There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 133 comments are related to the topic:
Advice wanted regarding non payment of online bet
Advice wanted regarding non payment of online bet
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 133
|
By:
Kevin Pullein is one of the panel members !!
God help us all.... "Recommendation no payout".... |
|
By:
Thanks to all for the advice so far.
I think you are probably correct regarding IBAS now I think more about this and I have looked in to the costs and procedure of this and will push this on now. |
|
By:
Have you posted this on the golf thread to see if anyone else has been affected by this?
|
|
By:
I have not no. I am still waiting for clear evidence on the claims made by the firm and regulator, neither seem to know what they are doing.
|
|
By:
I have not no. I am still waiting for clear evidence on the claims made by the firm and regulator, neither seem to know what they are doing.
|
|
By:
Who was the bet with ? Aviboyd has mentioned BI but there are plenty of other firms over there ?
|
|
By:
WilsonBet, "powered" by JenningsBet.
|
|
By:
Just thought it would do no harm to post it there, as they are claiming that they cancelled other bets, but will not give you proof of this, I can understand that they don't have to provide proof, as peoples bets are between them and their bookie, at least post a link to this thread on the golf forum and you never know what replies you get back.
|
|
By:
Well the latest is that as JenningsBet power WilsonBet all bets placed on the "without fav" market at JenningsBet must also of been voided - I imagine that is the same for every Firm JenningsBet power and they power several.
|
|
By:
While transacting with Wilsonbet (a brand owned and managed by TDL Sports Limited) your bet is struck on servers belonging to Jenningsbet IOM Ltd a company authorized and regulated under an Isle of Man Gambling License. All debts and liabilities relating to deposits, winnings, and loses with Wilsonbet are between the customer and Jenningsbet IOM Ltd and player deposits guaranteed by the Isle of Man Government. Jenningsbet may at any time assign, transfer, mortgage, charge or deal in any other manner with any or all of it's rights and obligations relating to your transactions with Wilsonbet without notice and in transacting with Wilsonbet you will be deemed to have given your consent to such assignment or transfer.
I take it that means the dispute is with myself and JenningsBet? Curious set up isn't it, I would not be keen to have accounts with the two as they would probably throw in the multiple accounts rule if you had a decent chop I would imagine. |
|
By:
jb, I wish you luck. Hang on in there. Sounds like a trader had his balls on the line and his get out of jail free card was to cancel your bet.
|
|
By:
I thought that Wilsonbet were supposed to be the Golf Experts.....
|
|
By:
2012-04-29 08:16:33 Bet returns £1900.00 £1900.00
2012-04-30 15:57:34 Bet Unsettlement -£1900.00 £90.00 And they are claiming every single bet placed on that market was voided, laughable really. |
|
By:
Why not go to a solicitor, first consultation free and even though many think gambling disputes fall outside the normal legal channels, not all do. If you're serious about this and believe you are right that is the best thing to do, as under law of contract or other such avenues there could be a solution.
|
|
By:
I think it may be useful to determine the actual nature of your grievance:
- Is it the case that you feel that the company made a mistake which you were able to exploit and should now be held accountable by paying you ?1800; or - Do you agree that they have the right to void a bet as per their terms and conditions and you simply disagree with that on principle? This is an email from the regulator. How many punters make mistakes daily yet do not cry foul? I thought Firms were attempting to move away from this palpable error rule, if they are poor at pricing up and offering markets they should not be in the business. |
|
By:
i cant really see you winning this imo.
any chance someone could state what the exact state of play was with the golfers in question? how many shots they were in front/behind when placing the bet?? someone said a golfer was 5 shots ahead going into the final round, but id like to know when bet was placed on hole 14 or whenever? id be amazed if they cancelled every punters losing bet though the crooks |
|
By:
I think it may be useful to determine the actual nature of your grievance:
- Is it the case that you feel that the company made a mistake which you were able to exploit and should now be held accountable by paying you ?1800; or - Do you agree that they have the right to void a bet as per their terms and conditions and you simply disagree with that on principle? Where they the only 2 otions? What about you agree that they can void bets as per their terms and conditions however you don't agree that this situation was one where they should have invoked the rule. That is a mile away from challenging the principle that they can void bets. |
|
By:
The golfer who was 5 shots ahead was the outright leader - he was around 1/33 going in to the last round I think and that price never really changed (got bigger) throughout the final round - yet they are saying they ran that market in play as WIN ONLY.
