Bookmakers dispute over SP

In answer to kenilworth as I have said I thought the game was to get the best price you can and to turn the bookies over any chance you get. They restrict me on the dogs because I have a bit of knowledge but will take any bet on the horses as I am clueless. Update later.

Loanshark, we had a similar thing happen a few weeks back.  Had exactly the same bet as you in a shop where they have said we can only have £25 at SP.  Noticed that a girl was on, who we had not seen before, one day so decided to try and get a few bob on.

Anyway, the dog wins but they have not got £800 when I go to draw 3 or 4 mins after the race.  No problem there, we often get that.  Go to cop the money the next day and bingo I get the same rubbish you have been told.  I calmly took my ticket back and said I would sort it out with Head Office. Mentioned contesting their licence renewals and taking them court etc and was paid out the same day.  Unless you have signed something with them saying you will not bet and any bets will be voided then they have to pay you.

People like Baracouda and Kenilworth sicken me.  They have yet to succeed at this game and are oblivious to the way bookmakers act.  Like you say, they will take any bets from losers.  A mate of mine did 2k the other week in a shop after he split with his MRS and was p1ssed up.  They could not take his bets fast enough!  Throwing hundreds in the roulette machine is fine.  You will get paid.

if they accept a bet by mistake after you have already been restricted, they are not liable to pay the other 100 you had on. You should not have made the bet as you know the rules. So take the 600. They are entitled to only pay you out on the 100 allowed at 3/1 and give you the 100 back taken by mistake.

Thanks monmore man. It looks like your betting patterns on the dogs are similar to mine. Trying to get a sizeable bet on any race is getting harder. No chance in my own area where I am also restricted to £25 on certain tracks and having to travel out of the area to get a half decent bet. Any advise on how to beat this?

I.quit.  How is the bloke supposed to know what he can have on?  They have taken the bet at the counter.  The price was correct and the stake was correctly taken.  The bet is therefore on.  It is not the punter's responsibility to know what  a bookmaker wants to lay.  Some manager tellinh him verbally that they only want to lay him a tonne means nothing if weeks later they happily lay him 200.  I have quite a few hundred pounds worth of losing tickets which they can void the next time they try and play clever!

loanshark,  they all have cctv and instant access to a winning ticket on their computers.  Basically, it takes them seconds to know who has had the bet, if it is you and in your normal writing!  Remember to keep any losing tickets when you do slip the bets past the cashiers and managers.  They could come in handy. 

I'm happy to lay that 1.01 that you get paid (as per monmore man).

How is the bloke supposed to know what he can have on?

Because they've told him, ffs!


Anyway, loanshark, you took a risk, you won the bet but they rumbled you. Time to hold your hands up and take what they offer.

Ignore BillyBigBalls, he's p1ssing into the wind. I'm not saying the situation is right, I'm saying that I think you're on dodgy ground and are best taking what's on offer.

Barracouda, How is he best to take what is on offer?  He has had 600-200..  The bloke is fair to assume that he can now have 200 on when they happily take the bet.

If a landlord says he does not want him in the pub but the next day the barman serves him pints can the Landlord claim his beer back?

If a Supermarket bans him(ie a local manger tells him they don't want him in) but then let him the next day and sell him a weekly shop what can they do?

He is not trespassing when in their shops.  They allow him in.  He then walks up to the counter, where the deals are done, and they let him have a totally honest bet. The bet wins.  If they don't want his business and are committed to ensuring they don't have it unknowingly in the future then they need to take other steps.  Up and till then they can pay him out.


A for being BillyBigBalls and p1ssing into the wind I like it. When you start winning you realise just how underhand the enemy can be.

monmore man Joined: 15 May 03

People like Baracouda and Kenilworth sicken me.  They have yet to succeed at this game and are oblivious to the way bookmakers act.

