Calling Paul Haigh - Total Respect re Fred

ave got his e mail if he does not see this al message him ok

thanks bigmart

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?

Foreign racing?

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

Paul Haigh wipes brow and says fank fook

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

Mart i have no doubt you are hunny.

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

They can't expect the customer to self enforce any restrictions.

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

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

surely the above is what this hinges on

if the customer has been told this, then is it not quite clear?

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?

Bookmaker: "You understand that I can refuse to take your bets?"
Customer: "Yes"
Bookmaker: "I will take your bets on the understanding that they will be settled at SP"
Customer: "Okay"
Bookmaker: "So, we have an agreement then?"
Customer: "Yes"

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).

swift-tuttle-

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.

I lost many times that amount a few weeks ago,
but the very next day I was limited to £50.
There was no refund for the previous day's loss.

When a customer sets a limit on the machines,
these limits are only enforced by the company for 30 seconds.

It's the same when a customer fills in a 6 month exclusion
form.

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...

swift-tuttle     22 Nov 15 15:05 
they are saying they are settling as SP as I knew I could only have SP

surely the above is what this hinges on

if the customer has been told this, then is it not quite clear?

Send.in.the.clowns     22 Nov 15 12:06 
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?

I'm guessing here that when the OP has said "they are saying they are settling as SP as I knew I could only have SP" that he means Betfr3d are suggesting it was an SP event only and that must have known that, whereas from his other comment "called customer service who actually stated it is their rules they can do this but of course couldn't direct me to the specific rule" he's maybe suggesting he didn't know it as they never made that clear and could they point him to their rules saying they can later go SP only on a event they previously had prices taken on.

If I'm right and he has been given a specific price on something they are now claiming was SP only, then how would the cashier know what price to give him? So my understanding of what I assume he is saying is that he was given a price that they are now claiming was only ever SP only.

I might be wrong though as it's sometimes hard to tell from how someone has written their sentence.

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.

I have never been told sp only, very easy to get someone else to do the bets. It is a tiny amount of money involved and listening to the staff member do all she could to ensure I wasn't getting paid out at BOG was incredible, several calls, several lies you would think I had picked her pocket.

So to clarify normal horse racing early prices, never been informed I was SP only.

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

Yeah you are correct swift-tuttle that I'm not familiar with PennyPincher's bets (I've even referred to the OP as a he) but I was just trying to read between the lines as such.

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

Nice one PennyPincher.

Have you tried placing another bet?

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

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.

"and anyone associated with me is also SP"

What a shower of sh** these shysters are.

penny pincher i am in a dispute at the moment with fred, is there any chance that you could send me a photo of the letter that they gave you? i will private message you my email mate.

thanks

Sure I can do that BB

cheers mate i have sent u a message with my email. appreciated

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.

Why so? In the unlikely event it went that far?

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!

Yes, I would have to agree with Mikael. There have been plenty of cases (maybe not gone to court though) where the betting slip includes a palpable error and therefore deemed to not be a binding contract.

I do think that's a different issue swift

My money is on PennyPincher winning.

The chances of Betfred ever allowing it reach that stage
is slim.

Someone places a £10 limit on the machines.
The bookmaker has asked the customer and he has quite
clearly ststed that he wants to lose a max of £10.
The bookmaker then chooses to completely ignore
that arrangement.

Thet have "set your own limits" posters enticing people to play
their machines but in practise you can easily lose many times more.

I believe that in those circumstances there is a strong case for
the customer to claim his money back.

The main arguement against is that the customer has agreed
to cancel his limits.
The customer's main arguement would be that since the limits
are so easily cancelled that they weren't limits in the first place.

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.

not saying betfred is right but I wouldn't waste your money going to court.

If they have informed you verbally and written I guess that's enough.

Eg you cannot expect new staff/cover staff etc to be expected to know all accounts that have restrictions on. Therefore if someone gave you prices you have already been told these prices will not be honoured.

