Forums

Horse Antepost

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
cryoftruth
15 Jun 21 12:52
Joined:
Date Joined: 22 Mar 04
| Topic/replies: 7,297 | Blogger: cryoftruth's blog
Paddy Power are being sued by a punter after crediting his account with £286,000 for a winning bet, only to claw it back two days later on the grounds that he had originally wanted to place a much smaller bet.

The dispute is expected to result in a High Court hearing at the end of this month, at which one of the issues to be put before the judge will be the fairness and legality of the 'error' rule commonly used by bookmakers, which has so often been the cause of complaint among punters denied a payout to which they believed they were entitled.

James Longley backed Redemptive when she won at Wolverhampton in September 2019, phoning up Paddy Power to ask for £1,300 each-way at the 16-1 that was then on offer. The operator who took the call said she would seek authorisation from a trader, as the maximum stake for his account was £203.

At this point, the operator mistakenly relayed the bet to a trader as a request for £13,000 each-way. The bet was approved and the operator relayed that information to Longley, who says he was happy to be allowed a much larger bet than the one he had sought.

Longley's phone call was recorded and a transcript has been included in court documents from the defence, seen by the Racing Post. It shows the operator telling him: "I got that cleared with a trader for you" and adding: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand coming from [account name], is that correct?"

Longley replied: "Yeah, that's it, yeah". The parties do not agree as to whether he had realised at this point that a much larger bet had been authorised, Paddy Power insisting he must have misheard, misunderstood or thought the operator had made a slip of the tongue.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 20
By:
cryoftruth
When: 15 Jun 21 13:00
The question about this is whether Paddy Power would have returned the stake money which they are arguing was a “mistake” if the horse had been unplaced.

It seems to me likely that the answer to that would have been “no”.

If Paddy Power had evidence that they regularly returned losing large bets taken in error, then maybe they would have a case. But in this case they accepted a large bet. It won. Now there are wriggling and trying to welsh on the bet they clearly accepted and that the backer clearly agreed was at the stakes that they accepted.

Not sure Paddy Power are any better or worse than any other firms but the facts are that they took a big bet and are refusing to pay out.

From what we know it would appear to be somewhat shameful. Can you imagine, if the horse had been unplaced, them contacting their customer and apologising for the “error” and handing back the extra £20k they had won? Would they have used the recording as evidence as to why they should have returned the money?
By:
cryoftruth
When: 19 Jun 21 12:48
Still finding this case irritating.

It seems the Paddy Power have a general rule which is that if you bet with them and win a lot of money they will try and find any way they can of welshing.

Rule is this. If you hope to win don’t bet with Paddy Power.
By:
Facts
When: 20 Jun 21 00:26
This story begs a number of questions.

Didn't know telephone ' Credit ' accounts still existed. On line betting requires a debit card deposit before bet is Iaccepted.

PP Traders ' allowed ' a bet of £26,000 against a client whose credit limit was £203 !!

My experience with PP ( before they closed my account), was they refused any bet that gave them an exposure greater than £500. Then restricting stakes to a maximum of £2.50 !!
By:
jed.davison
When: 21 Jun 21 09:58
So common in these punter v bookmaker disputes that one can never really discern who is the bigger wrong 'un.
By:
duffy
When: 23 Jun 21 14:41
I am struggling to get my head round the fact that someone asks for 1300 e/w and the operator then comes back and says yes you can have 13 grand e/w and the customer happily accepts it without question.

Hard for me to accept that the customer did not misunderstand.

PP may not have been fair if it was the other way around but I don't think that a judge would be able to consider that as mitigation.
By:
kincsem
When: 24 Jun 21 14:47
Paddy Power already have previous in taking massive bets from mugs.
The An Post employee from Gorey, Co Wexford, Tony O'Reilly, lost 1.75 million to them of An Post money.
Paddy Power phoned him when the Paddy Power system was down telling him he could phone through his bets.
Now Paddy Power lose and try to squirm out of it.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 29 Jun 21 14:26
Duffy’s point is okay I think. But the guy had the dough and put it on. PP want it both ways. If the horse wins, no bet. If it loses you lose. Not sure that is fair but they may have a legal case alright.

Hope the punter wins though. He should have transferred the money out of account before they welshed and nicked it back from him. Bet he wishes he had done now.
By:
Facts
When: 30 Jun 21 22:21
Yep. Always withdraw your winnings straight away.
By:
Facts
When: 30 Jun 21 22:21
Yep. Always withdraw your winnings straight away.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 01 Jul 21 07:30
The High Court has been urged to rule that Paddy Power must pay a punter £286,000 for a bet of £13,000 each-way on the grounds that all those involved had agreed on that stake, rather than the £1,300 each-way for which the punter had originally asked.

Lawyers for the bookmaker maintain there was no agreement for the increased stake, which was first mentioned mistakenly by the operator who answered the call when she relayed it to traders for approval.

Closing arguments were presented on Wednesday, with the barrister Mark James – representing James Longley, the punter in question – insisting: "Objectively, it's a bet for £13,000 each-way.