Monmore man, I spent 30 years in the betting shop business and some of the time on course so I do know what I am talking about. The betting office told you what you could have, and from that point onwards the onus is on you to bet within the conditions they decided. If you don't like it then bet somewhere else, but if you decide to try it on, you are asking for a dispute. If it was my betting office I would be happy for you to take me to court. BTW please don't try to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, it's very childish.

i agree totally with monmore man in that kenilworth is talking bollix.
your bet (600/200) is a legal contract no matter what the shop told you previously about what you could have on.if they dont want the bet they would need to refuse it at the time.the bet was accepted and it will stand.

monmore man is confused between what he would LIKE to be the case and what IS the case.

Like kenilworth, I've spent time in the industry (not as much but enough to know that the bookies have you over a barrel when things like this happen).

Talk of pubs/supermarkets is just waffle, completely irrelevant and the sign of someone who knows he's talking sh1te.

ur talking bollix too baracouda.

There is not a Bookmaker alive who would let this go to Court. 

Imagine the response when they explained why they do not want bets from Mr Loanshark36. 

"he is good, we only want clowns to bet with us"



Both baracouda and Kenilworth live in a different World.  kenilworth wanting to go Court and baracouda the expert on everything!  He will get paid and it will not go to Court.

Bookmakers are now paying out in cases of palpable error!  Times have changed since the 2005 act and you think a legitimate bet placed perfectly correctly will not be paid out because they have got the hump Loanshark as done them over.

The lads in Head Office are just trying it on hoping he accepts it.  At worst they think they will have at least p1ssed Loanshark off and might make him dissapear in the future.  They know they have to pay but want to make it a tad hard for him.  As soon as they realise the bloke is clued up and not a baracouda, who will accept what he is told, they will pay up.

If you think that, stop wasting your time on here and take them to court,instead of looking for sympathy from guys on here who have no knowledge of how these thing s work. GL., you will need it.

I have just remembered kenilworth.  You are the bloke who agreed with the PC.  Are you just jealous of winners full stop?

You may have all these years in the industry, so you will know that betting transactions are now legally enforceable.

The old days are gone  -  wake up

Any lawyer will easily get this chap £800 - and the bookie knows it

The bet is struck and a contract made they will have to honour it( might squeal a bit but threat of small claims court should suffice)

However don't expect to have anymore bets in the shop depending on if its your livelihood or not there are differing thoughts on whether youd actually want to.

It's a disgrace how bookmakers and their employees treat those punters like criminals who win too much or attempt to get value from there bets.

btw its a 600-200 shoulding be operating if they cant lay bets like this imho

Go to court but it will cost you.

no kenilworth  - it will cost the bookie

kenilworth is totally clueless,as he says hes been locked away in some dingy bookies for the past 30 yrs,prob doesnt know whats going on in the real world

I would be willing to bet Monmore does not go to court
but if he did, (costly) he would lose.

Do let me know the date and venue of the hearing
as I would love to attend.

kenilworth

do you accept that the betting slip is a contract, enforceable by law?

birch, it's not as simple as that. He knew the conditions
under which he could bet in that office, but he thought he could
slip through and got caught. He hasn't got a prayer I assure you.
That's me finished on this thread and I hope he has the sense to
swallow it before it costs him, and also prevents him from getting
barred from the shop.

small claims court will cost you £70

I can imagine the bookmaker trying to explain to the court that said client is only allowed £100 bets because he is a winner

kenilworth

the 'conditions' set by the bookie will not enter into a legal argument. The written facts and contractual law will override

Ive been asked to pop in and advise. Im having a few personal issues at present so wont be back unfortunately.

You will get paid either by court or via the office. While Ladbrokes may have advised of their requirements for any further contracts (Bets) you have not accepted. This is obvious in your wish to have 200 on at 3/1. The bet was accepted by Ladbrokes, indicating that both parties where happy with the then contract.

It wont cost you 70 pounds to claim (Dont know who put that but did read) it will cost you 25 or 30 depending if you do it online. Your claim is for 200 pound as they have offered you 600 (200 at 2/1) but the outstanding is the other point.

