Calling Paul Haigh - Total Respect re Fred

So you are saying Betfred told you verbally you were sp only in a shop?  You slipped one in at a price and they wont pay?

dam it set my phone back to fatcory settings last week never stored  his number arrr ! will e mail him p pinch !

ghost i have his bank details m8   know a lot of people on here
i just playing along with the donnuts but am ok really

the baldy, high trousered, wonky nosed, self egoistic **** would have paid you at prices taken if they had drifted

Surely its only a matter of time before an undercover reporter, shows this slimebag up for what he is

Surely  there's an obligation on the bookmaker to enforce any required restriction in the shop no matter how difficult that my be for them?

Chris Anderson Regional Manager (0797 1676 359)
Jim Porter Area Manager (0791 7350 530)
John Haddock CEO

I've split up addresses below + used * instead of e as usually blocked in posts - I would include all 3 on any e-mails:-

E-mail addresses are "first name" "." "surname" "@" "b*tfr*d" ".com"

Hope this makes sense (+ helps).

Now that is something that I have never heard of before..

In which case why not send in someone else to put the bet on or go somewhere else to a Betfred shop..

I have never seen it in any Shop rules where the "bookmaker" will settle at sp if someone has been told that they cannot take a price...

That's not how it works.
I'm limited to £50/per day.
It's not something I've agreed to,
it's something I have to accept if I use a
shop where the staff know me.


However that statement alarms me as who knows you - are you really David Beckham...

hello ima, it sounds that you may not be familiar with PennyPincher's normal bets. There was a thread devoted to recording the P/L on these bets until quite recently.

Basically they are permed ew doubles on 2 races where the market has determined that the winner will come from 1 of 3 or 4 horses. PP's bets perm the main contenders in ew doubles so returns are almost guaranteed but actual profit may depend on placings (unsurprisingly).

So, she goes around certain shops placing these bets on a regular basis in order to try and get BOG, which presumably she has no chance of getting on-line.


Now that you are familiar with the background, it may explain why I interpreted the comment

they are saying they are settling as SP as I knew I could only have SP

as her bets will be settled at SP (not BOG). The alternative being flat refusal to accept the bets.

okay thanks for clarifying that PennyPincher

as I say it was just my interpretation of

they are saying they are settling as SP as I knew I could only have SP

Paid, pretty disgusting behaviour really. Nothing surprises these days.

penny pincher am still trying to get hold of him m8 i put my phone back to factory settings and lost his number am sure at get hold of him soon

"and anyone associated with me is also SP"

What a shower of sh** these shysters are.

Sure I can do that BB

PennyPincher    25 Nov 15 09:20 
sorted thanks bigmart, sparkovic gave me all the information I needed. Incidentally they then tried to  settle without BOG but were persuaded to settle correctly. They have informed me in writing that I am SP and anyone associated with me is also SP. Obviously these are not terms I have accepted so an interesting court case awaits. Im pretty certain the betting slip contract would supersede any one sided imposition on their part.

Glad you won this time but I'd be taking skinny odds on you losing your court case.

I just think they can set whatever terms they want, PP. Obviously Mr Haigh would be better placed than I to judge. When I worked for Hillbillies, all kinds of restrictions were applied to accounts.

Would be great if they were challenged legally and lost, of course, and I wish you the best. Just fear you'd be wasting money on lawyers who have enough already!

I do think that's a different issue swift

PP - due to the nature of your bets it was sadly inevitable that you would be restricted to SP.  However due to having received written evidence of 'discrimination' against you I believe you are in a very strong position should you wish to pursue Bald via the courts, or alternatively object to the licence of the shop that 'served' you the letter.

Basically what Bald is saying is that you (or any associates) would be SP only should you wish to place bets at advertised prices, yet someone who does not know you would be able to take the prices.  That is discrimination pure and simple and can not be covered by a vague condition within their T&Cs that states something along the lines of 'we reserve the right...'.  No other retail business I can think of would be able to discriminate in such a manner.

Many of us have suffered laughable restrictions in betting shops for nothing other than attempting to accept an advertised price, yet due to these restrictions being verbal (and therefore difficult to prove) it is very difficult to escalate an action against a bookmaker.  You are in a privileged position to be able to take a stand against bookmakers who basically operate unregulated and discriminatory businesses outside of the law.

My advice would be to pursue Bald on this matter citing 'discrimination', enlisting the help of Paul Haigh TR, who must have some contacts in the legal profession who can assist and may know of some other people in the same position as you .  If I were in receipt of a letter such as yours I would not hesitate to take a stand against these contemptible bookmaking practices, you would have an excellent chance of success as few judges or licensing committees tolerate discriminatory behaviour in any walk of life as it is essentially illegal.  Good luck.  Cheers.