They are saying they never ran the without fav market in play - tell me, which would be the better market to run in play in order to take bets?!! That is what makes it even more laughable when they say it should not of been up - how on earth did a Trader not notice bets going on it? I doubt he/she was rushed off his/her feet taking lumps at 1/20etc for the entire final round? |
|
By:
I used the final round tee times and scorecards to have a rough guess of how they stood after Ramsay was through 13.
-15 Wiesberger -11 Ramsay -10 Dubisson -10 Fraser -10 Jimenez -9 Fisher -9 Coetzee -9 Noren -8 Wall Quite a bit of guesswork involved but 18/1 was obviously the wrong price. Disgraceful to settle the bet and then void it a day and half later with no notification though. |
|
By:
Thanks again for the replies, that is correct they were the only two options the regulator said to me. That is a good point Banned_Banks.
|
|
By:
how can they say they didnt run the market and then claim the correct price was 8/15!!!!!!!!!!!!
 and yes, ^ from above clearly the wrong price for w/o the fav, looks to me like 18/1 was for the outright imo |
|
By:
I am certain Ramsay was behind at the time by 1 or possibly 2 shots.
|
|
By:
jbbrfc does make a good point about the trader not being rushed off their feet being a small firm probably not seeing much business. Errors can obviously be made and not noticed until after a number of bets have been placed, but it sounds like his bet was referred to a trader to manually authorise. When that happens its given the ok the firm really should have to accept some responsibility and not hide behind a palp.
|
|
By:
After discussions with the Independent Bookmakers Service we have established that the price on Richie Ramsey at 06:38 on 29/04/2012 in the Ballentines's Championship without the favourite was 8/15.
I attempted to find contact details for the IBS when this email was sent (early May) but the website was suspended due to non payment of fees. I have never heard of them and the WilsonBet website makes no mention of them at all. Has anyone ever came across them please? |
|
By:
i think deep down you know you got the wrong price, as soon as it was paid you should have withdraw it and closed account
|
|
By:
The biggest mistake they've made from a customer service perspective is not just to void the bet but to do so with no communication , that's appalling business practice.
In my view there's a worst scenario here ,assume that the leading golfer was 1/9 or shorter so consequently the max R4 of 90p in the £ is applied , basically because the 18/1 looks to be the all in outright price based on the approximate leader board posted earlier in the thread. So the minimum scenario should be settled as a 9/5 winner in my view ( 18/1 x 90p R4 ) , not suggesting you should accept that but a 9/5 return should be an absolute minimum. Best of luck , hope you win the case  |
|
By:
If the books are correct with what they are stating, there would have have been no fluctuations in the w/o market, it wasn't supposed to go in running. Therefore, the 18/1 Ramsey would have been the price available in the w/o market, before play got underway, surely!?
202 Bernd Wiesberger (Austria) 72 65 65 207 Marcus Fraser (Australia) 71 67 69 208 Oliver Fisher (Britain) 71 70 67 Felipe Aguilar (Chile) 71 69 68 209 Paul McGinley (Ireland) 71 73 65 Miguel Angel Jimenez (Spain) 72 68 69 210 Kiradech Aphibarnrat (Thailand) 76 69 65 Richie Ramsay (Britain) 70 72 68 |
|
By:
and 5/2 about fraser looks about right as well, 1 clear going into final round
|
|
By:
erogenous but the op states that 12s and 14s was freely available elsewhere.
|
|
By:
^ im doubting that tbh.
|
|
By:
Will say this again, speaking from personal experience, CONSULT A SOLICITOR, first consultation free.
|
|
By:
I shall follow what Paul Haigh says, no offence but I think he is best placed to advise here.
