IS IT LEGAL?

Great point. . . BF hold a virtual monopoly the legality must be challenged. . . . . . . .

Why shouldn't they charge what they like?  You have to buy food, you don't have to win money on betfair.

EVERT ONE CAN BUY AT THE SAME PRICE IN A FOOD SHOP ,CAT

YES THE BANKS THOUGHT THEY WERE ABOVE THE LAW,AND HAD TO GIVE IT BACK

you don't have to win money on betfair.

-----------------------------

Actually, many of us do.  There are quite a lot of people who feed & house their families by making money on Betfair and we've had the rug pulled out from under us, with about 3 weeks' advance notice.  Don't kid yourself that this is all about playboys living in huge mansions and driving Ferraris.

KR
With gambling being tax free and also a totally optional activity ( not like shopping for basic foodstuffs at Tesco), I don't think " legality" or " abuse of monopoly" comes into it.
How can the HS bookies pick and choose customers without fear of any Govt. retribution?.
The market eventually decides all these things.
It's called capitalism.

The tax is unlawful,its against the fair tradeing act,and unfair and not ethical,betfair are just as greedy as all the high street bookies,and are getting worse 40-60 percent is a joke.They say you get better odds,how the hell can you if you fall into the tax charge,they say they never close accounts,well when you go from aprox 5 to 40 plus its the same thing your account is dead.

luloo
I would think their legal counsel has addressed all issues such as the fair trading act.
Why don't you bring a suit against them if you feel so strongly.?
Maybe organise a class action suit ?
Or walk away.?
Complaining and doing nothing is absolutely pointless imo.
The British disease ?

Be a bit difficult to bring a case against them when they are registered in gibraltar, no?

turtle
I don't know the legal ins and outs tbh.
Could probably raise some sort of class action stink in the UK I would think.
But again I don't know, not being a lawyer.

Gibraltar has its own parliament and law making powers, so a class action based in the uk would not work, no.

Perhaps my biggest gripe is by moving the goal posts after seven plus years on here, the accumulated numbers are now counting against me. Had these rules been in place from day one, the need to have lots of losers to accompany your winners would have been clear, but as a trader specialising in certain sports, it's not unusual to go several days without taking a loss. But Betfair don't allow you to start again. We are effectively penalised for being long-term customers and for being too efficient.

Knight Rider

Actually, many of us do.

Then i sympathise but it doesn't mean that the supermarket analogy is correct, it's more like an employer changing their conditions of service.  Betfair have a business to run and they don't owe any of us a living. If the new changes don't suit you then go and do something else instead.

Can anyone think of another situation in which a business has raised its prices for some customers based on their behaviour prior to the rule being introduced?

It's the retrospective part of the new PC that raises legal questions, imo.

Likewise Dr J - incidentally, I added your update to your post to my blog - hope you don't mind.

Betfair wouldn't have a business to run if certain people hadn't been asked to seed the markets by betfair. You weren't even aware that certain users were betting with preferential commission rates, waived PC payments etc.
You have also admitted that the PC has had a negative effect on your low-return strategies and that once your margin has decreased to a certain point, you would jack it in.
Absurdly defending business decisions which impact yourself is a little strange.

If the new changes don't suit you then go and do something else instead.

So which one is it then? 'Betfair employee' or a 'lack of character'? After all, unless your strategy is courtsiding or inside info, surely your activity is contributing to betfair's growth. Do you not feel in the slightest bit disapointed or is it all much of a muchness since the charges don't apply to you anyway?

incidentally, I added your update to your post to my blog - hope you don't mind.

I'm flattered. Thanks.

Betfairs use of 'offering better odds' is surely misleading?

baldloaf
29 Jun 11 09:52 Joined: 22 Apr 05 | Topic/replies: 149 | Blogger: baldloaf's blog
Betfair wouldn't have a business to run if certain people hadn't been asked to seed the markets by betfair. You weren't even aware that certain users were betting with preferential commission rates, waived PC payments etc.

All i said was that I had been told otherwise.  Do you know this for a fact?

You have also admitted that the PC has had a negative effect on your low-return strategies and that once your margin has decreased to a certain point, you would jack it in..