I dont mean to be bullish but anyone who doesnt agree with the above is wrong. I will happily mail laddies on your behalf for you but cant guarantee when as stated above.

All the best
LLM

Infact, IBAS would have you paid.

Easily get paid out on it, if you threaten them with courts they will bulk and pay up. All costs would go to them

kenilworth     21 Jul 10 14:30 
I would be willing to bet Monmore does not go to court
but if he did, (costly) he would lose.


Have you even read other people's input on this thread?  Read it again and you will realise why it won't be me in Court.  Are you one of these people that does not listen to anybody's voice but his own?

You will be paid, of that there is no doubt.

Their silly rules about restrictions hold no bounds in Contract Law (Which I have studied)

Threaten them with a Smalls Claims Procedure (There isn't technically a Small Claims Court, they are heard at County Court) and they will back down. If they don't they are idiots. Don't expect to be welcome in their "shop" again though.

I.quit.my.country Joined: 09 Jun 10
Replies: 21 21 Jul 10 12:06   
if they accept a bet by mistake after you have already been restricted, they are not liable to pay the other 100 you had on. You should not have made the bet as you know the rules. So take the 600. They are entitled to only pay you out on the 100 allowed at 3/1 and give you the 100 back taken by mistake.

This is no longer true as the 2005 Gambling Act gives only the Gambling Commission the right to cancel or part cancel a bet.
No one else can. Tattersells 2010 Rules now correctly state that a bet can only be altered by mutual consent of both parties. No mutual consent and it stands. The main problem is that the shop and internet T&C's have not been updated to comply with UK law.

So what happpened?

kenilworth have you just been fukkin defrosted laddies had the chance to knock the bet back they didnt case closed.

bookies take your bet and change the rules after the race, everyone knows that.
they aint got time to check every bet but they got time to argue the t0ss when you go collect and sting you out of winnings.

Tried to cah my slip last night and the manager only offered to pay 100 at 2s and 100 at 3s. Argued the toss but he stood his ground and said that was their only offer. I told him that i did not want to cash the bet and was going to take it to the small claims court. He aked me to come back tommorow and have a meeting with his area manager so I will have to see where it goes from here. I cheekily tried to have a bet while I was there (asking to take the price) but they would not take it and told me I am banned. Cant believe a major chain can dispute over a ton. Update tonight.

the lay preacher Joined: 17 Apr 03
   


kenilworth have you just been fukkin defrosted laddies had the chance to knock the bet back they didnt case closed.

This poster must have a degree in English !!

This is no longer true as the 2005 Gambling Act gives only the Gambling Commission the right to cancel or part cancel a bet.
No one else can. Tattersells 2010 Rules now correctly state that a bet can only be altered by mutual consent of both parties. No mutual consent and it stands. The main problem is that the shop and internet T&C's have not been updated to comply with UK law.

That is not correct. A bookmaker can void a bet if his rules allow (I`m not suggesting that they will in this case).

Tattersalls rules are irrelevant for shop bets. They only cover racecourse bets. It is not true to suggest that their rules do not comply with UK law as your understanding of who can void a bet is incorrect.

Tattersalls rules are irrelevant for shop bets. They only cover racecourse bets. It is not true to suggest that their rules do not comply with UK law as your understanding of who can void a bet is incorrect

Banks, unless the rules have changed your post is incorrect. I, as an independent bookmaker, went to the rooms over a betting shop bet, albeit many years ago. How would a betting office dispute be settled these days otherwise ?

Kenilworth if you have a dispute now that you can`t resolve you need to refer it to an independent 3rd party. I suppose you could use Tatts but I imagine that the vast majority use IBAS. Tatts deal with a minute number of cases nowadays. Either way their rulings are not legally binding and a definitive answer can only be made by the courts. There is no legal requirement for a bookmaker or punter for that matter to abide with an IBAS/Tatts ruling.

loanshark:

re: your meeting.  Don't say a thing.  The area manager will hit you with a bunch of lines, etc, looking like he knows.  My prediction is he will sight other examples where "people tried" to take them to court.

