There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Julius Ndlovu's win was turned down by William Hill, who said they 'calculated the odds wrongly' on the online tennis bet
A student nurse won £1,000 from a 50p bet on tennis ace Roger Federer - only for William Hill to refuse the pay-out, claiming they’d wrongly calculated the odds.
The betting giant voided Julius Ndlovu’s windfall, saying their odds of 2000-1 for the Swiss legend to win a set 6-3 was an employee’s mistake.
The 34-year-old is threatening to take the high street bookie to court after they cancelled his prize money which would have landed him the four figure sum.
Julius put bet on Federer to beat Tomas Berdych
Julius put 50p on Federer to beat Tomas Berdych 6-3 in one of the sets of the Rome Masters after spotting very attractive internet odds of 2000-1.
But William Hill overturned his win, calling the odds a “palpable error” caused by “human error”, and said they were allowed to do so as part of their terms and conditions.
Julius, from Bangor, said: “It’s a joke, 2000-1 were the odds and I won. They can’t just refuse to pay me.
“It’s not the customer’s obligation to calculate odds and customers should feel confident operators offer odds that are valid and will be honoured.
“Having this ‘palpable error’ clause is both unfair and illegal.
“Ironically, other 50p and 20p bets I also put on different set-winning scores, also at 2000-1, haven’t been refunded, so it shows they are purely trying to avoid paying me.
“The customer service team offered me two free £50 bets as a gesture of goodwill, but I turned this down.
“This sets a very worrying precedent for the whole betting industry.”
William Hill said the issue occurred due to 'human error'
William Hill has suggested Julius can take his complaint to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service.
A spokesman said: “On any one tennis match, we can offer up to 150 prices which are constantly changing as the game unfolds. Obviously, while we try to ensure that our odds are correct at all times, there can be small human errors.
“These are called palpable errors and are described as such in our rules: when the price/terms offered are materially different from what is available elsewhere in the market or the price/terms are clearly incorrect given the probability of the event occurring.
“If we find that is the case, we reserve the right to correct any error made on a bet and re-settle at the correct price. These are terms that are signed up to by a customer when they open their account.”
Federer beat Czech Berdych in straight sets, 6-3, 6-3.
A student nurse won £1,000 from a 50p bet on tennis ace Roger Federer - only for William Hill to refuse the pay-out, claiming they’d wrongly calculated the odds.
The betting giant voided Julius Ndlovu’s windfall, saying their odds of 2000-1 for the Swiss legend to win a set 6-3 was an employee’s mistake.
The 34-year-old is threatening to take the high street bookie to court after they cancelled his prize money which would have landed him the four figure sum.
Julius put bet on Federer to beat Tomas Berdych
Julius put 50p on Federer to beat Tomas Berdych 6-3 in one of the sets of the Rome Masters after spotting very attractive internet odds of 2000-1.
But William Hill overturned his win, calling the odds a “palpable error” caused by “human error”, and said they were allowed to do so as part of their terms and conditions.
Julius, from Bangor, said: “It’s a joke, 2000-1 were the odds and I won. They can’t just refuse to pay me.
“It’s not the customer’s obligation to calculate odds and customers should feel confident operators offer odds that are valid and will be honoured.
“Having this ‘palpable error’ clause is both unfair and illegal.
“Ironically, other 50p and 20p bets I also put on different set-winning scores, also at 2000-1, haven’t been refunded, so it shows they are purely trying to avoid paying me.
“The customer service team offered me two free £50 bets as a gesture of goodwill, but I turned this down.
“This sets a very worrying precedent for the whole betting industry.”
William Hill said the issue occurred due to 'human error'
William Hill has suggested Julius can take his complaint to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service.
A spokesman said: “On any one tennis match, we can offer up to 150 prices which are constantly changing as the game unfolds. Obviously, while we try to ensure that our odds are correct at all times, there can be small human errors.
“These are called palpable errors and are described as such in our rules: when the price/terms offered are materially different from what is available elsewhere in the market or the price/terms are clearly incorrect given the probability of the event occurring.
“If we find that is the case, we reserve the right to correct any error made on a bet and re-settle at the correct price. These are terms that are signed up to by a customer when they open their account.”
Federer beat Czech Berdych in straight sets, 6-3, 6-3.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 83
|
By:
not a cat in hells chance of being paid out,surprised the paper even ran the story,punter should have grabbed the free bets.
|
|
By:
Now it is pretty obvious that the price was wrong and he won't get paid, but how come if the story is completely legitimate they haven't refunded the other bets that were obviously wrong?.
|
|
By:
because bets are/would have been settled at the correct "market" prices, and the other ones lost
|
|
By:
£100 in free bets is a reasonable offer, I'm assuming he's not training to be a brain surgeon
 |
|
By:
Lets be honest if they offered any one on here 2 x £50 free bets we would have snapped their arm off
|
|
By:
Absolutely carrot. He'll probably still get them given the negative publicity but he's basically a chancer.
|
|
By:
When do the bookmakers need to start being held to account for their errors though?
Most online punters will have never heard of 'palpable error' Their prices should be checked and double checked before they're accepted. If the bet had lost, no way would they have alerted the customer and refunded his stake. |
|
By:
if they,d put up 20/1 i'd tend to agree with you but not 2000/1!
|
|
By:
It's about time someone challenged this "palpable error" bo**ocks in the Courts.
