SEE YOU IN COURT BETFAIR

davidetig , so the odds are not always correct . its not whether it was 2.9, 29 , 290 , thats why 1.01 lose and 1000 win . it was the ammount to be paid out as to why the bets were void not the price . price is irrelevant

litigata
i wish and hope all the best for you  ciao a buona notte a utti

rrscaughtboy ...only just seen your questions.

I do not need to prove myself especially to an ignorant person like you.

rrcaughtboy...You are quite right.I hate what this country has become and I certainly would never use Litigata for his spelling alone.The point that I am trying to make is that with my 30 years experience in the game I cannot believe that you could lose in a BRITISH court.The sums are irrelevant and I am sure that any claimant could show many thousands of times over when such odds have been accepted in running and the layer has lost.Those races have never been voided.

The questions were posted at 2200 hours your time Litigata and very relevant.If you cannot answer or find the answers in the time you have had.

You can come and clean my bidet for a week,you sure as shyte do not know LAW.nap...........1.01 back       99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 lay

homefortea
you can get those odds and more in races and they win , but not many people will put money on those because they are at the back being pushed and looking like they have no chance. (lingfield racing today good example of this)the horse was 29s and going well and looked like the winner from 4 out so its not poss that 29s were the right price

so you know its going to be void

Dec 28, 2011 -- 4:34PM, davidetig wrote:

homeforteayou can get those odds and more in races and they win , but not many people will put money on those because they are at the back being pushed and looking like they have no chance. (lingfield racing today good example of this)the horse was 29s and going well and looked like the winner from 4 out so its not poss that 29s were the right price

that------doesn't-------matter

litigata what percentage will u take if we win

homefortea ...you never made a typo when typing quickly? Lots of people do it and there is no spellcheck in forums.

if the horse was at the back and struggling then i would understand everybods concern but its not the case so understand what you say

Litigata,ignorant you say?

At least I am qualified to speak about LAW.......wtf are you that cannot answer 2 simple questions that have a bearing on this situation?

Flogging something you are clueless about.

Dec 28, 2011 -- 4:36PM, litigata wrote:

homefortea ...you never made a typo when typing quickly? Lots of people do it and there is no spellcheck in forums.

but i would think in the circumstances you would be more supportive of people taking responsibility for their errors

when it comes to no;s i never make a mistake

BTW LITIGATA there is spellcheck on every computer......try the on button YSDC conman.hth

i make money betting so iam extra carefull whith numbers and always looking to make a profit

davidetig..I suggest that you go back to your nwnf lawyer and ask him why you were not adequately compensated for your obviously conversation-ending injuries.I will leave you with one farewell point.What were the true odds of the said animal and if some-one lays over that price in a similar race at what point will Betfair step in and void the bets.That is the chilling result of today.I believe that is the end of Betfair as an in-running force because lets face it how can you ever have confidence in them again...

litigata ive had a mrga bet on it what percentage u charge and how do i get in touch

mega

Using my Ellery Queen hand book on these matters I have formed the argument below:

1) Do Betfair usually void horse racing bets in running for palpable error reasons: No, think that 'fat fingers' is a common comment in in-running markets
2) The person in question did not have 20 million + in his account to bet with and can't pay it : Then the rule states

Your betting limit is represented by the lesser of: (i) your 'Available to Bet' balance shown in your account and (ii) your ‘Exposure Limit’ (which is available in the “Account Summary” tab in “My Account”). However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand


It looks like Betfair owe the money 'won' to the backers involved playing by the book

From a common sense point of view it is a fkuk off lot of money we are talking about here for something that clearly was an error

bindunontheriver ... if a case is funded under a CFA, then we do not take any fees or percentage from the customer at all. We take a percentage of legal fees from the solicitor. We also do not charge any administration or processing fees.

If a case is funded by a professional funder (Litigation funder) rather than a solicitor, then the funder takes a percentage of any recovery and he would share part of his profits with us.

In this case, we are talking about a law firm considering an action under a CFA.

