There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Forgive me if I've missed any development, but all seems to have gone quiet?
Have 365 caved and settled?
Have 365 caved and settled?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 77
|
By:
I guess some court cases drag on. Perhaps her dad placed it after he got reduced stakes. She did tell a reporter she didn't place it which could be more than just not wanting to talk to them.
|
|
By:
Bookmaking giant bet365 will in June attempt to have thrown out part of a case that is being taken against the firm for refusing to pay out more than £1 million in winnings to a teenager.
This is the last bit of news i can find. |
|
By:
Unable to get a current state of play on the Student case but stumbled upon an Australian piece of 365 roguery which in imo borders on criminality and should at least result in licence revocation. Action against this grotesque company must be taken here as well.
Please listen to the Aussie episode below and apologies if it has been aired before.... https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2056739474 |
|
By:
they won the case in Australia though as the commission sided with 365.
i dont know the full story but it was very suspect punter. of course when bookies have inside info its fair game, when punters do its illegal |
|
By:
Can't see student winning as precedents are invariably set - worlds best poker player Phil Ivey
lost his case against London casino on card edging ( studying lack of printing symmetry in cards )-I'm led to believe Bet 3 's case is around the fact that , it wasn't student's own money & was a 3rd party transaction - surely the bank could verify where it came from etc. |
|
By:
Can't see student winning as precedents are invariably set - worlds best poker player Phil Ivey
lost his case against London casino on card edging ( studying lack of printing symmetry in cards )-I'm led to believe Bet 3 's case is around the fact that , it wasn't student's own money & was a 3rd party transaction - surely the bank could verify where it came from etc. surely if bet365 wins the case and refund the students her desposit and make all her bets void, , what is there to stop punters getting money put into their bank account by a third party, losing their money, and claiming it was not their money but a third party. it will be PPI all over again |
|
By:
its about transaction history - if Student is o/d at bank & in minus figure - most are
software picks up out of the ordinary volumes / transactions - like big deposits etc if they are in the clear - like lotto win , they can't lose - if it is 3rd party - they will lose the bank could float or sink the case in 3 secs flat - just on account history you can't get those vols of money into an account by a 3rd party unnoticed. |
|
By:
fredlyn 04 Sep 18 13:36
Can't see student winning as precedents are invariably set - worlds best poker player Phil Ivey lost his case against London casino on card edging ( studying lack of printing symmetry in cards )-I'm led to believe Bet 3 's case is around the fact that , it wasn't student's own money & was a 3rd party transaction - surely the bank could verify where it came from etc. surely if bet365 wins the case and refund the students her desposit and make all her bets void, , what is there to stop punters getting money put into their bank account by a third party, losing their money, and claiming it was not their money but a third party. it will be PPI all over again I have said that previously, if 365 win they could be opening a massive can of worms. Also all payments from a credit card are not the account holders money either, so can that be claimed back? CC shouldn't be allowed in the first place imo anyway.. The whole point of this case is that 365 should have voided the bet before a single horse ran, they decided to see if they won or lost before making a decision. We all know if the bet had returned less than the stake it would have stood and 365 would have paid out whatever was due and kept the profits. Because it copped they now want the bet "void" to avoid paying out falling on some unfair term that they only want to use to suit them. |
|
By:
surely all the fault is with them for taking the bet....who takes a £25k combination of lucky 15s
|
|
By:
she shd crowd fund for legal fees, taking on a billionaire is no joke
|
|
By:
fredlyn - I get what you are saying but the volume of the bet shouldn't really make any difference to the case. If it was somebody else who deposited a hundred quid and it won it is still a "3rd party transaction" so to speak. So what 365 are saying is that anyone who bets for anyone else can have a bet voided after they lost because it wasn't their money in the first place? Plenty are restricted and get others to put bets on for them, can they now claim back all losses?
What if the money was a loan from the bank is that ok? The person who deposited could have just loaned it to them for a deposit on a house? |
|
By:
The whole point of this case is that 365 should have voided the bet before a single horse ran, they decided to see if they won or lost before making a decision. We all know if the bet had returned less than the stake it would have stood and 365 would have paid out whatever was due and kept the profits. Because it copped they now want the bet "void" to avoid paying out falling on some unfair term that they only want to use to suit them.
This is very apt - also banned gamblers - who have self excluded - bets accepts & if wins - then stake is returned if loses - stake is not returned - not policed strongly enough - bigger fines needed , BetF - not paying Curley for ages , as it was Gibraltar off shore etc licence to print money |
|
By:
Magic - I think its the size of the stake that caused the red light - involves money laundering issues etc
£100 not a big stake £20k - little bit different |
|
By:
This is a suitable case for no nonsense Judge Judy - 365 can't lose I.e Student bet loses they cop the stake, Student bet wins they welch. There is no way that bet would have been accepted without getting the green light from the chief trader. Voiding the bet after the 'wrong' result is nothing short of criminal fraud! Drain the Swamp!
|
|
By:
agree - but as with poker case . not easy fighting people who have £5 billion behind them
can drag a long lingering , protracted case out for 5 years if they want to |
|
By:
£100 not a big stake £20k - little bit different
I agree to a certain extent (but the red light should have voided it within a few mins of the traders being alerted to such a bet). Surely the bottom line is the court shouldn't have to recognise what the stake was, but if they do they should be asking why it was only voided after the results as a massive huge red flag would have popped up after the bet being placed. If they think it was money laundering to a degree they should have also voided it before a race was ran and contacted the certain authorities. They obviously think it is linked to a restricted punter(s) who shouldn't be allowed to bet to those stakes with them, therefore again it should have been voided before a race was ran. They cannot have it all their own way, which is what they want. Either void the bet before a single race has taken off and the account holder cannot do anything about it, or pay out whatever the returns were. I am (like many) restricted to buttons with them, can I get back all my losses that my mate backed with "3rd party funds"?? We all know the answer to that. |
|
By:
Thanks for the replies, and from them it seems I haven't missed anything.
