There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 110 comments are related to the topic:
A question for you all re. Betfred
A question for you all re. Betfred
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 110
|
By:
agreed but on the betting sheet does it state categorically it has to be ONE from each section or TWO from each section,no deviations accepted? If not the offer isn't crystal clear to unsuspecting punters who presume as long as a minimum of one is selected from each section then it must be ok.
|
|
By:
the bet stake must have been pretty decent for the difference to be £1000 so
1/ I cant believe bf took the bet in the 1st place 2/ the returns must be at least £6k so why isn't the cashier originally checking the slip 3/ that said, its rare but I agree with fred in this instance, harsh but fair. The punter has not met the requirements in order to be entitled to the enhanced prices regardless on what is printed on the slip |
|
By:
The slip says Select 1 or more from each section. He's met that requirement.
If we disregard what's written on the slip, then we need to consult Betfred's Rules and Information (March 2015) Section J deals with football, J(c) When using Betfred mark-sense coupons all bets will be settled according to the selections clearly marked on the receipt. It is the customer's responsibility to ensure the receipt is detailed with the correct selections etc. The customer's receipt, as do mine, show that payment will be at the enhanced odds. |
|
By:
dixie,
if one of the matches is void after you placed your bet what odds will you get? |
|
By:
that voids all enhanced doesn't it? Automatically across the spectrum of layers methinks.
|
|
By:
I agree with "Pixie" The fairest solution would be to pay the customer either the fivefold with bonus or sixfold without bonus - whichever was more
|
|
By:
anyone see they have a horse called "Coolmore" priced at 40s for the 2016 1000 Guineas.....
WTF!?!?! Sharp practice?  |
|
By:
MT
If one of my matches is void, and my bet doesn't meet the requirement of 'at least one selection from each section', then I would expect payment at Long List odds. If however, one of my selections is void but I meet the requirement of 'at least one selection from each section', then I would expect to be paid at the enhanced odds. |
|
By:
I get that now , Dixie ta
|
|
By:
I went to Baldy's today. Handed over a slip with 1 selection in 4 of the sections & with 2 selections in Section B.
I told the manager that I wasn't bothered about price changes, but that I might be bothered about having 2 selections in the same section. He checked my slip on the system, and said 'that's fine, you're OK.' |
|
By:
roida 16 Apr 15 00:55
this bet does state 1 from each section...2 from each section etc Yeah I'm aware that the bet states 1 from each section but what I asking is does it specifically state 1 only or a maximum 1 from each section? If not that you can argue that the bet did have 1 from each section as in a minimum of 1 from each section. |
|
By:
An update for those interested on the case I mentioned involving over 50k:
A customer of Betfred placed numerous bets on Big Brother last year, almost all of them in the same shop. There was evidently a Gambling Commission investigation into betting on it, although Hills and Coral paid out months ago. Betfred were refusing to pay out, and the main issue was that they continued accepting bets of up to 200 at 33/1 without referring to Head Office for permission to take the bets. Betfred have a 10k limit on BB bets, the customer's winning bets came to over 80k. One of the last bets was phoned through by the same member of staff who had accepted most of the other bets and this bet was authorised with a payout of 6800, even though it would not be honoured if it won due to previous bets already exceeding their maximum payout. Betfred eventually coughed up 10k and agreed to refund the excess stakes as a goodwill gesture, which is just as well as we had our preparation all done to take them to court. |
|
By:
Just to update those interested, court papers have been served regarding this case.
I will post the outcome once resolved. |
|
By:
roida 16 Apr 15 00:55
this bet does state 1 from each section...2 from each section etc Yeah I'm aware that the bet states 1 from each section but what I asking is does it specifically state 1 only or a maximum 1 from each section? If not that you can argue that the bet did have 1 from each section as in a minimum of 1 from each section Roida has obviously been too busy to answer your very relevant question. Nowhere does it state that '1 only or a maximum 1 from each section.' In fact, it does not say; '1 from each section...2 from each section etc.' That is fantasy. |
|
By:
Betfred have until 4th June to respond by paying in full ( plus legal fees ) or else file a defence.
I'm secretly hoping they choose the latter option..... |
|
By:
good luck Paul if the latter, sock it to 'em
 |
|
By:
I'm pleased to report that after a 5 month battle, Betfred finally caved in to pressure and settled the bet as a 6-fold accumulator at the prices printed on the customer's ticket.
We commenced legal action through the Small Claims Court, the case went to mediation where Betfred tried to claim they could simply return the stake money of £160, and that the offer of settling the bet at Long List prices constituted a "goodwill gesture". They then, in my opinion, used intimidating tactics to dissuade the customer from continuing with the legal claim, which resulted in him withdrawing the claim, despite a court hearing date having been allocated. We then contacted his local newspaper, who were given the full details of the dispute, and we then decided to submit the dispute to IBAS once this had been done in the hope that Betfred might once again pay out a customer rather than receive bad publicity in the media. Sure enough, a few days later an email was received saying Betfred have had a "change of heart" and decided to settle the bet in full - a difference of over £1k compared to their original offer. Purely coincidence, no doubt, that having categorically stated for over 5 months that they were not paying the bet in line with the printed returns on the customer's ticket, they had a change of heart once they had been contacted by a newspaper, As I have stated on many occasions, I receive more complaints against Betfred than any other company. Perhaps Betfred might consider treating their customers with fairness and respect in the future rather than making them fight for what is rightfully theirs. Thanks to those who offered support on this thread, and to those who said there was no chance of getting full settlement, I simply hope this goes to show that you should never be afraid to pursue a betting dispute when you believe you have been unfairly treated. |
|
By:
if carlsberg did forumites ... tremendous stuff again from paul haigh
|
|
By:
Good stuff Paul...
I hope ''yer man'' bungs you a drink !  |
|
By:
wd
|
|
By:
Total respect Paul.
|
|
By:
well done paul.
|
|
By:
yep, nice one . V W D
|
|
By:
Well done, Paul.
|
|
By:
never in doubt, great result
|
|
By:
Well done.
Either Fred is a dirty ba$tard for failing to honour bets; or is a dirty ba$tard for allowing such things to be done in his name. Henry Hobson. |
|
By:
They paid out to avoid negative press in my eyes. It certainly doesn't answer your original question and I'd question whether it would be a good idea to put your name to similar cases in the future.
|
|
By:
If it says 1 (ONLY) from each section or 2 as Wazza mentioned earlier (not perm any ten as you like) that is exactly what it is. End of. Customer needs to accept responsibility and to lesser degree so do staff for not looking at bet when accepted. Should add majority employees i've seen seem to lack something. Cannot make out whether that is intelligence or social skills and ones who can communicate moan moan moan about their senior managers. I try and keep out now and looks like many many more people doing same.
|
|
By:
Well done PH-TR.
One interesting question is whether this case has caused Fred to rewrite his till software not to take invalid bets, and/or has altered or clarified the rules governing this bet. |
|
By:
Ask yourself an extra question:
'Would the bet have been settled as a winner to half the unit stake, in (two) lines of one from each section, had one selection in that section containing two choices been the only loser?' It is, of course, merely a rhetorical one, with the answer already known. |
|
By:
PH-TR. The punters pal.
 |