If we could just distance ourselves from the personal jibes for a moment - if 29/1 had beeen laid in exactly the same circumstances to a single £1 would the bet have been declared void ? I suspect not. Therefore the obvious and only reason here is the vast sum of money involved, but does that change the principle ? I think not !!

rrscaughtboy
28 Dec 11 22:21
The motto I worked under for a portion of 30 years military service was Fiat Justitia, what is your motto?


Litigata thought it was a pimped Punto.

how do i get in touch

They will then get a percentage of any insurance you are sold to cover fees should the action fail......which it will.

The answer to both questions posted at 2200 hours litigata.

No it is not OK,both would be offences under the Theft Act 1968.

HTH

davidetig Joined: 23 Nov 10
Replies: 96 28 Dec 11 17:39   
i am about 500 down today, should i stop. no football tonight to turn a loss into a profit today.

David, I'd stick to chasing on the footy if I were you, as you ain't got a clue about in-running horseracing.

It was BM...........until I discovered betting and the Law for making money.

rrscaughtboy
28 Dec 11 22:47 Joined: 27 Nov 11
They will then get a percentage of any insurance you are sold to cover fees should the action fail......which it will.

Why do you think it would fail rrscaughtboy?

tbf you wouldn't bat an eyelid if someone told you they had just bought their missus a Fiat Justitia

ÖÐÎÄÂÛ̳ ...it would fail in contract but these ignorant people assume they know what other legal teams are thinking or what other causes of action may exist.

rrscaughtboy ...why are you trying to mislead people?

If After The Event insurance was fortunate enough to be obtained in any case, then an insurance company belives there is a good enough chance of success.

It is not easy to qualify for ATE without the insurer believing they will not have to pay out.

Good luck mate but I think the last thing a lot of lads on here will want is another day in court.

Oops Law and Order does not start for 10 mins.Me and the strange Muslim who writes in CAPITAL LETTERS have crossed swords before but on this occasion he is quite correct.Betfair rules state this.I cannot see any class action fail in a British court because the judge would be clueless about odds and any claimant could find any number of punters who have laid larger odds than expected in similar circumstances...A no brainer....

Mislead people? RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRooooooooooooooooffl it gets better.

So you admit there is such insurance.......fortunate enough to be accepted is what you meant........not easy to qualify?

LOL.........They need to know 90% certain they the case will be won.

Nice one LIGATURE,do not tie the not too tight,best too leave it to gravity.........less painful.

Technical and palpable errors plus typos ALL INTENDED.

litigata
28 Dec 11 22:52
ÖÐÎÄÂÛ̳ ...it would fail in contract

For what reason?

rrscaughtboy ...why do make it out like the insurance is a bad thing?

We get policies "deferred" and "contingent upon success".

If you can get these policies without having to risk a penny and you have the comfort of knowing an insurance company belives you are likely to win or they will cover the costs of your opponent in the event you lose; what is wrong with that? Oh I see, you would prefer to have to pay the opponents costs if you lost a case.

Anyway you are contradicting yourself because you say the case is doomed to fail and also say we will make monmey from the insurance but the the insurance can only be obtained if the insurer believes the case will win.

You are making yourself look very stupid.

ÖÐÎÄÂÛ̳...wagering and gambling contracts are deemed void pursuant to legislation.

However, other causes of action may exist.

This is the bottom line to all of the people on here,MOVE ON with your little lives, FORGET IT, its not important, you are small time opportunists,like those that shoplift and get caught.   Thre will be NO court action,certainty, and Betfair share price will hold up nicely.   Now go to bedlike the little children you are

litigata - I think that the only bookmaker who would hide behind that rule would be one that is finished. If Betfair were to play that card their credibility would be absolutely not existent. I couldn't see them using that as the reason for not paying out

ÖÐÎÄÂÛ̳ ...i am sure many bookmakers have played that card before likewise I am sure many customers have benefited too from wagering contracts being void.

jeezus , the small minded folk eh ?

if you think you've got a case on technicalities then you go for it.

it's a gamble in itself.

nothing wrong in trying

people must appreciate that ?