Now this suggests to me that 365 have indeed caved and settled with the student, with the proviso that the student stays shtum. I say this because I've noticed a distinct change in 365's approach to dealing with "new accounts" and the max liabilities allowed overnight and morning. Congrats to "the student" if this is the case  |
|
By:
that's a shame, was hoping 365 would win. has a tenner on the grand national last year with them. wasn't my money it was for someone else, was really hoping to get it back.
|
|
By:
I think 365 will not concede the case, I believe,...they'd take it to the Court Of Appeal if necessary, why? If 365 had an inclination or a degree of certainty that the stake money was from an another and/or undesirable source eg a banned individual/relative, illegally obtained (narcotics/financial fraud), etc, they will not pay out as that would set a precedent to future similar bets staked indirectly.
However, I do agree the traders at 365 ought not to have accepted the bet as "kosher" and nipped this in the bud very so after the bet had been placed, and not after the overall results were known as that could be construed by many as sharp practice, and went against the code or understanding that "if a bet cannot be won it cannot/must not be accepted either" should the impossible/unthinkable result happen eg the deceased Mr Nelson Mendela becoming the next President Of America. |
|
By:
starship • September 4, 2018 1:44 PM BST
Can't see student winning as precedents are invariably set - worlds best poker player Phil Ivey lost his case against London casino on card edging ( studying lack of printing symmetry in cards )-I'm led to believe Bet 3 's case is around the fact that , it wasn't student's own money & was a 3rd party transaction - surely the bank could verify where it came from etc. surely if bet365 wins the case and refund the students her desposit and make all her bets void, , what is there to stop punters getting money put into their bank account by a third party, losing their money, and claiming it was not their money but a third party. it will be PPI all over again a) This case is about unfair contracts, not cheating. So there is no connection whatsoever to the phil ivey case which was about whether ivey cheated or not. b) The contract clause in question simply states that 365 can refuse to pay out if it thinks the payout will benefit a third party. It has nothing to do with voiding bets, simply a refusal to payout. |
|
By:
Surely if they did take this to court, and it will therefore receive lots of coverage in the mainstream UK media and beyond, the question Bet 365 will inevitably have to answer is 'why would anyone ever have to place a bet in someone else's name'?
We all accept their cynicism because we know no one's going to do anything about it, but I'd be pretty sure the last thing 365 want is for people to know the way they really operate, and inevitably, if the student has a half decent barrister, the question of why a person would actually need their bets to be placed by someone else is surely going to be raised pretty strongly... |
|
By:
Hi Dave 1375 - my only mentioning of the Ivey poker case wasn't to draw any parallel on technicalities - but just to observe that life's greater mortals invariably
have life's lesser mortals over in these situations. |
|
By:
The contract clause in question simply states that 365 can refuse to pay out if it thinks the payout will benefit a third party. It has nothing to do with voiding bets, simply a refusal to payout.
so basically this rule gives BET365 the right to refuse to pay someome if THEY want too. surely that would be challenged in court, |
|
By:
surely that would be challenged in court
lol that is what the case is about |
|
By:
@millhouse -- the barrister would not say that, the papers won't care, and even if there were massive publicity, 90 per cent of the public would think Bet365 are doing punters are favour by stopping them before they lose their life savings -- because that is what all the FOBT addicts stories are about. The other 10 per cent will think it sensible for bookies to block winning punters in the same way casinos don't like card counters (another subject that has not caused massive public outrage).
|
|
By:
didn't stop her or block her though, took her bet then threw the toys out the pram when it came to pay out time ... presumably no problem whatsoever if they were all beat
|
|
By:
The people who could find out what is happening or has happened with this case are the people at the Racing Post, Who should be keeping the racing public informed of all racing and betting matters, but they don't want to upset their paymasters and loose advertising money.
|
|
By:
@clayfield1 -- I yield to no-one in criticising the Racing Post's complete lack of news sense, which long pre-dates the current editor btw, but if nothing has happened, what would they report.
Here is a Post story from March. https://www.racingpost.com/news/1-million-claim-bet365-head-to-court-as-teenager-fights-for-winnings/324603 That mentions a pre-trial hearing in June -- no coverage anywhere that I can see. So the Racing Post has reported the story, and can't report on what happened in court if the case hasn't yet gone to court. |
|
By:
Ramruma, pre-trial hearing in June, we are now into September, my guess is that IF the case was going to go ahead it would have started by now. Maybe someone who knows the legal trade better than me could comment.
|
|
By:
Civil cases can easily take a year to get to court, and I expect this is also true in Northern Ireland.
So the absence of news could mean: a) they've settled out of court and accepted a gagging clause, or b) it just hasn't reached court so there is nothing to report. |
|
By:
My money is on A
|
|
By:
Is Gagging order same as confidentiality agreement?
I thought a gagging order would be when eg a footballer cheats on his wife but gets a gagging order to prevent publication as his kids would get bullied in school over it? Wouldn't they just settle out of court here and agree a confidentiality agreement where no side reveals what was paid but the press could report that? |
|
By:
The press could report that but would the press know?
My guess is that it will come to court some time next year but I stress it is just a guess. |
|
By:
cant imagine the rp being on the ball after everyone who's left
|
|
By:
As ever the Racing Post news desk will report all developments just as soon as they've read them in the Guardian or Telegraph.
|
|
By:
haha! or on here actually
|
|
By:
I've just e-mailed ATR to ask Pat Cooney for an update the next time he's on
|
|
By:
George
 |
|
By:
in between telling us which one's have been well supported at 25's
 |