https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/05/racing-punter-bet-365-1m-payout-megan-mccann

starship • September 5, 2018 3:40 PM BST
I've just e-mailed ATR to ask Pat Cooney for an update the next time he's on
telling us who the shrewies are on.

how do these shrewdies get on, every judge i know [greyhounds ] cannot get a bet

They get on because they keep quiet about those who can't get on..

Once again

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. That is why they have kept the stake and the winnings.

lets hope the judge is a punter

Is a million worth all this bad publicity for 3.65? Even the Guardian tweet has a lot of negative comments against them underneath.

From @TheFear's linked Guardian article, it looks as if this is just the pre-trial hearing that was earlier pencilled in for June. It is not the full hearing. The relevant bit from the Guardian is:

the proceedings scheduled for 13 November are still not a full hearing. The outcome could prove important, however, as Bet365 will attempt to strike out several sections of McCann’s statement of claim.

If or when the case reaches a full hearing, it is potentially of considerable significance to online punters across the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/05/racing-punter-bet-365-1m-payout-megan-mccann

A co-conspirator in this case is the gambling commission.  How can they allow 365 to have this clause?

4.2 bet365 reserves the right to suspend a market and/or cancel any bet/wager at anytime. When a market is suspended any bets entered will be rejected. bet365 also reserves the right to cease betting on any markets at any time without notice.

here is the contentious clause about 3rd parties

3.3 bet365 will seek criminal and contractual sanctions against any customer involved in fraudulent, dishonest or criminal acts via or in connection with the Website or bet365's products. bet365 will withhold payment to any customer where any of these are suspected or where the payment is suspected to be for the benefit of a third party. The customer shall indemnify and shall be liable to pay to bet365, on demand, all Claims (as defined in paragraph B.4.3 above) arising directly or indirectly from the customer’s fraudulent, dishonest or criminal act.

ribero1, Who would you have to represent you, this is a case involving gambling/horseracing this is that mans field. I take it you would have Joe Bloggs from Ponty on your case. As said the girl has got the best solicitor she can on her side, a lot of money is at stake she has to get the best she can. I'd expect comments like you come out with from one bookie defending another.

good points dave but i think barney brought clauses like that down on punters.

well it's still there today, I noticed the other redic one that they can just cancel a bet when I was lookimg for the 3rd party one.

presumably that is what 365 are saying? 

I would find it odd that they would remove a clause and then defend that clause in court?  Do you have the clause that was apparently removed? 

The clause I quoted in any case seems to fit the circumstances and is still there and still unfair on the face of it.  It is hidden in the middle of a reasonable clause covering crime etc and applies simply on 365's suspicion.

Dave1357 - reading back on the original thread the B365 lawyer said "It has insisted that Miss McCann is in “flagrant breach” of its own terms and conditions because the firm is convinced the original betting stake was supplied by a ‘third party’".

I thought I read that "supplied" was in the original clause and it was changed (surely it would be on record if it was the case), but maybe I have just read it as it was by their lawyer and am mistaken.

That is what I mentioned in the original thread as you could end up with another PPI type claim, hence why I thought that was the actual clause. If it hasn't been amended since then it won't matter as they are saying if the "third party benefits" where a CC company isn't benefiting directly from the bet, although it could be argued they are getting interest from the client but don't think that will wash somehow!!

Bet 3  probably treat the whole situation as in limbo & pending therefore frozen - but I agree with you Dave

Did he, sorry she, lure them into a full sense of security with some mug bets beforehand? If this was her first major bet - considering what everyone says about not being able to get on - isn't that quite astonishing?

Imo if it is Barney they are just trying to cause him as much aggravation as poss but will eventually have to cough up.

Firms T&Cs are totally unfair, i've seen people have there bets voided when they've already placed a bet and left the shop, if it wins, theres a stewards, and they withold the money, and make it as difficult as possible for the said punter to get paid, and if the bet loses, the punters none the wiser and doesn't get he's money back, its astonishing that these parasites are allowed to get away with it.!!.
I'm glad that the money tree fobts are being cut to a couple of quid, the firms can then either take a bet or shut up shop..
And you get the firms PR Liars on TV, telling all and sundrie that the faces have been on backing this and that. Its all LIES.

cheers ramruma. V interesting.

Imagine all these no win no fee firms jumping on the bandwagon, asking if you've placed a losing bet with 365 after asking your friend to put the bet on his acc

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/16/megan-mccann-case-throws-up-suggestion-link-bet365-skrill-horse-racing-sport-betting?CMP=share_btn_tw

Bet365 obtained details of punter’s account via Skrill in McCann case


A legal case from January 2017 which relates to Megan McCann’s long-running attempt to sue Bet365 for £1m appears to suggest co-operation between Britain’s biggest online bookmaker and the leading money-transfer company, Skrill.

McCann is suing Bet365 over a £25,000 bet on four races in Britain and Ireland which was placed and accepted via the firm’s website in June 2016. The winnings due on the bet amount to just over £975,000 but Bet365 has refused to pay out, or return the initial £25,000 stake, because it claims that the stake was provided by a “third party” in contravention of its Terms and Conditions (T&Cs).


Racing punter gets court date in battle with Bet365 over £1m payout
Read more
A procedural hearing in the case is scheduled to take place at the high court in Belfast on Friday, with a full hearing expected later in the year. However, the Guardian has learned that in January 2017, Bet365 successfully applied for a ‘Norwich Pharmacol’ order against Skrill at the chancery division of the high court in London, requiring Skrill to reveal details of McCann’s account with the firm.

Skrill, an “e-wallet”, has millions of customers globally and is a popular way for punters to deposit money with online gambling sites. What’s concerning, though, is that Skrill did not contest the application. As a result, the witness statement by a Bet365 lawyer which supported the application was not subjected to scrutiny, and the application was rubber-stamped in chambers.

All online businesses which hold or transfer funds have extensive T&Cs to which customers must agree – usually via a tick-box – before they can open an account. The Data Protection Act also requires businesses to have a robust regime in place to protect clients’ private data.

Skrill said in a statement on Wednesday that “we take our data protection obligations very seriously and are satisfied we’ve met our obligations in this matter.” The statement continued: “We were entitled to comply with the order. Under the Skrill privacy policy which all customers agree to, we can disclose customer personal information to third parties in certain limited circumstances, including ‘in response to a subpoena, warrant, court order, or as otherwise required to by law’.

“We took legal advice at the time we were served with the order which affirmed our position. At the time we were served the order, we were prevented from disclosing the content of the order to anyone else.”

The wording of Skrill’s privacy policy is certainly broad enough to cover their acquiescence with Bet365’s application.

Bet365 is involved in a civil action with McCann and the bookmaker applied for the order several months before the details of McCann’s winning bet became public, in July 2017.The fairness and legal status of Bet365’s T&Cs will be central to the proceedings when McCann’s case finally reaches a full hearing.