There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 99 comments are related to the topic:
Voler La Vedette thread gone?
Voler La Vedette thread gone?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 99
|
By:
Banks,
You need to brush up on your Betfair terms. I did say I hadn't read them. Please can you point me to the part where it states that BF are liable even if the other party doesn't have the funds? I always thought it said that the punter was liable even if you went over your available funds limit through some quirk or other. I may be completely wrong as I haven't read them closely. |
|
By:
9 . Minimum and maximum bet stakes
Depending on the product or type of market you are betting on and depending on the currency that you are betting in, there are minimum bet sizes that apply. These minimum bet sizes are subject to change and may differ depending on whether you are on our site or using the Telephone Betting Service. You are not permitted to place bets or try to place bets that are below the minimum bet size threshold and doing so may result in your account being permanently closed. 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. |
|
By:
Banks,
I think there is something in there somewhere. It boils down to this, Betfair think if something goes wrong on here, if it's Betfair +£ we can have your money. If it's Betfair -£ you cannot have ours. That doesn't seem "fair" to me. |
|
By:
Banks..Bon Viveur..You can quote facts about every pro-Bookmaker argument that you address.And yet you state that you have not read the terms and conditions of Betfair ? Come on big boy !!
What really ticks me off is what happened if the animal in question had been given the poor ride that it had at the Festival and actually lost !! Any chance of a refund !! |
|
By:
Banks. 23 Mar 12 17:33
Everyone continually seem to overlook the fact that even if IBAS and the courts rule that the bets stand then the money is owed by the punter not BF. As I very much doubt he has a spare £20m to settle things people would get about a penny in the pound at best. Banks, already had legal advice to the contrary - that the customer would indeed be sued as you suggest, but when they have been emptied of their assets, legally Betfair would then be sued and have to stand together with the customer against VLV backers. As well as misinforming people about the law, you are also misleading them about: a)Betfair profits - No chance they (Betfair) will do the same for £20m. That is more than the BF group profit for 2010! Yet “underlying profits rise 36% to £42.4m in the six months to October 31” according to this website: http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2011/12/15/phone-betting-gives-boost-to-betfair-profits-51140-29956220/ b)will (Betfair) take the liability onboard on behalf of the other punter? Are you not aware that Betfair’s TC’s say they are a bookmaker to all customers not based in the UK and your bet is matched with them, not a third party? |
|
By:
pedrobob..I could not agree more.However Banks. loves an arguement...even when he has not read the rules !!
|
|
By:
Anyone got a letter yet ?
|
|
By:
i would love to know whos bot did the so called damage.where is this guy in all this.did he come forward.if it was me i would come forward big time.in house bot no doubt.there has been so many issues with this site it makes a lot more sense that they messed up themselves...this will go on and on no doubt..its a bertie
|
|
By:
has anyone received any notification from IBAS today?
Surely in the interests of good customer relations, Betfair would be willing to post the decision to all VLV backers as presumably the decision is binding on them and with all their customers? |
|
By:
good customer relations ?
bit early in the day for magic mushrooms isn't it pedro ? |
|
By:
surely in Betfair's interests to publicise the outcome for the benefit of shareholders, the City and any would be investors with a potential multi-million payout hanging over them?
leopard, have sent you a pm |
|
By:
I received a letter today IBAS have unsurprisingly backed Betfair 100%
|
|
By:
With the time delay on some peoples TV any price on betfair at any stage on any horse is believable,to me, that fact is unescapable by betfair,I was watching the Cheltenham Festival flicking between Chan4 & RTE (Irish TV) and the pictures on RTE were ahead of the Chan4 pictures by about 3-4 seconds allowing for anything to happen and flick over to see it again "live",then factor in fast pic boys and trackside players.
The king has no clothes. |
|
By:
agree with that slow picture angle as well as the wrong call / colours angle
plenty of overpriced horses when I place an IR 'live' bet  |
|
By:
Letter just arrived. IBAS adjudicate in favour of Betfair.
Now what? |
|
By:
I meant to state that the two TV chanells were showing the exact same footage (C4 just a straight feed through RTE).
|
|
By:
martin118
24 Mar 12 10:55 Joined: 07 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 131 | Blogger: martin118's blog Letter just arrived. IBAS adjudicate in favour of Betfair. Now what? Well knock me down with a feather, who would have thought... |
|
By:
1.01
|
|
By:
I was fully expexting it but what to do next?
|
|
By:
martin, pls check your pms
|
|
By:
did ibas give a full explanation of why?
|
|
By:
The letter is a lengthy one and goes into quite a bit of detail which is a good thing. Far too much to post here but here is the summary :
"Ultimately all we can conclude is that this was a bet accepted in error as a result of a technological failure, which fundamentally affected the market into which it was placed. For that reason we believe Betfair acted reasonably and in accordance with their terms and conditions, in voiding all bets matched in the win market after it was posted. We therefore adjudicate in favour of Betfair." |
|
By:
"a bet accepted in error as a result of a technological failure"
Any lemming can see that and can't understand how it took 2 months to come up with that line. But did IBAS consider the cause of the technological failure? Namely a Betfair programmer, human person, who failed to code in the correct algorithm? This was not a technolgical failure. It was human error. ie corporate negligence for which Betfair should be held accountable. |
|
By:
Thanks 'themover', are you happy with the full explanation? or are there still questions that need further answers?
|
|
By:
Ha ha ha you thieves expected to win, no chance as for what now, well nothing because you have no legal rights to pursue the matter any more, win for betfair.
|
|
By:
Preumably IBAS have seen evidence to support the 'technological failure' that occurred on the customer's account? Perhaps if they and / or Betfair would publish a couple of really basic details relating to this account - date it was activated and a record of the bets placed by the account holder in the week or month preceding the VLV incident - we'd be more inclined to accept the explanations provided.
|
|
By:
themover, please check your pms
|
|
By:
@Jungle I think the letter is very good and goes into a good explanation as to what occurred.
Point 27 : The Panel are aware that many businesses and their websites have similar disclaimers, but we are not a legal entity and so offer no opinion as to whether such disclaimers would be in breach of the reasonableness test specified in the Unfair Contracts Terms Act (1977). |
|
By:
gerry, you too, please check pms
|
|
By:
DOES THAT MEAN U SHOULD LOOK AT LEGAL ACTION THEN ?
|
|
By:
DOES THAT MEAN U SHOULD LOOK AT LEGAL ACTION THEN ?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Lets see what happens next
|
|
By:
I don't think anyone thought IBAS would find in favour of the claimants. As they correctly state in the letter they are not a legal entity and therefore have offered no opinion other than to state "Equally we do not believe that there is any case law which says software providers are responsible for any errors which may be undetected within the products they offer."
|
|
By:
"Equally we do not believe that there is any case law which says software providers are responsible for any errors which may be undetected within the products they offer."
amazed that IBAS are even daring to offer themselves up as experts on "software case law". Are they saying that if an EPOS system had a software fault in it resulting in a supermarket correctly coding a product for sale on the shelves at £1.00........ but the software somehow read that as £0.01p and it was sold to customers for that amount..... that the EPOS supplier would not have to pay compensation to the supermarket if a technological fault was found? |
|
By:
presumably they missed the RedSky case in 2010
|
|
By:
A month at Jumby Bay cancelled :(
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
have had a chance to read the report and it's an embarrassing document imo.
Have to severely question the competence of IBAS as most of what they state and interpret won't hold a candle in court.... in my limited legal opinion |
|
By:
get it on pedro
|