The problem with that approach Aviboyd is that "discrimination" per se is not unlawful.

I am not advocating on behalf of off course bookmakers whatsoever (I regard the lot of 'em as reprehensible) but I think some other approach may be necessary. The only practical solution I can think of is that as a condition of  license a bookmaker is obligated to lay a bet at an advertised price to a minimum amount. £500 would be reasonable; £1,000 in better quality races. They'd squeel that's for sure!

Penny Pincher--just noticed your E/W doubles thread.

Many of those races where not BOG.
Only looked at one and the fav was 1/4,
all Betfred's BOGs are competitive races,usually handicaps.

What's the advantage in talking the early price?

Lots of freds shops are bog 11:30-1:30

Aren't there any punters groups or any other options where donations can be made towards the legal costs of anyone wanting to take on the bookies in a test case over this kind of thing?

If it got enough publicity and a few tens of thousands donated £1 each it would soon add up and any positive outcome would hopefully see a law change to benefit all. A kind of class action thing if you like?

You seem convinced of the correctness of the case ima_amazed66.

At the end of it all you come up against this: A bookmaker does not have to take your bet.

The bookmaker will take bets according to certain terms and conditions. As long as these T&Cs are stated, then it's an open and shut case really.

the bald coooonnntt wont want the bad publicity, he will pay up the wonky nosed high trousered ****

I just feel whatever the outcome swift-tuttle that the bad publicity involved won't reflect well on the bookies and especially when a case can be made of how they are more than happy to take mug punter bets and from those with addictions, where they actively encourage them with incentives to lose more despite having the cheek to display responsible gambling logos on their sites, plus promoting everything bad about FOBT and then contrast that with how they treat a shrewder kind of punter.

Can you imagine a supermarket doing a BOGOF on an item and I go in on a Monday and buy it, then on Tuesday try to do so again and am barred from doing so with no explanation given but told I can buy both items individually at the higher price, whilst at the same time other customers are allowed to take up the BOGOF offer?

Part of the problem is that the majority of the general public and much of the media do not know what goes on in the betting industry and so can't have a view on something they are unaware of.

The bookmaker will take bets according to certain terms and conditions. As long as these T&Cs are stated, then it's an open and shut case really.

So many things the banks are now paying fines for where well covered in their T&C.

You have a situation that two people can walk up to the counter and offer the same bet to the bookmaker
and 100% of the time he'll accept one persons bet and refuse the other.

Personally speaking, I would never go to court of my own volition. The decision is in the hands of a third party and you have no guarantees regarding the outcome.
Also, this business about 'they would avoid a court case because of the bad publicity'. They may not, then what do you do? Also, it's an artificial thing to say that has no connection with the merit of your own case.

I'm afraid that you BOGOF example hasn't been thought through fully. I've seen BOGOFs where exclusion terms and conditions are attached (e.g. only 4 bottles per customer) and if a local restaurant owner was seen to be taking advantage of BOGOFs on a regular basis (clearing the shelves), then I'm sure that the manager would have to have a word.

Yes, I know the point you are making JML.

I certainly wouldn't go to court on that basis, sure loser imo.

I was more on about the bad publicity once they had agreed to go to court swift-tuttle.

4 is still better than none in the BOGOF/SP only or even refuse to take a bet analogy and I would have thought most restrictions if any would be on larger and/or more expensive items like clothing or electrical goods, although to be honest I'm not even sure I've ever seen restrictions on BOGOF items anyway. I'm not saying that there aren't and just that I've never noticed any, although have on sale items in sports shops and the like.

I also don't see why any manager should have a problem with you local restaurant example just as long as the stock is moving and money is being spent, and BOGOFs are generally loss leaders anyway to get the customer though the door and spend on other items while there.

Apologies for getting into the finer detail here because I get your main point and my own BOGOF thing was also more for example purposes and not so much the finer detail, but the supermarket manager would first have to even be aware the buyer was a local restaurant owner but even if he wasn't aware but still pulled the customer, it's easier enough to say he is having barbecue/party/they are gifts or whatever.