Sit totally silent.  THIS IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.  Let him talk and talk and talk.  He will come across as an authority.  He is simply a bloke who works for a company that owes you money and it is his job to double-talk you and make you feel a foot tall and that he is "doing you a favour".  Give no input into the meeting.  No indications.  DON'T GIVE HIM YOUR NAME OR ADDRESS OR ANY INFO.  Sit 100% silent and when they offer you what they do, put it in writing then turn to him and have him sign to this being the final offer.  If he balks, it will help your court case.  If he does sign it, there was no mutual agreement on the changes to your contract and it will help you in court.

If you don't agree with the amount, say, "well, I'm going for a coffee and will be back in 15 minutes.  If the full amount is not available for me then, I'm going down to (name the street where the court is) and filing" and leave and have a cup of coffee.

If the money is not there, file immediately.  Don't hesitate. 

Some key points for your case:
- was the manager that is in the shop the same as when you were "restricted"
- why was the bet not void prior to the race?
- when they "restricted" you, did they give it to you in writing?
- Are the rules on the wall updated to the latest gambling act.
- was the cashier that took your bet work or take bets from you before.

- Question for court.  Is there a list of restricted punters in the shop and is your NAME/PHOTOGRAPH on it.

- Each betting slip is a contract and the contract was accepted not only by the cashier but the manager who gave her the responsibility of handling the front.

If I see you have proceeded further, can pass on some more information on dealing with this (I do research for a solicitor who has given similar advice on a betting slip scenario).

Each betting slip is a contract and the contract was accepted not only by the cashier but the manager who gave her the responsibility of handling the front.

The punter will get paid in this situation however the comment above is not correct. Acceptance by a member of staff is not the same as acceptance by a company otherwise corrupt staff could bankrupt a business.

So how are they supposed to proceed? 

Are bets checked by the manager before the off?

They are scanned and sent in - so is an alert sent prior to the off?

Bets are covered by their rules. It would be nice to think that all could be verified at the counter but that will never happen.

Bets are not necessarily checked before the off. They are scanned but can remain as merely a scanned image for hours. Essentially all the scanned receipt does is confirm the time of acceptance. The content may not be reviewed until well after the race has been run.

Gents, as a lawyer, I can say with some confidence that there is no question whatsoever that the OP will get paid here.  If they don't pay him out voluntarily, all he has to do is file a claim online using the very easy to use process that can be found here: www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

It takes a matter of minutes to fill out the relevant form online and although you will have to pay a small fee (the fee is £60 for claims between £500 and £1,000), you will get the fee back when you win your case.  AND the OP will definitely win his case.

As has been mentioned above, gambling debts are now enforceable contracts (this has been the case since the 2005 Gambling Act came into force in September 2007).  They local bookie has absolutely no way that they can defend this claim and when the claim form hits their lawyers desks, it will be settled!

The only caveat would be if they had a clause covering this outcome in their rules ie any bets taken over a certain amount will be settled at SP/voided etc. They won`t have a rule stating this but there are similar scenarios where they do eg concerning credit accounts etc.

I dont know any solicitor who calls himself a lawyer and the claim would be for 100 not 500-1000 so te fee would be a pony of using MCOL

ER WHAT HAPPENED THERE

I dont know any solicitor who calls himself a lawyer and the claim would be for 100 not 500-1000 so te fee would be a pony of using MCOL

That's the problem with the Betfair forum, far too many smartarses! 

How do you know I'm a solicitor and not a barrister?! ?[:p]

As for the claim amount: as I assume he won't be cashing in his bet slip (to take the lesser amount being offered), yes it will have to be for the full amount (and therefore fall within the £500-£1000 bracket). 