OK, so the punter took advantage of some numpty inputting the wrong odds, but by not returning the stakes on the losing bets what f'in leg have Hills got to stand on? |
|
By:
humans make mistakes in all walks of life, seemingly bookmakers cant walofs
|
|
By:
so if the other bets had won he would have been happy with his stake back
|
|
By:
If I make a mistake at my work it costs me. If a shopkeeper under charges someone, it comes out of their takings.
What makes a bookmaker exempt from being punished through their own mistakes? |
|
By:
aye right let them pay him at those odds, if it was your business would you? this isnt even a story, granted some have hidden behind the rule in the past and maybe it needs to be looked at in certain cases but here, come on its complete bollox
|
|
By:
No, I would have double checked the price before accepting it in the first place.
|
|
By:
doe peek hunt
|
|
By:
James dean u clown
|
|
By:
I doubt that they would refuse to return the stakes on the losing bets per se, rather they would have been happy to re-settle at the correct odds if they had won as per company policy. No need to contact the customer to refund stake.
|
|
By:
If a course bookmaker had chalked up 2/1 (in the days of chalk) instead of 1/1 and had been knocked over in the rush, I don't think he would have been able to claim palpable error.
Instead the price would have been rubbed off the board as quickly as possible to limit the damage, those that got the 2/1 would have been paid. Obv the case in point is a palpable error but the point I am trying to make is that the error is intrinsically part of the new technology in offering odds and, as such, the case law (the rights and wrongs) of situations like this are largely untested. |
|
By:
They have this very well covered in their terms and conditions.
However, one thing i would challenge, is that a numbers of punters on this site have "restricted accounts" with WH - if i ever place a bet with them, it takes an absolute age for it to be accepted or declined, if they can go to the obvious trouble of allowing staff to check every bet a restricted customer makes, then they have no excuse for accepting a bet thats going to pay out over £1000 from any old chancer. You cannot have it both ways (or shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways) Just out of interest i tried to place a £5 @ 16/1 (a price that is widely available) on a horse running later today, it took 15 seconds, before declining the bet - now thats for a potential loss of £80 - why is someone allowed to place a bet costing the firm £1000 with no issue? This is the question that needs addressing and challenging. |
|
By:
Exactly ^
|
|
By:
incredible a rag runs this, clearly a mistake ffs
|
|
By:
the issue is should he get paid at 2000/1 the answer imo has to be no, there cant be any other outcome.
you can argue all day about the other issues, some fair points some not. for me its a nothing story that shouldnt have been printed. |
|
By:
next thing the rags will have some britains got talent dog controversy on the front cover
|
|
By:
They wont get paid in a month of Sundays - nor should they.
But if they decide to take it to court (surely no one would advise them too) then the question should be why do you vet some bets where the winnings can be as small as £50-£100, but merrily accept a bet that pays out £1000+ Everyone can see its an error, but certain customers could not have placed that bet - so if i couldn't have placed it and a large chunk of people on here couldn't have placed, then why was it accepted? The answer would at least cause them to squirm in a public domain and they would have to admit they dont check bets from certain customers - which you would hope would lead onto further questions being raised. |
|
By:
It is a palpable error but as others have said, it is about time bookies were made accountable. This is not a cashier writing the wrong odds off the screen, but an online system that could easily be programmed with safeguards just like in other industries. For instance, the computer could check:
1) the overround 2) that no price is above a threshold value 3) comparisons with Betfair or rivals and the system could also require that odds are signed off by two or more people before going live. But they won't while IBAS mindlessly upholds "palpable error". |
|
By:
I agree with ramruma
|
|
By:
Agree totally Ramruma, bookies have been hiding behind this for too long - it seems one way with the bookies... in todays technology this is not acceptable, and this advertising is great to show some of the practices of the ever growing high street bookies...
They make so much profit and need to invest that in a daily slip system that is similar to what they use grand national days.. etc So, If its there mistake they should honour it simple. Good luck to the student. As for IBAS biggest independent joke ever. |
|
By:
Finally some sense on the thread. Maybe not so much of a doe peek hunt or a clown after all.......
|
|
By:
its in their t's and c's it was obvious the wrong price, in this case he has no chance wherever he goes. to ask them to honour mistakes is nonsense imo and shouldnt happen here
|
|
By:
so are we also saying if a punter makes a geniune error in shop say, he shouldnt get paid either because it was his mistake
|
|
By:
Julius, from Bangor, said: “It’s a joke, 2000-1 were the odds and I won. They can’t just refuse to pay me.
50p mug If you won a grand from 50p you would be on suicide watch for only having 50p on. |
|
By:
No, just saying bookies should double check their bets before accepting and start being made countable for their mistakes.
For what it is worth though, if a punter makes a mistake in a bookies they don't get the safety to change their minds after the event, unlike the bookies. As has been pointed out, they shouldn't have it both ways. |
|
By:
so bookm
|
|
By:
so bookmaker makes a mistake make them pay, punter makes a mistake make the bookmaker pay. dont bother about any rules in place, seems fair to me
|
|
By:
What part of shouldn't have it both ways do you not understand?
|
|
By:
that would really work, customer sets up a cashier to write 10,000/1 on a slip. sticks a tenner on it or why not a score. splits it with the cashier, job done as the bookmaker has to pay for any errors
|
|
By:
you are saying exactly the same thing, you want it both ways also
|
|
By:
You're being silly now. I can't put t better than Ramruma etc above so will leave it at that.
|
|
By:
why am i, merely giving an example of what could happen if certain rules werent in place.
|