there was an unreasonable degree of confusion.

Laurie de Loser 17 Nov 07:49
So we can say then the PC is a charge for a service

Was the "service" deemed to be an extra service or was the "service" deemed to be a facility provided for all customers.

Reason I ask is that I can't see any extra facilities being provided to PC payers. If these customers were receiving extra attention/facilities in return for their account size then the decision bcomes relevant again IMHO


Can't we say the service is the provision of a betting exchange? For some customers Betfair will charge commission and for others they will charge commission plus a premium charge. They will distinguish between the two based on the way the betting exchange is used. I'm not sure why there would need to be an extra facility.

I should make it clear, by the way, that I am not a lawyer. I only responded to the original question as no-one else had and I've studied a bit of law and had a vague understaning of the issue with the banks.

Given that there are some clever, wealthy and legally trained people having to pay out this premium charge I am pretty much taking it for granted that there is no practical legal objection.
Report phaedrus November 20, 2009 10:25 PM GMT
Oh, and I know absolutely nothing about competition law.
Report catfloppo November 20, 2009 10:28 PM GMT
Laurie de Loser 17 Nov 07:49

Reason I ask is that I can't see any extra facilities being provided to PC payers. If these customers were receiving extra attention/facilities in return for their account size then the decision bcomes relevant again IMHO


That's because they're not paying more commission than other customers. In fact they are still paying less - why should they get extra facilities?
Report Moon Light November 21, 2009 1:41 AM GMT
Nonsense catfloppo.
Report catfloppo November 21, 2009 7:56 AM GMT
No it's not.
Report Lori November 21, 2009 9:25 AM GMT
They're not paying less, this is something Betfair have used as an excuse.

If you think that commission should be paid as a percentage of lifetime winnings then you have a very odd definition of more/less.

Commission should be taken per bet, that would be a fair way of doing things.
Report ante November 21, 2009 11:28 AM GMT
Would you prefer BF to scrap the PC, allow in-running only at neutral moments and introduce the turnover-based commission?

Then traders and fast pic players couldn't complain about being treated differently, right?
Report Lori November 21, 2009 11:44 AM GMT
That would be awesome ante.
Report ante November 21, 2009 11:46 AM GMT
Yes, and it would be better for BF in the long run, IMO.
Report catfloppo November 21, 2009 7:19 PM GMT
Lori, they are paying less in relation to their gross profit.
Report Lori November 21, 2009 7:40 PM GMT
What does gross profit have to do with anything though? Most people don't even have one of those, should they pay nothing?
Report catfloppo November 21, 2009 7:55 PM GMT
It's got quite a lot to do with the pc, Lori.
Report Lori November 21, 2009 8:03 PM GMT
Exactly, which contradicts your earlier "That's because they're not paying more commission than other customers" completely .

The debate is that it shouldn't be anything to do with PC. They can, and will, price it how they like of course, but as to what would be fairer, it's obvious that a turnover based system is fairer as will be**out in years to come when more and more places use it.

Who ends up with the winnings should not be any of Betfair's business, if there's a dispute they have a vested interest in giving it to the person who will pay them the most money for the right result, and that can't be a good thing.
Report catfloppo November 21, 2009 8:20 PM GMT
Sorry, Lori. I can't see how I have contradicted myself at all.
Report Lori November 21, 2009 8:27 PM GMT
It requires more than one line of connection that's why but I'm sick of explaining it to you.

PC payers as a group pay more commission than non PC-payers. I'll give you a clue and then I'm out of this thread as it always ends in those defending the PC using circular arguments, and as I'm not going to stop using betfair or some similar dramatics, there's no point killing myself over it.

clue: Someone who has never won a bet has never paid any commission at all.
Report catfloppo November 21, 2009 8:32 PM GMT
Lori 21 Nov 21:27
It requires more than one line of connection that's why but I'm sick of explaining it to you.


LOL
Report john92 November 21, 2009 8:34 PM GMT
I really dont see why gross profit/commission is related to how much it costs betfair to operate an account.
Report Okuma November 22, 2009 11:34 AM GMT
Just been given an account manager, slightly confusing as I thought we were paying less than everyone else and Betfair would be better off without us. I would rather just have my pc money back.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com