The fact that the bookie will, if he completes the defence document, say that the whole claim is not disputed and only the difference between what they've proposed to pay and what the OP is claiming, does not change this fact!

Ok, ive never heard a Barrister OR a Solicitor say hes a lawyer, hope that helps.

He would be better collecting the 700 (Putting not accepted in F&F) and claiming for the 100 because the Judge, if he so wishes, could award that he only be paid the costs of the correct amount as Ladbrokes lawyers, SORRY, solicitors would argue well we offered to pay the 700 but he wouldnt take it. Thus argueing that the whole claim in its entirety is vexatious as they had offered the 700 and as such, would be liable for the lower banding of court fees. I havent my CPR book as I am off but do know that that is the case.

You might be right there ER WHAT HAPPENED THERE.  I am a commercial lawyer and not a litigator. 

The point of my first post was to try to correct some of the posts above suggesting that the OP might not have a case.  It wasn't my intention to compare c0ck sizes with any other lawyers that came along. 

Note: I say "lawyers" in the paragraph above intentionally in the generic sense since I don't know whether you claim to be a solicitor or a barrister.  And I say "claim to be" because I am assuming that you are indeed doing that.  If so, I have never known a solicitor OR barrister to have such a bad grasp of spelling and punctuation.  HTH [;)]

I don't have the details of the case, but I'm sure Laying Like Maria took a bookies to county court and hence will have a precedent. I wouldn't even bother arguing with them, just straight to court, you want expenses, plus interest, not a court in the land would rule against you.

It's time that people take the bookies to task over these issues, sine the 2005 Act we have far more power to sort these issues out in court. In actual fact, there is no point in IBAS anymore, straight to court launch an action. I will represent you as a "friend" if you indeed do this and are based in the Northwest.

Some of the "pro-bookie" comments and judgements on this thread are hilarious and incredibly misguided. T & Cs do not override Contract Law.

I would also like someone to go to court about just how they restrict or ban you without breach the DPA, it may be ok for them to CCTV you, but to keep names without consent is very dodgy ground indeed. Even keeping the images beyond the prescribed time is exceptionally "iffy". You should only be able to CCTV for purposes of preventing crime, not for monitoring people.

Good post AussiInUK.  I agree with all of that.

In actual fact, there is no point in IBAS anymore, straight to court launch

The Gambling Act requires disputes to be handled by a 3rd party prior to court action. The courts will expect you to have done this prior to escalating the issue to them.

As for your DPA points I am afraid you are wrong. They can keep the info. You have the right to demand to see the info but cannot stop them keeping it. Read up on the Act and you will see how it works.

Banks

As mentioned above, I'm not a litigator, but I very much doubt a county court judge will take any action that will adversely affect the claimant if he filed a claim without first going to IBAS (at least not for the sorts of money we are talking about here).

As for the DPA point, without going in to great detail and boring everyone to tears, I think you will find if you take a look at The Data Protection Principles in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Act, that their behaviour breaches more than one of these Principles and therefore breaches the DPA (www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_9#sch1-pt1)

Anyway, I really don't want to get into a pi$$ing competition with other lawyers (nor anyone else), so I'll leave it at that.

Da Daddy I am not sure that they breach any of the Principles however I also have no desire to end up arguing the toss about it so will leave it there too.

But with regards CCTV, they must have signs advising what the CCTV is being used for. I have yet to see any sign that says "To prevent winning punters getting on" or par se.

Also, with regards the DPA, I believe you have to give them permission first to store your Data or am I wrong on that?

Spot on Da Daddy, they have no rights at all to store information based on CCTV, unless it is to prevent or stop a Criminal Offence.

If an indivual person recognises you then fine, they can refuse the bet. Bet they cannot keep pictures of you behind the counter, and cannot pass this information to other shops.

Winning is not unlawful, pubs for instance can pass information about trouble makers, law breakers etc to other pubs as that is in the Licensing Act and is completely allowable. The rights to keep and spread the data that these bookies do is highly dubious to say the least.

