General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
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
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
Show More
Very good post, I look forward to the responses from any knowledgeable people on the subject. If there are any on here!
The Tote system by definition produces a risk free profit
Good question.
But its looks too deep for most of us on here, to give the answer a go. :^0
But its looks too deep for most of us on here, to give the answer a go. :^0
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.
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.
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...
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...
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)
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)
are you the original Lay Low, now residing over at WBXXX?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
Oh, and I know absolutely nothing about competition law.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Then traders and fast pic players couldn't complain about being treated differently, right?
Yes, and it would be better for BF in the long run, IMO.
Lori, they are paying less in relation to their gross profit.
What does gross profit have to do with anything though? Most people don't even have one of those, should they pay nothing?
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.
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.
Sorry, Lori. I can't see how I have contradicted myself at all.
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.
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.
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
It requires more than one line of connection that's why but I'm sick of explaining it to you.
LOL
I really dont see why gross profit/commission is related to how much it costs betfair to operate an account.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539