Dec 28, 2011 -- 5:12PM, litigata wrote:

ÖÐÎÄÂÛ̳...wagering and gambling contracts are deemed void pursuant to legislation.However, other causes of action may exist.

THAT ISNT TRUE YOU MUPPET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bristol Rover is obviously a Betfair employee or a Betfair shareholder.

I'm sure some small operators have benefited from this before and punters ....  they just get warned off don't they?

I couldn't imagine Hills or Ladbrokes refusing to pay a bet on the grounds that gambling debts are not legally enforceable.

I'd have thought Betfair would have been in the same boat.

LOL..........LIGATURE hangs himself.

He obviously does not know my reputation for INSURANCE on here,that apart......you contradict and then admit LIGGY?

WHO is looking stupid LIGGY? You have repeated everything I said as truth and then failed miserably to justify your denials?

Bring it on but with a literate colleague so that I can destroy them as well.

No place on here for con men.nap

I have to stand corrected as one of my panel members just emailed me saying gambling contracts are enforceable as per part 17 of the Gambling Act 2005.

I have to say I always personally assumed gambling contracts were void.


Part 17 Legality and Enforceability of Gambling Contracts
334 Repeal of provisions preventing enforcement

(1)The following shall cease to have effect—

(a)section 1 of the Gaming Act 1710 (c. 19) (voiding of security for winnings or for repayment of gaming loan, &c.),

(b)remaining provisions of the Gaming Act 1835 (c. 41) (security deemed given for illegal consideration),

(c)section 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c. 109) (voiding of gaming contracts),

(d)section 1 of the Gaming Act 1892 (c. 9) (voiding of promise to repay), and

(e)in section 412 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8) (gaming contracts)—

(i)in subsection (1)(a), the words “section 18 of the Gaming Act 1845, section 1 of the Gaming Act 1892 or”, and

(ii)subsection (1)(b).

(2)The repeals in subsection (1) do not permit enforcement of a right which is created, or which emanates from an agreement made, before this section comes into force.
335Enforceability of gambling contractsE+W+S

(1)The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement.

(2)Subsection (1) is without prejudice to any rule of law preventing the enforcement of a contract on the grounds of unlawfulness (other than a rule relating specifically to gambling).

rrscaughtboy ...you have destrotyed nothing. You are on a different planet and I do not care about your reputation in insurance. I had no need to look through these forums until tonight. I work closely with one of the largest insurance brokers and underwriters in the world.

rrscaughtboy ...you have destroyed nothing. You are on a different planet and I do not care about your reputation in insurance. I had no need to look through these forums until tonight. I work closely with one of the largest insurance brokers and underwriters in the world.

CUT and PASTE............WARRAC.

One of the so called BRAIN DEAD posters fukcing told you this hours ago YSDC.........Fukc off and talk to Dave Duggan And Claude Duval before you are eaten alive.

More likely they will need your services when exposed as more illiterate than the dimmest forum fukcwit.......no names....no pack drill.

Difference is........we have a bonding........even with the idiots.HTH

That was so easy you LIGATURE............you do not know LAW.......you are a 2 BOB insurance salesman...........CRAP at THAT.

?

FFS someone price up the ID?

CHARNIER
FRAUDBOY
BRIMARDON????????????????????????????????????????????

Duggan just shortened by 3 points.

rrscaughtboy - why does it bother you if litigata represents those who wish to be represented on a no win no fee basis?

It looks on the face of it as if they would more likely win (probably in an out of court settlement) than not

rrscaughtboy ...actually we are litigation risk transfer specialists who specialise in commercial litigation.

Our job is to reduce someones risk in litigation. Simple as that!

We do not specialise in gambling disputes per se so why would we automatically know that gambling contracts are now enforceable.

The previous case we were putting togeher was not based in contract.

Anyway the only con man is you. We are transparent and take no money directly from our clients so that makes an interesting format for a con doesn't it!

LITIGATA son,let me help you out...........all of my work is PRO BONO...........GRATIS........capito.