They don`t pass on CCTV images unless it is regarding suspected conmen. They keep "account" data which is lawful and is used to make trading decisions.

AussiInUK you should stop and think for a moment and consider the alternative. They could bar you from all shops and then circulate photographs all over the country with a view to preventing you from commiting a criminal offence of entering their premises ie trespass.

The claim would be for £800 - anything that is being offered is being offered in full and final settlement of the claim and so should not be accepted if you still want to claim the lot.

It doesn't matter that the girl on the counter was new, she is still an authorised agent of the company and by accepting the bet they have waived any right to claim you are restricted. The comparisons with being barred from a pub or supermarket are perfectly valid.

Regards

A solicitor.

kenilworth.  Small claims is made accessable to everyone through cost.  The intimidation of "it'll cost you" is said again and again.

It does not.  Infact, if you go into magistrates with a sound case and are NOT successful, it can not cost a pence except your own expenses. 

I am talking from experience on both magistrates and small claims by the way.

Both successful.

As well, someone that I am going after for unpaid work tried the same intimidation with "it'll cost you, etc".  Their mistake: leaving it on my answering machine complete with the phrase "if and when I decide to give you the money, which I doubt I ever will....."  All admissible. 

Too many times people buckle under the hassle and worries on costs.

Take them on.  Courts recognize the simplicity of the case.  If the bookies come with a team of a dozen, court will say "overkill" and will dismiss any of the expenses if the plaintiff is not successful.

Class33 what would you say if such an "agent" gave odds of 100/1 instead of 10/1? Would you still say the company has to stand by the agents of the agent?

banks

completely different argument - your bringing 'palp' into something that is not 'palp'

Not necessarily if both issues are covered in their rules.

It's a palp. Manifest errors can be corrected in any contract.

Banks Joined: 18 May 10
Not necessarily if both issues are covered in their rules. 

Banks you keep referring to the Act but I am sure you have either never read it or not understood a single word of it.
Only the Gambling Commission can now void a bet - get it? I earlier posted the 2010 Tattersell Rules which do now comply with the Act. Shop T&C do not comply with the Act and are illegal where they in any way go against the Act.
Palpable error T&C would be laughed at in Court - it is about the most unfair conditions of a betting contract I can think of - so would immediately be made void under the Unfair Conditions of Contract laws as well as the 2005 Gambling Act. "The professional odds setter can change the odds he has offered to a recreational punter asking him what the odds were" - that would give the Court a huge laugh.
There is no law to use arbitration such as IBAS but bookmakers do have to set up a dispute resolution body. They have not done this as IBAS refuse to deal with any complaint that is about the law (the 2005 Act is the law) only the illegal T&C that bookmakers have - so no one in their right mind would use it.
Until a case actually goes to Court it is unclear whether any previous case law on mistakes in contracts would even apply. The 2005 Act does not mention "mistakes" and older case law dealt with arithmetical mistakes which did not reflect the actual agreement for both parties. A bet is a unique type of contract in that the outcome is generally unknown before the event (the Act allows after time bets)so neither part knows whether the bet will win or lose. The bookmaker keeps the winnings for a "mistake" bet if it loses - it is just that his prior risk is higher and risk is not in the Act either.

So what happened then LS?

By the way, my post said "both cases successful"

They weren't.

The small claims was.

The magistrates case I could not prove beyond a doubt (their expert versus mine.  I overlooked a key point and blew it / was representing myself).

Prior to the ruling, my time with the court was deemed "without malice" and the defense ate £7,500 in expenses since the courts said they couldn't touch me.

Well thanks for all of your posts they have been really helpfull. The manager at first was adament that they would only pay sp but after realising that i would not accept this upped the offer to 100 at 3s and a 100 at 2s. I know with all of your advise that I could have gone further and pushed for the lot but did not want the hastle of taking court action so took the offer. Thanks again all for your time and advise and sorry to all of you that would have enjoyed the prospect of a court action against the big boys.

