"monkeys will rewrite the works of Shakespeare before this ever happens again", or so were Tony Calvin's words to that effect.
Though I suspect he probably thought that before the dreaded Voler La Vedette set foot on a racecourse

Horses won today matched at over 100, star, why is 29 so unusual?

The amount yes was even more unusual, but that is Betfair's responsibility to report the correct volumes available. Or are they unaccountable and not responsible for anything in return for the hundreds of millions they earn in commission and premiun charges?

Oh dear thats just not on, if any bf employee even suggested an account would be closed due to the fact that the customer is taking the company to court i would think that might be percieved as intimidating/threatening witnesses(to many s's)gotta be a criminal matter then. . Never mind the really bad pr. . . .

Pedro,
Is that not what I said ?

Maurice,
Whether you choose to accept what I said about In Runners is up to you.
I never mentioned "fact",did I ?
I do know a lot of the On Course In Runners and I have merely repeated their fears.

I can remember a dog race at Wimbledon (live on Sky so was in play) where every dog was matched at 20 (19/1), I had 80 sheets thinking I was betting the fav at 2.94 or so dead on the off.

It got up on the line and very quickly I had the winnings in my account  at 19/1 - I was shaken to be honest, was in an Office and had all the lads around me straight away as I just could not suss it out. Came out via the graph and the forum that every dog had been laid at 20 and must of been an accident by a bot or a layer wanting to lay them all at 2.00 (evens).

That bloke never got his back and although that is very different to what Betfair are saying happened here that was clearly a major error but that bloke would not of had a leg to stand on had he of complained.

Joke really, one rule for one and one for another.

Pedro,
I have absolutely no time for the "attempted thieves" who backed VLV on the Run In.
However,I am concerned how this "mythical £600M" found its way into the "system".
An Independant Investigation must be had (with at least one specialist racing channel observing) to ensure that BF's Statement is the truth.
A simple statement from BF is nowhere near enough.

Racingstar you do seem quite learned when it comes to law , but your last statement calling valued customers of bf "attempted thieves" does seem to be boardering on libel, with all the talk of court procedings you might want to proof read your posts, only in my opinion of couse. . . .

The absolute criteria on BF (quite rightly) is that you must have the funds in your account when placing your bet.

.... and BF's own terms state that if you do not, matched bets will still be valid.....

I am still convinced that betfair would not be a straight walkover if it went to court. I dont really see why players are worried about having an account shutdown - it's not as if it's impossible to open up another is it?

Maurice,
Many BF account holders shared your views when they introduced the 40% PC.
Many of those have had to pay "retrospective PC" on their "new" accounts.

Cadizza,
Unfortunately,there was just one account involved that was able to place the hideously priced Lays.
Forget about people being paid out here,it will never happen.
What responsible BF users want to know is,"how did this unfunded bet get into the Market"  and,can it happen again ?

racing

Yes, fair reply. I would say this has happened before though but to a lower amount and they have just thought "sod it, we can't find the reason but we will just keep going" then this pops up the other day and the heat is on.

So personally I think it will of happened before and if that was to come out - boom, that is when the real problems start for Betfair.

star, have you never made a key input error on either value or odds?
And if you have, did Betfair recompense you for any subsequent losses (or void the event)?

Zaynar hope following passage will help u in deciding wether to go to court

Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,

[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".

[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands".

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

In D&C Builders v. Rees (1966), a small building firm did some work on the house of a couple named Rees. The bill came to £732, of which the Rees had already paid £250. When the builders asked for the balance of £482, the Rees announced that the work was defective, and they were only prepared to pay £300. As the builders were in serious financial difficulties (as the Rees knew), they reluctantly accepted the £300 'in completion of the account'. The decision to accept the money would not normally be binding in contract law, and afterwards the builders sued the Rees for the outstanding amount. The Rees claimed that the court should apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which can make promises binding when they would normally not be. However, Lord Denning refused to apply the doctrine, on the grounds that the Rees had taken unfair advantage of the builders' financial difficulties, and therefore had not come 'with clean hands'.

If you prove BF have unclean hands you have a good chance

Happy New Year

Can't believe this is still going, as I said before, take betfair to court, if they are stupid enough to let it go to judgement, you will be 1.00000001 to win the case, simple as that. Racingstar is either clueless beyond belief, or, quite likely, a betfair plant.

The terms and conditions clearly state that if a bet is accidentally placed which brings you over your balance, it stands.

As a result, Betfair are liable. End of.

bf_fananatic     29 Dec 11 01:31 
all betting companies are not liable if the price was a mistake, which in this case it was clearly, cant seeing any sensible lawyer taking this to court.

to be honest we have had our little tiffs over a couple of points but i must agree with this post and the rest of yours on this one

Not end up in court that should have been.

if Betfair are now refusing to reveal details of the "glitch", having categorically stated they would.........

.....and aren't using any palpable error defence for declining to pay backers of VDV, where does that leave them now?

Where does that leave their customers if a similar problem arises again?

Betfair daren't use palpable error as that could open a can of worms. Their interim CEO made a mistake in using the term as can be seen by the backtracking.

People saying the amount to lay is irrelevant are clueless. If it was a lay of 29 for £1000 or £100, it would have been matched at 2.9, 2.92, 3.00, 4.00 and whatever other lays were already up there before it got to 29, so if it was £100, it wouldnt have got anywhere near 29.