A question for you all re. Betfred

'the betting slip states the returns for the bet are more than Betfred are paying out'

but surely the betting slips rules aint been adhered to so they have the right to pay as a normal odds 6 fold?

I think you should get some expert advice Mr Haigh as this might not be a straightforward case of welching, as is so often the case.

Paul Haigh - Total Respect    15 Apr 15 23:15 
No advantage has been gained by adding the extra selection.


I 100% agree, however as  far as the bookie is concerned the punter has deviated from the bet that produces the enhanced odds, does not seem fair but as the said firm consistently renege &  try to s c r e w   punters over less ambiguous bets such as this one I think there is no chance of being paid out.

Ive nothing but contempt for high st bookmakers but i'll also give wot i consider to be an unbiased opinion as i do with anything in life...

this time the bookmaker imo is correcdt to pay a 6 fold normal odds.

With Betfred coupons you must pick the same amount of selections in each section so you can pick one in every section, two in every section, three in every section etc..

If you picked two in one section and one in all the other sections then I'm 100% sure that the coupon would not go through and the cashier must have said something as they wouldn't have been able to put the bet on.

Therefore the only way the bet could have been put on is if it was rewritten on the normal long list or if you picked other selections to make it 2 from every section.

Sorry to say but there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of you getting paid any extra..you will only get paid the amount that was stated on your receipt

They are not paying out the returns printed on the betting receipt. They are resettling it.

The bet was placed on the Weekend Bonus coupon and the returns calculated by their computer.

Why accept the bet and quote the payout if the bet is not valid?

palpable error....

paul im suprised at your stance re this tbh.

I posted the details to get some opinions from people with gambling experience, I'm genuinely interested in people's views on this case.

Under contract law I am confident the bet will eventually be settled in full.

Time will tell.

If the bet does not fill the criteria as per their t&c's you can have 20/1 Paul.

paid on of course

these 1,2 or 3 from each section bets are on seperate
coupons I think.IE 5 sections,5,10 or 15 teams.
Any other accas ,they want you to place them
on their longlist,I should think.Hope your man
gets his dough.
   GL

Not sure how the bet could be put on.

Only way I can think is if you made it 2 per section by selecting void matches.

If there was a glitch in their system and the returns are printed on receipt then you may have a chance through IBAS.

No chance through Fred though

I've not settled a betting shop bet for over 30 years-but a bet like this one in my day would have been settled as 2X half stake 5 folds.

Only do that now if 2 of the selections are in same race/match

If it doesn't state only one from each section or a maximum one from each section then I think you can argue that, but as with all of these scenarios, I tend to flip the coin and say had the bet lost do you think they would be looking to return the punter's money as a void bet?

this bet does state 1 from each section...2 from each section etc

I would imagine that for enhanced odds, as suggested by earlier posters, there must be the same amount from each section, and they enhance the odds because your less likely to win because with the enhanced 'bankers' you are also putting in enhanced 'longshots'.

However their own computer should not have accepted the bet and should have been returned to the punter - which it seems wasn't the case here, so I'm suprised that they are refusing to pay, you would think that they would pay out and try to tidy up their software to make sure it wouldn't happen again.

With regards contract law, and by posts on here I'm sure your knowledge is better than mine, but when I studied law, not too far ago, I was taught that bets were unenforceable by the courts?

glitches/mistakes are settled as palpable errors

find myself agreeing with wazza, he can be hard work at times but he does speak a fair degree of sense.  not that this should detract from you phtr - possibly the best thing on here

'he can be hard work at times but he does speak a fair degree of sense'

see what i mean ...

I hate baldy with a passion after the Accrington v Bury game a good few years ago, they voided payment after cutting the price of Bury right up until kick off when others had suspended betting on the match. Decided to void after the result which imo is just plain wrong. If the result is in their favour kerching, and if it goes against them just void it. Anyway........


I do see that paying out as a 6 fold is the fairest way, as all you would do is enhance all of the 'bankers' and then pick one from each section after hoping to win. You will be betting over the odds therefore longterm would probably win - I am not saying there was anything dodgey going on at all from the punter here though.



roida   





   15 Apr 15 23:21   





but paul it also enables the average odds of the certs to be enhanced also...

If the bet rules strictly state 'only' 1 from each section then case closed as far as arbitration is concerned.


That would be surely the main point? What is the wording on the coupon itself?

Seems pretty obvious that the bettor was trying to gain an advantage with enhanced odds for the two 'easy' selections as against 1 per the bet rules.

Nothing to see here in my opinion much as I despise the High St firms and there welching, this simply not the case here.

So many better cases to pursue than this spurious one at best I'd have thought

Thanks for all the replies so far, they make interesting reading.

I am trying to decide whether or not the bet should be settled as stated on the customer's receipt or not.

I normally have a conviction that any case I take on involves a bookmaker treating a customer unfairly, and whilst my gut feeling is that this is such a case, I am looking for other opinions.

Keep them coming.