Presumably though any possible BOGOF restrictions are to everyone across the board though and not where they pick and choose who can and can't have them and so all customers are treated the same.

My own stance on this is 'I don't go where I'm not wanted'.

So, if a bookie restricted me then, straightaway, I wouldn't try to have another penny of business with him.
I actually don't bet with bookies, all my betting is done on the exchange, which for all its failings, has an integrity attached to it imo. This is down to the completeness of the matching software which (when working!) is quite impressive.

So, I think I'll leave the discussion to the punters who have an axe to grind. Thanks for your replies, ima, most interesting as usual.

if a bookie goes to court and loses then there will be plenty make claims on same basis

they rely on folk not pursuing their claim and or settling before court

all the more credit to paul haigh for acting on peoples behalf

I'm afraid that you BOGOF example hasn't been thought through fully. I've seen BOGOFs where exclusion terms and conditions are attached (e.g. only 4 bottles per customer) and if a local restaurant owner was seen to be taking advantage of BOGOFs on a regular basis (clearing the shelves), then I'm sure that the manager would have to have a word.

surely the point the poster is making is that the bookies are discriminating against certain customers - yes I see supermarket offers where there is a limit of 6 per customers but it is the same for every customer. In the bookies they are saying to Mr Loser that you can have £200 on a bet but Mr Winner is only allowed £20 at sp

As for t&c's these aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I worked at a blue chip company and some of the things in our t&cs were illegal under competition law so we wouldn't have a leg to stand on if challenged in court. The judge would have just laughed at us.

Cheers swift-tuttle for your input too.

Yeah that's basically what I was getting at toffee87, although maybe not made in the best possible way. I even seem to remember something about privatised companies taking over previously nationalised companies where they had to treat all customers as equal (even though they don't seem to do so now) and whilst you might say why should a bookie treat a winning punter the same as a losing one, well if all punters were allowed to get on to a set stake then everyone is in the same boat whether winners or losers.

The whole idea of being a bookmaker though is to presumably take bets and make a book and if they don't like the current one they have then to lay off/use exchanges to manipulate that, but that actually involves being bookies and not the accountants and bean counters that they are now.

In any other industry the would be up under the Trades Descriptions Act.

I also wouldn't take court action on the discrimination.

But if Penny Pincher placed a bet accourding to their
T&C and they then refused to pay,I wouldn't hesitate
making a claim through the small claims court.

IMO the letter they sent Penny Pincher contradicts
their T&C.

Penny Pincher

Do you know why they offer BOG on all races in your area?

did the op get hold of paul yet  ?

baldy offers bog all races during 1130 to 130 if a laddies is nearby[ laddies does bog 12 to 1 each day]

that's correct gnasher and paddy power BOG also

That brings up another point that I think is ridiculous regarding the same bookie treating their own customers differently within its own company.

I remember years ago backing a winner in a H1lls shop up near Blackfrairs where my horse got thrown out but I still went to collect because my local H1lls paid out on the double result, but was told by the Blackfriar's staff that they didn't and the only reason my local one did was there was probably a rival bookie nearby who also did.

This was actually true as there was a Betfr3d up the road but as soon as that closed down then H1lls withdrew it, but you could have the ridiculous scenario of 2 H1lls punters placing the same bet but in different shops where one gets paid out on his demoted horse and the other doesn't.

ima_mazed66

But you would have to back a winner first...

Yep that's the general idea homeforteat but keep at it and I'm sure your luck will change one day eh?

Over the weekend I spoke to a relative who was a barrister for 30 years, they looked at the email I had from Fred. They told me it was 100% invalid, they said it was akin to me emailing them and saying from now on I want double the SP on all of my bets and expecting them to accept it. I would have to accept their offer of SP only for the email to have any legal effect, which clearly I haven't. They have the right to not accept bets, they have the right to tell me I can only have SP at the time of placing the bet (contract acceptance) but they do not have the right to change the contract IF they accept it.