Only the Gambling Commission can now void a bet - get it?

Not true. A bookmaker can also void a bet if their rules allow eg many now have a rule that states that if you breach a sports governing body rules ie you are a player and you bet on your own sport then the bookmaker can void the bet.

cornubia I do understand the Gambling Act extremely well and think that your tone is a little condescending.

kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05
   
I would be willing to bet Monmore does not go to court
but if he did, (costly) he would lose.

Slip of the type there, but was I right ? Something doesn't
seem right about the whole thing and I'm wondering whether
anything ever took place. Would OP care to say which ''Magic
Sign'' office was involved ? Probably not.

Loanshark
Laying Likek Maria has asked me to tell you to email him at ussports2004@yahoo.co.uk and he will get you the other 100 pound. All he asks is a donation to Sheffield RTG of a pony if he does.

Don't be surprised if he doesn't.

As far as im aware, he has a 100% succes rate and raised just over 1300 for charity for his work.

keniworth you roundly seem to have been found wanting on this topic,let it go.

no idea why this thread is still going on after 3 pages.

Threaten them with small claims court and they will pay out no question. end of thread

Why doesn't he do that then ? Is this just a fishing thread, or a wind up ?
It's beginning to look like it to me.

Kenilworth what is your problem? I started this thread asking for advise and all you have done is posted replys making yourself look like a prat. Not one of your posts were helpfull or made any worthwhile contribution. I do not need to justify myself to you or supply proof of my transaction. Why dont you go and waste your time elsewhere and leave some parts of this forum for geniune people. The bookmakers that were involved have the same start and finish to their name as you C****S I am not going to court as I dont need the hastle but thanks again to everybody that gave geniune and helpfull advise.

kenilworth, you have been around for years. More and more I find myself skipping over your posts on the forum since you constantly offer up negativity.

The thread was started describing an event.  The option was settle or go to court.  He got within an amount that, when weighed out against time involved, meant not going to court. 

Your posts aside, a lot of advice from people with experience and insight that could be taken on board.

loanshark

Your perogative not to go further, but think the shop mgr may be £100 in pocket !

And now,L36, they will never forget your face.

I said two days ago he wouldn't go to court and I was right. IMO
the whole episode was a figment of his imagination perhaps to
try and impress some gullible people that he is a smart punter
who bets in hundreds. lol. Surprised Shapeshifter joined in though.

Loan

Laying Like Marias offer still stands. He will get the 100 for a donation of 25 to charity.

"smart punter who bets in hundreds" lol @kenilworth,you really are an idiot are'nt you.

enjoyed the prospect of a court action against the big boys.

Banks Joined: 18 May 10
Replies: 293 22 Jul 10 22:49   
Only the Gambling Commission can now void a bet - get it?

Not true. A bookmaker can also void a bet if their rules allow eg many now have a rule that states that if you breach a sports governing body rules ie you are a player and you bet on your own sport then the bookmaker can void the bet.

cornubia I do understand the Gambling Act extremely well and think that your tone is a little condescending.

Sorry Banks I thought it was a lot more condescending.
What you are not seeing at all is that if the Gambling Act 336 only allows bets to be voided under certain conditions by GC it means ONLY the GC can void bets full stop. If it allowed bets to be voided by others it would have said so - it does not. For bets to be recoverable in law it means they cannot be arbitrarily voided by any party. The two parties are able to change a bet if both parties agree but not otherwise. The Gambling Act is the law. The law supersedes any conflicting or unfair T&C as if they were never written. It is a level playing field now for both parties - not one party making it up to their advantage as they go along.

Only the GC can void the sports body rules bet also. It actually spells that out in the Act at (b) - perhaps you did not read that bit.