I very much doubt this bet would have been voided had this not have won - those prices were available I can assure you. It is in play betting - prices move constantly. 36 hours is terrible - that is why I am asking for proof that every single bet placed on this market was voided as they state, it seems pretty obvious that only one bet was voided though and many others were probably settled as losers and not voided. Food for thought. |
|
By:
18s was price in the normal market we can b fairly certain. the elsewhere prices quoted didn't exist in the w/o market either.
the 8/15 hes been paid at is defo to short persuming he wasnt at least 1 shot clear of 3rd at the time.. |
|
By:
jbbrfc, if just your bet, or a few selected larger bets were voided than that is fraudulent, but what is to stop them?
|
|
By:
gnasher, you say that you seem fairly certain that the 18/1 was an outright price? Could you then explain the price of Fraser, quoted by the OP @ 5/2, which was available in the same market (w/o fav)? He would never have been that low in the outright market.
My theory is that Ramsey was quoted at 18/1 in a w/o the fav market (it fits, as does the Fraser quote of 5/2, see round 3 scores above), before a ball was struck. The operators incompetence was to attribute to the failure to withdraw the market, therefore the stagnant price was exposed. It would surprise me if there were any fluctuations on this particular wilsonbet market. Also I would not imagine that they were inundated with wagers on this event (early hours of Sunday morning, small operator). Ruling: palpable error. jbbrfc, how many bets had you struck with the firm prior to this wager? |
|
By:
as my learned friend areyoutalkintome stated earler,...
the best thing by far is Time of the bet when struck, email every other company in the world (apart from betsson) asking if they could give you there price at that time............ if it really was 14/1 slash 12/1 take them to court, if it wasnt and by that i mean way out, give it up............ and as for the term trader ! theres no such thing as a trader anymore, just a person watching this site........ cracks me up when they say "our traders"......... |
|
By:
Just another case of a Bookmaker thinking they can do whatever they want, they are not content with ruining peoples lives with online Casino's and FOBT'S, they never accept any responsibility for their mistakes.
I hope people do not use Jenningsbet or any of their white label sites having read this, also P--L S------R of the Isle Of Man GC has been utterly useless regarding this - a man clearly in the pocket of a bookmaking firm, I am contacting him by phone tomorrow to offer him the opportunity to explain his cocky e-mails to me in voice. I simply do not have the energy for this any more and shall be closing all accounts I have with any firm that comes under the Isle Of Man GC, good luck all. |
|
By:
Dear Sir,
Please forgive me for not answering some of your questions – I should have perhaps explained earlier that my role as the regulator is not to determine whether the company offers a good service to gamblers like yourself but rather to investigate whether they have conducted themselves in accordance with the law; the questions you have posed regarding the market, the apparent oversight of the operator on the error and IBAS are periphery to the main issue which I believe we have now isolated in our dialogue. If I have understood your response correctly, you feel that the company does not have a right to void this bet. I derive my conclusions from your response, “I do not believe they have a right to void this, the bet was taken in good faith. . .” Again, I have lifted what I consider to be the relevant terms from their terms and conditions: Wilsonbet is not responsible for printing errors that may occur on its website and printed material. Wilsonbet reserves the right to cancel any bet made on an obviously "bad" line or a wager made after an event has started. The contents of Wilsonbet World Wide Web pages are provided "as is". Except as required by applicable law no warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy, reliability or content of the pages. Wilsonbet reserves the right to revise the pages or withdraw access to them at any time. There does not appear to be any qualifier which prevents an error from being unilaterally corrected if bets were placed in good faith. The terms and conditions have not been breached by the operator. Unless the operator breaches their terms and conditions then what they are doing is within the law and the regulator – in this case the Gambling Supervision Commission (the GSC) – has no reason to intervene. If we were to approach their compliance team and point out that they had voided a bet in compliance with their own terms and conditions, they would probably quite rightly wonder at the point we were trying to make. I am surprised that an experienced gambler