"That's how Mr Longley understood it, that's how the phone operator understood it and that's the bet that Paddy Power's trader authorised. It would be a very unusual outcome if they were all wrong."

Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, presiding over the two-day hearing, intervened to ask if it were realistic that someone seeking a bet of £1,300 each-way would then be offered a stake ten times as large.

"It's not plausible for many," responded James, "but it is plausible for a punter in the situation of Mr Longley."

The court had heard on Tuesday that Longley is a wealthy punter who had already lost £19,000 to Paddy Power earlier the same day from an initial balance of £78,000 before seeking the disputed bet at 16-1 on Redemptive, a winner at Wolverhampton.

James regretted no evidence had been heard from the trader in question, suggesting it could have been given remotely in less than an hour had the defendants agreed. Drawing on email correspondence submitted in evidence, the barrister said of the trader's decision to approve the bet: "He seems to have been tempted into doing that because he thought the customer was chasing his losses.

"He thought this was a good chance to make a profit for the business. He says in that email, 'For some reason, the liability just went out of my mind'. We know he thought he was in trouble."

Paddy Power cleared disputed £26,000 bet thinking punter was chasing losses

James argued an 'error' clause relied upon by the bookmaker was unfair. He noted that Paddy Power had been able to lay off part of the bet, recovering £17,000, and could in theory have laid off the entire sum.

"They can lay off their bets, make a profit on the deal, and then tell the bettor, 'We're keeping our winnings but you can't have yours'."

Summing up for Paddy Power earlier, barrister Kajetan Wandowicz pointed to the phone call and said the claimant was relying too much on the phone operator telling Longley: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand," from his account.

"It beggars belief," said Wandowicz, "that a highly intelligent and sophisticated punter who has only just been told that his requested bet has been approved" would regard that mention of a different sum of money as a counter-offer.

Wandowicz said there was "overwhelming" evidence, from the context and from Longley's reaction, that the punter did not register a larger sum had been mentioned during the call and only realised he had been given a larger bet when checking an app on his phone later. As a result, the defence argues, the parties had been at cross purposes and a contract had never been agreed.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 01 Jul 21 07:33
Sounds like a strong case against the welshers.

The trader did not out of the blue try to take advantage of a punter they thought was chasing his losses. It would be bookies practice to get as much out of punters as they can.

This time they lost and should pay up not Welsh.
By:
kincsem
When: 01 Jul 21 15:55
It makes a change from trying to bet Euro 100 and being restricted to Euro 11.04.
Is the Paddy Power defence the customer won when they though he would lose?
By:
impossible123
When: 03 Jul 21 17:24
Imagine one had asked for a £7k loan, and the financial insti came back and said you'd have £10k. What'd you do? Of course I'd take it (if I needed it), assuming the t&c were the same. Sometimes it would be more profitable for a financial insti to offer more, if the customer is deemed creditworthy.

In this dispute, a losing punter (who'd afford to lose) had asked for £1300 e/w; operator came back and said "trader" approved £13k e/w ie trader willing to accept £13k e/w (an amount 10x his request) bearing in mind the punter already lost £19k the day before. - the trader clearly thought the losing punter was chasing losses.

Of course the losing punter accepted being a punter with a big wallet. Would you not if you still had £59k in your account having lost £19k the previous day if offered that by the trader? I certainly would, if I was in his (financial) shoe and mindset.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 05 Jul 21 18:01
Imagine the welshing bookies welshing?
They asked if the bloke wanted the bet. He said yes. He won they lost. Now they are welshing.

They should have their licences removed for welshing immediately.
By:
Facts
When: 06 Jul 21 09:29
If £59k was the total racing bank, and he'd lost £19k the previous day, certainly shouldn't be risking another £26k.
Brings into play the most important rule of betting( if you're serious about achieving realistic long term profit.)

Level of stake in proportion to total available bank.
By:
impossible123
When: 06 Jul 21 19:28
The bloke is millionaire, and he'd afford to lose £19k the previous day. And, the trader knew that hence approved a £26k bet no doubt after checking his account balance (£59k credit).

How can a bet approve by a trader and agree by customer not constitute a legal contract?
By:
kincsem
When: 07 Jul 21 09:38
I may be wrong but I think betting is not like buying and selling which is covered by contract law.
It is an agreement between gentlemen (?) and if one party does not honour their part there is no legal redress.
The only course of action is to ask the licencing authority to not renew the gambling licence when they apply to have it renewed.

The above is just my notion of how it is, perhaps deluded.
By:
impossible123
When: 08 Jul 21 19:15
The moral of the story is "do not trust the bookies"; win, you lose; lose, you lose. The leeches have no honour, only profit in mind.
By:
LoyalHoncho
When: 18 Jul 21 00:07
"When someone refuses to pay a bet, we say that they have welched on it. This expression originated in the 1860s in English horse racing slang and very likely is an insult geared towards Welsh people, which resulted from the xenophobic mistrust of the people-group by the English".
Poor taffys.
By:
parispike
When: 30 Jul 21 13:39
Any update on this or is M'Learned Lady still considering?
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com