I will jack it in when it starts losing, is this odd?  PC has never affected me in any way to the best of my knowledge

Absurdly defending business decisions which impact yourself is a little strange

I just say what I think, I wouldn't rubbish betfair just because they did something that affected me adversely.  Transaction charges clobbered me and were much more unfair than the pc but I could see why they were implemented and can comment objectively.


So which one is it then? 'Betfair employee' or a 'lack of character'? After all, unless your strategy is courtsiding or inside info, surely your activity is contributing to betfair's growth. Do you not feel in the slightest bit disapointed or is it all much of a muchness since the charges don't apply to you anyway?

I am happy to contribute to betfair's growth as they have contributed substantially to mine.  I am not a betfair employee so I suppose my refusal to whinge and complain about everything they do must make me characterless?

The criteria that have been introduced relate to the amount I have won before the criteria were introduced, and the commission I have paid before the criteria were introduced.  The figures used to calculate this are my lifetime net profit and my lifetime commission generated.

I will pay different charges than someone else on my betting, on the basis of these criteria.

Under Betfair's new T&Cs I am therefore being charged not just for my current betting but for betting I did before these T&Cs were introduced.

Therefore I am being charged retrospectively for all the betting I've done in the past, despite having already paid for this betting in full under the T&Cs as they applied at the time.

How can this be fair, and what is to stop them introducing any old retrospective charge on betting we have already paid for?

You can stop at any time and incur no further charges

cat do you own betfair shares?

No

Its Discriminatory for sure

Catfloppo is working for Betfair for sure!

He is trying to clean up the mess and convince others that Betfair is right. But the people has their own minds and see that

Catfloppo works for himself, but he doesn't believe in Santa Claus, that's all.

Don't worry. Everything will come in his rightful place. Sooner or later. And with that attitude Betfair will continue losing share-price.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=BET.L+Interactive#chart1:symbol=bet.l;range=1y;indicator=volume+rsi;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
Its not fault that the company were sold vastly overvalued!

And belive I would do anything NOT TO PAY THOSE CHARGES. ANd I wont! I will move out.

I am not the one that will pay the bad managment debts to the shareholders!

Before I comment let me state that I am not a bf employee, do not own any bf shares, pay PC at the moment even though I run no bots,have no fast pictures, do not go to sporting events and use the bf.com betting site manually.I will not be liable for the new increased rate for a considerable period of time(if ever).
BF can charge what they like. They are not providing an essential service.
It would be illegal if BF came out and said we will take 60% of all profit you have made in the last 5 years. BUT it would not be illegal if they said that if you continue to use the site after today we will take 60%of all the profits you have made in the last 5 years.
Having said all the above let me emphasise that whilst it is legal for BF to have done taken the action they have does not mean it is a good business decision.In fact I believe it is an appalling business decision.

A case against Betfair could be made thrugh the EU.
A case could be made in UK law for when Betfair was UK licenced - which laws apply now could be argued, but EU laws rule both countries.
The EU, for example, has already this year stopped the 1% tax paid by their (Gibraltar's) registered bookmakers and made it 10%.
Betfair claim to be incorporated in UK and the Gibraltar Regulation Authority say on their website that they incorporate the UK Gambling Act - they want to appear above board to the gambling World. They would have a job now to wriggle out of applying UK laws only when it suits them.

If Betfair could be taken to court by UK pc payers then you could use the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs to argue that Betfair have no legal authority to "tax" any UK Citizen (UK betting tax is zero), also particularly with arbitrary charges that discriminate. Penalty charges must only be at a level that pays for any additional costs to Betfair. Betfair would need to prove the charges reasonable which they now cannot do as they used to be 20% and have been hiked arbitrarily, and other customers still only pay 5% max.

It still all boils down to whether BF is telling porkies about the costs of running the site for the apparent primary benefit of the 'big" winners then ?

why do all those affected not club together and take legal advice..

it may be illegal, it sounds iffy at best. but the trouble is IF anybody challenged its legality and IF they won then betfair would just close their accounts and say they have the right to cancel memberships wherever and whenever they feel like it. so it wouldnt do anybody any good even if they won the case.

It depends how BF justify it .

If they can truthfully say their profits are tarnishing as a result of the pool draining then they could have justification.

I would also guess that they're not classed as a monopoly in the same way the Post Office was .

Unethical possibly ? illegal ?,i doubt it .

Remember that gambling isn't a classified occupation,sometimes i think it would be better if we paid tax ,we  then may be entitled to more protection.