like yourself disagrees with the terms on palpable errors; such conditions are almost universal for bookmakers as a protection against this very scenario. I have copied examples from Ladbrokes and SBOBet who I hope you will agree are representative of the sector. While they differs in style, their substance – which I assume you feel is equally unfair - is the same: Where, in respect of any Product or an event within a Product, we make an error (whether human or otherwise), we will be entitled to declare the transaction void and withhold any payments. If we wrongly pay an amount to you or we pay you more than the amount to which you are properly entitled you agree to repay to us immediately upon request from us the amount which has been wrongly paid or overpaid to you. We have the authority to adjust your account to reflect the true outcome and rectify the error. An example of such an error might be where a price is incorrect, a bet is late, a failure occurs in one of our systems or where we enter a result of an event incorrectly. Your bet may be void due to one or more of the following reasons. Event was cancelled prior to commencement. Changes in the event venue. Bets were made after the scheduled game has started (except for live betting). Incorrect information (e.g. participant or member of participating team or odds/price) was quoted for event. Incorrect information was utlised to compile odds. Bets were accepted by SBOBET's system in error. If you think the terms I isolated for WilsonBet earlier do not sufficiently clarify their rights to void bets made on errors, I would be prepared to consider any feedback you have which would make their position clearer for future customers. Before I close this complaint, I would like to try and explain the relationship between IBAS and the various parties in this situation. WilsonBet is affiliated with Jennings so there is a chance that IBAS will recognise that because your contract is with Jennings and not WilsonBet that they will accept your dispute for resolution. That is a matter for their policy towards so called white-label sites (of which WilsonBet is one). We do not control that policy – it is for IBAS to decide whether they accept a dispute or not. In this case, it seems to be that their policy in this matter is to not accept a dispute unless the website itself has paid its dues to them. As the GSC, we have no opinion on this policy – it is theirs to determine and they have drawn their conclusions in this case. You appear to have no recourse to IBAS’ services – as we are not affiliated with IBAS we weren’t to know that when we suggested you present your case to them, but IBAS membership is not a regulatory requirement of an Isle of Man licensee so your lack of an appeal to them is academic for us. While I remain open-minded to the possibility that new facts may emerge in this discussion, unless you are able to demonstrate that WilsonBet acted dishonestly when they offered their market then I intend to consider my analysis to be the more likely: an error was made when setting the odds and it was corrected in the proper fashion using the terms and conditions that you agreed to when you formed a contract with the operator – they have not breached their terms and conditions and there is no case for the Commission to pursue. Regards, I would be utterly amazed if either of the two Firms had ever left a market up in the fashion WilsonBet say they did and no Trader had noticed. The stuff about IBAS leaves me thinking this man is mentally ill as he has kept saying the case can resolved by going to IBAS but is now saying IBAS means nothing in this case. You appear to have no recourse to IBAS’ services – as we are not affiliated with IBAS we weren’t to know that when we suggested you present your case to them, but IBAS membership is not a regulatory requirement of an Isle of Man licensee so your lack of an appeal to them is academic for us. Exactly who should know then?! |
|
By:
Summary? The man doesn't know his job.
|
|
By:
Sir
The Commission has received a response from Wilsonbet concerning your complaint. The operator has confirmed that you placed a without the favourite bet on 29/04/2012 for Richie Ramsey to win the Ballentines's Golf Championship prior to the start of Day 4 of the event. However they state the price quoted at the time was clearly incorrect. Under the terms and conditions of the site, Wilson Bet are permitted to cancel bets where a pricing error has occurred. In this instance as the difference in the price quoted and the actual price was considerable, the operator acted correctly under the palpable error rule. If you consider the Wilson Bet conclusion to be unfair, may I suggest you refer your complaint to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS). Kind regards, That e-mail was sent to me on May 18th. Tread carefully with this people gents, they really do think they can do whatever they want. |