My job on the forum is to root on the con men.......feel free to explain...GRATIS........PRO BONO?

RISK TRANSFER SPECIALISTS...........PASS THE BUCK........YSDC.nap

BRIMARDON with a FUKCING wig on............we dont know about horseracing.........we sell software.........?

This thread will live forever invho.

website www.litigata.com looks pretty authentic

rrscaughtboy...I have nothing bad to say about pro bono and that is very honourable of you however to suggest we are con men is absurd.

However, you know what they say about pro bono lawyers? Not good enough to get a paid lawyer's job!

So does Brimarim..........or it did last time laz luv looked? I dont know.

Ligature,there comes a time when decent people give something back.

I give time,money and experience.........no barrier to cost for an individual in trouble.........better than you or your company obviously.

Trying to sell your services and then admitting you do not even know the FACTS.......SUBJECT?

Similar to a **** trying to flog a fanny when it is really a tranny.nap

When I investigated two suspicious deaths in Florida (invited with my wife who is a forensic biologist) we closed the cases quickly.

The first was an alligator which had been hit by a large truck.....................48.7 feet of rubberr and a 45 degree swerve to the right.

Conclusion.....accident......skid marks conclusive.

Half a mile further on a dead LITIGATOR........conclusion...justifiable homocide.........NO SKID MARKS.

At the moment there is a lot of speculation going on about how what happened today occurred. I believe that Betfair should issue a statement saying that they are going to hold a thorough investigation and then publish the results of that investigation. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and until Betfair openly answers them, this saga will drag on and on, ultimately to the detriment of Betfair.

rrscaughtboy ...you fool. There are facts being concealed by Betfair. We all know the facts that are publicly available...i amj not going to wate any more time on you either. People can make their own minds up and do not need some wahsed out do gooder from preventing people getting genuine help.

Prophet or Doom................NO ONE LOST ANY MONEY...........FFS...............this is free advice.

Agree an explanation is required but FFS do not feed the Insurance agents YOURS or any others DETAILS.

That is ALL they want FFS.

Fine illiteragata,vafanculo cagino.If they want genuine help it is readily available here 24/7.........LOCAL solicitors............Citizens Advice in the UK.


BTW Learn the LAW and better still go back to primary school and learn to spell YTSDC before trying to peddle shi* or taking on superior wit and intellect.

Btw that is only Money Tree I refer to...........my bidet still requires a polish.nap

NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....

If it was Joe Bloggs with £1000 bank. Get over it.

If it was LADBROKES OR WILLIAM HILL and down to human error ie.. 28 instead of 2.8 then BETFAIr are liable...

NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....NAME THE ACCOUNT HOLDER....

FOYSDC and go and learn about numbers........probability......and stop whinging...........YSDCs why dont you stop howling?

99.973% were not affected reported today in Tasmania.........roughly the percentage of BF accounts in the United Kingdom.

THIS ISNT GOING TO GO AWAY!

MOMENTUM BUILDING,COURT ACTION PENDING.

I can honestly see this going to court perhaps as much down to the fact that people just dont have confidence in them anymore.
Conflicting TCs which are seemingly there to intimidate give the illusion that they can do what they choose, when its actually the courts that decide, if anyone makes the decision to test this case then it will inevitably effect the whole exchange mechanism in future....might even kill it.
Its the dirty harry moment, how badly do you want to hurt bf, just remember its unlikely to end in any real money in the 'victor's' pocket....rather the legal rats will take it.

Over the years (on here since 2001) I've seen instances where abnormal amounts appear on the screen (ie, 150k bets in weak markets)never really made sense, and they didnt stay there for long (generally not matched)
Is this fiasco purely over the size involved, as had it been a £1000 at 29, then it would have been gone by the 4th flight. And then BETFAIR would of had a choice..
As the said punter only had under £1000 in his \acoount (I was told £745)
They would either had to go the route they have now- void all in running bets (very hard to justify for £28k liability.)
or payout as that clause says in the T&C's

Pretty sure I know which way they would have gone (Paid the £28k)and looked into the bot glitch after and hopefully resolved.