Quite correct PP.

ima_mazed66 27 Nov 15 12:24 Joined: 12 Oct 09 | Topic/replies: 8,899 | Blogger: ima_mazed66's blog
That brings up another point that I think is ridiculous regarding the same bookie treating their own customers differently within its own company.

I remember years ago backing a winner in a H1lls shop up near Blackfrairs where my horse got thrown out but I still went to collect because my local H1lls paid out on the double result, but was told by the Blackfriar's staff that they didn't and the only reason my local one did was there was probably a rival bookie nearby who also did.

This was actually true as there was a Betfr3d up the road but as soon as that closed down then H1lls withdrew it, but you could have the ridiculous scenario of 2 H1lls punters placing the same bet but in different shops where one gets paid out on his demoted horse and the other doesn't.

Not sure that you are aware of the real World fella but that goes on all the time.It is called competition and that is what should drive the business.My local semi-indie takes its prices from that firm of maggots and clueless chancers "super-soccer (!)" and is three doors down from a hills shop that puts the papers up without the form.They go triple the odds one winner in a lucky 15 GUARANTEED EARLY PRICES as opposed to the usual double.You take your chance as hills will price up each horse a couple of ticks higher.The odds of getting one winner outweigh the better early price and the guaranteed odds seal it.Incidentally the hills shop offer triple the odds sp only...Whoever is in charge of that operation should seek help.

Homeforteat my my Ima I had you way above name calling..............

I'm aware of what competition is Homeforteat but if a punter uses his local branch of a particular bookie chain and they offer the double result, I doubt when they have displays saying as much that they state they are only doing so purely because a nearby rival also does, yet if that same punter used one of their branches he wasn't familar with, it's not that much of a stretch to think that he might be under the impression that all branches of that particular chain offer it, seeing as he already knows his regular branch does. Or maybe you expect him to go around doing a survey of all other bookies in a non-familiar area just to double check? So, what were you saying abut the real world again?

Plus just to again show how ridiculous it is that the same company has two different sets of rules under the same circumstances, punter A is out and about so goes into a north London branch of A N Other bookie and his horses wins but gets thrown out by he's OK as they pay the double result there, so next morning goes into his local south London branch of A N Other bookie to collect his bet and is paid out. Punter B in the same race puts his bet on at that same south London branch of A N Other bookie but that one doesn't offer the double result, he watches the race and sees his horse win but get thrown out but isn't concerned because he will collect his winnings the next day at his local north London branch, except that very same north London branch that pay on the double result won't actually pay him out, because the south London branch he placed his bet with don't do the double result, despite having paid out punter A on behalf of the north London branch because they do.

Just returning serve 11kv.

And the point is
ima_mazed..

It was always thus and will always will be..

Perhaps if there were less alleged incentives and the jolly old "bookmakers" just got back to laying horses at what they would consider the right price then we all might be able to get on.

Just a thought.

I would have thought the point was fairly obvious considering it's been made several times now and that is that I think it's ridiculous that the same company has a different set of rules and treats its customers totally different under the very same circumstances. Just because something has always been the case, doesn't make it right.

You wouldn't have a chain of pubs where one said the minimum age to get in was 18, in another it was 21 and yet another it was 25.

Hang on I have just actually read a few posts and have something new to offer..

pennypincher are you a five foot nothing hunchback from Blackpool that used to follow the Bowls Tournaments around the North West and place those ridiculous penny each way perms when I was in short pants at the game.You would come into the shop with your squeaky voice and grab a stool to talk to me.You always had the bets worked out to the penny and would not leave until you were paid.I would have knocked you out but in those days I was calm and collected.

It is you you legend..

I would have thought that you would be dead and even in 1985 the spread was 1995-1997...

Good on you freak..HAPPY DAYS...

Wrong. You don't have anything to offer.

Come on pennypincher it is you...

You are no looker but can make it up in the brain department..

All the girls love Stephen Hawking......