The enhanced prices are the key. I would have to agree with Baldy.

Paul, I would file this one under 'bet acceptance error' rather than 'unfair practice'.

The bet should not have been accepted, an error by the cashier and/or system in accepting such. You could argue either or both should know this, but it must be hard for till staff to know all the rules offhand about all bet types in this day and age with so many sports and offers.

I also suspect the bettor is more canny than you think (the bet isn't in 5p units is it?) and knew he was getting value over and above that what is intended to be offered as part of the bet.

Hi Paul, I feel dirty for even thinking this let alone putting it down in the written word but I agree with Fred's stance. The punter has used the enhanced prices to boost his 6 fold that included 2 shorties (we don't know if this was deliberate or not, probably not otherwise he must surely have put more than 2 shorties in to increase his value).

Another question to ask in the interest of "fairness" (if such a thing exists in Fred Land) is was the punter better of with the enhanced prices on a fivefold (either one of the two from the top) or a sixfold at "normal" prices. In which case if it is the former let him split the stakes in 2 x fives instead of 1 sixfold as a previous poster pointed out would have happened when I was a kid.

Not looked at other replies.

Definately YES.

I'm going in there later, I'll ask the staff.

Two selections in a race,two selections in a 'section' seems like the same thing to me.Repeat: settlement should be two half(of total) stake fivefolds.Simple really.

Dixie if you are going in there try to put that bet on...

Fill in one per section except for one section where you put two.

You will see that the automated system will not let the cashier put the bet on

The way I look at this (trying to be impartial), is that if the bet was placed as advertised, 1 from each section, he would get enhanced odds 5 fold.    What is now happening with the 6 selection at enhanced odds, is actually a single bet (the total amount paid as part of the 5 team acca) at an enhanced price.   This should not be allowed.

I would say that settling the 6th selection at the normal odds (not enhanced) is fair.

it all hinges on the enhanced odds and whether in t&c's it states no more than 1 per section unless selecting 2 from each section, if it doesn't a judge would probably rule the receipt a valid contract. If it is buried in the rules then its a 6 fold or halve the stake for 2 x 5folds. Seems fair to me but obviously that firm isn't a fair one with a huge amount of previous to prove it.

2 x 5 folds seems a decent solution

I don't know why software cant pick up a void or incorrect bet at time of placing a bet.

The lottery terminal tells punters if they have too many or too few selections.

If I were settling the bet, I would pay the customer either the fivefold with bonus or sixfold without bonus - whichever was more.

giggitygiggity 16 Apr 15 09:20 Joined: 03 Jul 11 | Topic/replies: 825 | Blogger: giggitygiggity's blog
Dixie if you are going in there try to put that bet on...

Fill in one per section except for one section where you put two.

You will see that the automated system will not let the cashier put the bet on

Been to Fred's.  Manager wasn't there just a cashier who started Cheltenham week.  In my last dealing with this guy, he managed to translate £50 on a 9/4, as 50p win paying £1.12.

I placed 2 bets,  one with 2 selections in the skinniest price range & one with 2 selections in the highest price range.

The automated system accepted both bets.

Think you are wasting your time with this bet Paul. Roida sums it up perfectly. A £1000 difference suggests the punter is no 'two bob merchant'. Reckon he's trying to work this one.

Paul you're wasting your time - sad to say the bookie is 100% right in this case

So the consensus on here seems to be that he is not entitled to the returns clearly printed on his receipt as calculated by Betfred's computer system.

Would any any legal experts care to voice an opinion on the chances of a court enforcing the contract?

Morally he should be paid but you do not need to be a legal expert to be pointed towards  the bet saying ONE result from each section, as this has not been adhered to I doubt any court action could produce a favorable result for the punter.

So the consensus on here seems to be that he is not entitled to the returns clearly printed on his receipt as calculated by Betfred's computer system.

Would any any legal experts care to voice an opinion on the chances of a court enforcing the contract?

Paul I don't want to come across as pedantic ; but does his receipt say" your returns will be X"
or " your returns could be X"?

i personally think it's irrelevant what his receipt says as the offer of enhanced prices seems to be as far as i can see one from each section, giving a five fold. as he has six selections its outwith the t's and c's.

the 5 selections from box A thru to Box E should be paid at ENHANCED odds.

the sixth selection from box A should be paid at normal odds (not enhanced).

therefore, the six timer should be paid out as above.

IMHO, the qualification has been met for selections 1 to 5.

The slip states:

"Bet returns" followed by the amount they are now declining to pay out.

BB how do you know what one in section A to pay at enhanced odds and what would have happened if one of the selections in A had lost?

there is nothing stopping the punter from putting his enhanced 5 timer winnings (1 from each box) on a sixth selection (say a Monday night game) at "normal" odds after he has collected, so it shouldn't make a jot of difference anyway

yes but if one had lost are you saying they should pay enhanced on the remaining five, cause surely that would be a massive loophole

all selections revert to the inferior Long List prices

i would agree with baldy .

it's "similar" to a shop going buy 1 can of bean for 50p and being told that if you buy 2 get one free and the customer asking to buy one at the average price of the 3 , 33p

There is, because he wouldn't get on after copping a fivefold at enhanced odds the bet before...

by the way no lover of the firm but imo this time they are right

BB how do you know what one in section A to pay at enhanced odds and what would have happened if one of the selections in A had lost?