I feel for sure this has happened before, and selection lost , and not to the massive numbers involved this time.

rrscaughtboy    - you're a pr*t - hth !

litigata is a trading name of MyAccess2Justice Ltd.

Only been trading two years and filed one set of accounts and they show a net worth of MINUS £41,621.

Interesting when read in context with their posted comments and claims.

litigata is a trading name of MyAccess2Justice Ltd.

Only been trading two years and filed one set of accounts and they show a net worth of MINUS £41,621.

Interesting when read in context with their posted comments and claims.

ttt 

Well bumped Greg................FACTS.......thicko.nap

Btw hope you had an enjoyable festive period Greg.

I did mate cheers and you too

Very nice Greg,going to have a proper go at the US stuff after Saturday,was on Glens Boy.

Dont get that in 1F claimers.

wd mate
5/1 everyday would do me

rrstwat

you know absolutely nothing about me.

FACTS,I never said I did..........FACT.

Hope you had a Ginness Book of Records as a present,a few in there (allegedly).

You are the one who derides everyone else without actually giving any FACTS.......btw.........not a spelling mistake.....BF hate advertising..........FACT.

good luck to you

GL to you and all our regular posters,Happy New and prosperous Year.................the forum is becoming like a Border Agency staging post.

if zaynar goes to court with a competent lawyer i cant see him losing ..

"BETFAIR SHARES COLLAPSE IMMINENT"

This was the message at Ayr racecourse yesterday.
It was revealled that the irish incident is NOT a one-off. Several people have found bets struck on their account which have not been authrised. Some of these were later traced to a source in Lichenstein!!
Hackers have gained access to possibly hundreds of betfair accounts and the associated bank accounts. Betfair security measures cannot cope with the sustained hacking attacks to its site.
This was the talk at Ayr races and the experts were saying that when this became public knowledge the share values could lose 80 to 90% of their value. Scary.

Grave Digger no one else has posted this and you choose to post in on the end of a long thread.

Just looking for more excuses to keep this alive when it has died, nothing more will come of this the case is closed.

BETFAIR GROUP (LSE: BET.L Ticker: 44JTH0 / ISIN: GB00B44JTH01)
Last Trade:    788.00
Trade Time:    14:52
Change:     35.50 (4.72%)
Prev Close:    752.50
Open:    754.50
Bid:    787.00
Ask:    789.50

jimnast im no fan of exchanges i feel theyve ruined the oncourse game but i do accept i have to use bfair, i thought uuou used exchanges as well maybe the purple firm who you consider less RANCID.

i want my £285,000

BS your employers hope/wish thst it is closed. No chance.

you taking it further woz ?

BS,THIS IS FAR FROM CLOSED,WATCH THIS SPACE.

Cortina - I am not sure what our trading records prove apart from the fact we have lost money ever since we became independent from the city of london law firm we were originally part of.

It only proves that we should never have seperated from the law firm.

Con men would not make themselves so transaparent and in any event, the actual legal representives who act in any case we put forward are independent law firms who are part of our panel.

Finally you may be too ignorant to be aware that many pieces of litigation take 2 years or longer to come to a conclusion so why would we have made a profit in our first year being independent.

You should consider all facts before making silly assertions.

Clitigata........you have already been exposed as a two bit insurance salesman.You have NO qualified lawyers in your company so why are you stating you became independent from a "law firm"?

The forum can ask and get FREE qualified legal advice which you cannot provide.Instead of calling people ignorant or silly.....may I suggest your company supply you with a mirror?

Then you can call brimardon and share your knowledge of what a koont look like.hth

these are desperate times forumites , someone impersonating gravedodger and peabrains with scant knowledge of anything scraping around forums for buisness

You joined 28th dec litigata you parasite lookin for a coin in others misfortune

Iv no axe to grind either way as wasnt financially involved,but what gravedodger said was also told to me by a man i repect and  he hasnt even got a betfair it occured a week or two before the irish fiasco.

For Feck

Thanks g2d, went through 4 pages and couldn't see it.