"The Commission may make an order under subsection (1) in relation to a bet only if satisfied that the bet was substantially unfair. .
In considering whether a bet was unfair the Commission shall, in particular, take account of any of the following that applies— .
(a) the fact that either party to the bet supplied insufficient, false or misleading information in connection with it, .
(b) the fact that either party to the bet believed or ought to have believed that a race, competition or other event or process to which the bet related was or would be conducted in contravention of industry rules, .
(c) the fact that either party to the bet believed or ought to have believed that an offence under section 42 had been or was likely to be committed in respect of anything to which the bet related, and
(d) the fact that either party to the bet was convicted of an offence under section 42 (cheating) in relation to the bet.

What you are not seeing at all is that if the Gambling Act 336 only allows bets to be voided under certain conditions by GC it means ONLY the GC can void bets full stop

No it doesn`t cornubia you are wrong. The Act allows the GC to void a bet as an outside body. The Act also allows bookmakers to have rules that allow them to void bets.

If this were not the case then every void late bet would need to be referred to the GC.

The sections of the Act that you quote are clearly designed to give the GC powers to void a bet but that does not mean that other interested parties ie the bookmakers can`t also void bets under certain circumstances.

Are you seriously telling me that the bookmakers who have rules that allow them to void bets placed by sportsmen on their own sports are acting illegally?

Far be it from me to be condescending in return however I suggest you do a little more background reading to prevent you from reaching any further misleading conclusions.

Banks you are completely and totally wrong. The GC can rule on the contractual side of the bet, bookies cannot.

I'm happy to give legal advice on a pro bono basis on this to sort this all out once and for all.

Banks you are completely and totally wrong. The GC can rule on the contractual side of the bet, bookies cannot.

AussiInUK I can assure you that I am not wrong and in fact know full well how things work.

I think you may well have misinterpreted what I have said. A bookmaker can make a decision based in their rules assuming that they don`t breact the UCTA. These rules may include voiding bets under certain circumstances eg if the punter has breached sports rules ie he is a player betting on his own sport etc.

If you do not believe me then I suggest you read the report written by Rick Parry and the Integrity Panel he Chaired and you will see that I am right.

Think it would be the UTCC act.

Could be either.

A point which everyone should understand:

Because a company/bookmaker has a rule or term in their conditions, it does not automatically mean it is reasonable or indeed legal, I have recently had a run in with Hills, they were steadfastadly refusing to budge, and were quoting me their terms and conditions at every corner, and the palpabale error rule.

As soon as I challenged the legality of some of their rules/terms, they paid me immediatly......

So if a term/condition seems unreasonable, there is a good chance a judge in a court room would think the same and rule in your favour.

Spot on Valueman.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people on here react to disputes by saying "You bet with the bookmaker, therefore you have accepted their rules"

They genuinely seem to be of the belief that having a "rule" gives them carte blanche to do whatever they please, regardless of whether it is fair, ethical, or, in particular, legal.

Quite astounding

Dont want to read the whole thing.

Who was it with ?

If it was one of the biggies, they always says limits are reviewed constantly. That surely means if you get a bet accepted then as far as you are concerned they have changed your limit.
They will pay up if its laddies or hills.

The 0pening poster is shy about naming the office from which
the dispute occurred, also claims to be barred, which suggests
that the whole episode may be a product of a fertile imagination.

kenilworth are you for real in this thread or what of course he will get paid 800 , 100pc no doubt about it

ko2, according to his post on July 22 at 22:34 he accepted 700 and
never went to court, so perhaps you should the thread properly before you
have a go at me. I said earlier that he wouldn't go to court as I was 
suspicious that he possibly never had the bet. It was all a bitfrivolous                                   and we will never know.

ttt

alex_the_old_wrinkled_retainer_ate_my_hamster 
ttt

That may be the most intelligent post you will ever make on here,lol

Take it to court and set a precedent once and for all.

To palp or cancel a bet is against contract law. I don't care about the T&Cs of the company, it is an unfair contract.

AussiInUK, The bet probably never happened.