Fair comment.

As with all discrepancies on bets, first named selection (in running order) would count for bonus purposes.

#my grammer is terrible

grammar

ffs

If one had lost the dealer he would have lost, he did a 6 horse acca and hence needs all six to win.   What BB and myself are saying is that he should get a 5 horse acca at enhanced odds (as offered) but the other selection at normal odds.

Assuming the %age enhancement of prices in category A is consistent.  It doesnt really matter which selection they settle at enhanced or name prices.

vitally important to get the bet and prices clarified before going thru the machine.

Baldy worker should have spotted the error and said you need an equal amount in each box.

Machine should have refused the bet, etc, etc, where do you draw the line though ?

i cant see the returns on the slip angle being an arguement either. simple example customer places a football bet and later on one or more of his games is postponed, his returns wont be the same as his slip obviously. maybe they need to look at the wording and the training of their staff but for the money on offer to them you aint exactly going to get the best.

Thinking about it if the bet was  placed on a proper sections coupon & the punter has two selections in the first section then this is a permed bet
2x1x1x1x1 so if his stake was say £100 then this becomes two £50 enhanced 5 folds.
If this adds up to more than they were willing to originally pay out you could go down that route.

The coupon reads as follows;

                         SECTIONS LIST
               Select 1 or more from each section
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Minimum odds of 1 from each section - 15/1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the matches are then listed in sections
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 from each section (tickbox)  2 or more from each section (tickbox)

IMO if the punter has ticked the 1 from each section tickbox, then he has a valid bet.  If he has ticked the 2 or more from each section tickbox, then he should be settled at long list prices.

T&c s the saviour of so many companies.

you can't take any chances with Baldfred, they will welch on anything, punter to blame really as didn't follow coupon instructions.

common sense should prevail on Baldfreds part to pay 5 at enhanced at 1 at normal price.

common sense should prevail on Baldfreds part to pay 5 at enhanced at 1 at normal price.

fairest outcome
imo

Thinking about it if the bet was  placed on a proper sections coupon & the punter has two selections in the first section then this is a permed bet
2x1x1x1x1 so if his stake was say £100 then this becomes two £50 enhanced 5 folds.
If this adds up to more than they were willing to originally pay out you could go down that route.

If one of his bankers lost then he could still claim the other 1/2 stake 5fold.
He did a 6fold acc all of which must win.
The wording of the returns does not matter as the dealel pointed out.

how abou settling it thus; From the bottom up at enhanced odds on last 4 sections
and  a regular odds double on the 2 in the first section?

Cannot believe Big Boss blaming staff. Cashier is probably taking 400 bets and would be there till midnight if she scrutinised every bet.

The onus is always on the punter to fill out the slip correctly.

if he's ticked the 1 from each section,
can't see how he's got a valid bet,hes
got 2 teams in one section,making 6 not
5.

He has got a valid bet penzance has they have already agreed to pay him out a 6 team acca at normal odds.

At the bottom of the coupon, it states;

SECTIONS LIST - If the minimum number of selections are not met the remaining selections will be settled using Long List prices.

Permutation bets are not allowed on the Sections List.

that's what I'm saying m8,not the enhanced
odds.

Cannot believe Big Boss blaming staff. Cashier is probably taking 400 bets and would be there till midnight if she scrutinised every bet.

you can never have frequented Baldys, the likelihood of any staff member being deluged with bets is nigh on zero.

one glance at the coupon would take 2 seconds to spot six crosses instead of five, on the proviso that the worker actually cared (highly unlikely).

Well if you're going to blame the cashier, you may just as well lay the blame on the punter for writing the bet out wrong....

No Big Boss i dont frequent Baldys. Wrote out £50 @ 7/1 some nag about 8 yrs ago. Took about 15 mins to get the bet authorised.

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.

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

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.

dixie,
if one of the matches is void after you placed your bet what odds will you get?

that voids all enhanced doesn't it? Automatically across the spectrum of layers methinks.

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

anyone see they have a horse called "Coolmore" priced at 40s for the 2016 1000 Guineas.....


WTF!?!?! Sharp practice?

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.

I get that now , Dixie ta

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.'

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.

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.

Just to update those interested, court papers have been served regarding this case.

I will post the outcome once resolved.

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.

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.....

good luck Paul if the latter, sock it to 'em

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.

if carlsberg did forumites ... tremendous stuff again from paul haigh

Good stuff Paul...


I hope ''yer man'' bungs you a drink !   

wd

Total respect Paul.

well done paul.

yep, nice one . V W D

Well done, Paul.

never in doubt, great result

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PH-TR. The punters pal.