Gambling Act 2005 - any legal brains out there?

Dont waste your time ,the GC is 100% correct.In brief for there to be a legally binding contract there must be offer and acceptance ,ie the punter makes the offer and the bookie decides if he wants to accept it or not.Bookies advertised prices are merely an offer to treat ie an invitation to the punter to make an offer ,which the bookmaker has  absolute discretion to accept/decline.
The law will not change any time soon because this notion is one of the cornerstones of English law. Its far more significant than the relationship between punters and bookmakers ,its the basis for ALL contacts.There are no exceptions.
You have ZERO chance of changing a cast iron situation.

Surely there must be some consumer law to ensure to customers aren't deliberately decieved, Hector.


You suggestion seems to give leave to the idea a shop can deliberately display innacurate prices in order to attract custom.

The Gambling Commission do not have staff expert in betting or the law.
They are administrators only.

They get their interpretation of the Act from consulting with the leading bookmakers.
They do what they tell them as bookmakers are their main funders.

They have not answered your question on Fair and Open" correctly.
They have dodged the issue entirely and have gone onto something else entirely which is contract law.
The Gambling Act already incorporates existing contract laws.
The Gambling Act gives the GC duties above and beyond Contract law and Parliament expects GC to enforce the Act but it does not.

Are the bookmakers terms and conditions fair, open and equitable or do they favour one party to the disdvantage of the other party?
That is what they have to decide but they never even look at the one sided conditions bookmakers impose.
Unfair tems and conditions are void in law.

The EU have confirmed this by later legislation on unfair terms.
1.Making the arrangement legally binding on you, but not on the supplier.
2.Allowing the supplier to retain money in the event that you cancel, but not obliging the supplier to pay compensation in the event that they cancel.
4.Allowing the supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis, without giving you the same right.
5.Allowing the supplier to cancel the contract without reasonable notice to you.
7.Incorporating legally binding contractual terms without giving you reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them before signing.
8.Allowing the seller to alter the terms of the contract without a valid reason which is specified in the contract.
9.Allowing the supplier to determine the price at the time of delivery, or significantly increasing the price without giving you the chance to cancel.
10.Giving the supplier the right to determine whether the goods you receive are as described or allowing him to interpret contractual terms as he sees fit.
11.Legally obliging you to fulfil your obligations, while not obliging the supplier to fulfil his.
12.Allowing the seller to transfer his rights and obligations if it affects any product guarantees you may have with him.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and other legislation. In a nutshell, this piece of legislation protects consumers who enter into legally binding agreements with suppliers (bookmakers) where the contract is biased in favour of the supplier.

Bookmakers are not allowed by law to void bets but they do.
Bookmakers are not allowed by law to claim "palpable error". Once a bet is made then it is payable in full by law.
Not some arbirtary decison of a clerk.
Once a bet is made the bookmaker cannot in law claim the bet is partly or wholly void because of some related contingency claim.
Many of the related contingency claims are figments of their imagination, in any case.

Refusing the same bet to all punters is legal.
Refusing a bet but allowing another person the same bet could be challenged as discrimination if the person refused is another race, religion or sexual orientation.
The bookmaker would have to convince the Court otherwise.
They are on very slippery ground here.

The GC do not carry out their prime duty to enforce the Gambling Act in this area of fairness in the slightest.

You are completely wrong.
There is a contract between the bookmaker and the punter, and the bookmaker provides a slip to prove it and has to post on the wall the terms and conditions that contract is made under. The GC response recognises the contract exists.
What makes a contract?
In extremely simple terms, the elements that a court will look for when deciding if a contract is legally binding are an offer, acceptance, the intention to create legal relations, and consideration. That all happens every single time a bet is made.

time to start naming and shaming like the ****s who cant even pay minimum wage.

bad publicity is the only way to hurt these ****s