365 v student

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

surely all the fault is with them for taking the bet....who takes a £25k combination of lucky 15s

she shd crowd fund for legal fees, taking on a billionaire is no joke

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?

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

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

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!

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

£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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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,

surely that would be challenged in court


lol that is what the case is about

@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).

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

My money is on A

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?

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.

cant imagine the rp being on the ball after everyone who's left

As ever the Racing Post news desk will report all developments just as soon as they've read them in the Guardian or Telegraph.

haha! or on here actually

I've just e-mailed ATR to ask Pat Cooney for an update the next time he's on

George

in between telling us which one's have been well supported at 25's

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

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

most imp bit:

The long-running case of Megan McCann, a student from Northern Ireland who is suing the online bookmaker Bet365 for £1,009,793 in unpaid winnings, will finally reach a court room on 13 November after a date was set on Wednesday for a full-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast.

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..

Hundreds if not thousands of People up and down the country betting on other peoples account,many bang at it  a lot innocent football punters etc punting together , Depending out the outcome they either pay with a Smile or refund the bet  , or What will will more Likely happen is a quite Payment is made to the Punter , if Bet 365 WIN and the placed bets are Deemed fraud then their must be Literally millions of fraudulent bets that must be refunded ?

I had one particular account that was being used By a couple of us they were using as a Mark  for a Particular Dog track, Actually
a Losing account ,They knew it was not my bets as I never punted that track Prior , Only using the account to play Multiples at another track ,the Last bet on the account was a bag win on a Sh Hd loser ACCOUNT KYBOSHED ..

I will be Immediately Contacting them for a Full refund on that account .I even Emailed Them following the last bet Advising it was a few of us Punting a dog we owned ,Why Lay a 1000 if all they were going to do  was close the Account, No
reply , The dog returned slightly  bigger on here  .. So quite obviously we were not arbing ...

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.

Any judge will surely see that it is an unfair Term, you surely cannot set up a rule for yourself where you keep the takings of a winning bet and don't have to prove a single thing. Anyone on the other side of that rule cannot win against that unless they go to court. They say "it isn't yours", and you say "here is my bank statement" etc and they reply "we don't believe you" and that is the end of it??? Absolute farcical "term" that is certainly not fair.

lets hope the judge is a punter

Whatever the overall outcome of the matter that term is a million on to be declared unfair. Indeed its unfairness may act against 365 in the final analysis. Let’s hope so.

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

The girl has got Andrew Montague the solicitor who represented Barney Curley when he took on and beat B/Fred, So got the right people on her side. GOOD LUCK GIRL.

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

Well,there's a surprise,Curley's solicitor representing her,lol.

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.

I believe the terms and conditions of any business entity can be questioned and tested in the Court of Law if deemed overly onerous, unfair and/or loaded towards the operator and against the customer or client.

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.

Are we assuming it is Barney behind it then? I'm surprised he would use a young girl for this bet.

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

Wasn't that 3.3 clause changed after the women got the Solicitors involved? I am sure I read it was, or their lawyer had it wrong at the time the story got released.

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.

Their lawyer said it was a breach due to a 3rd party supplying the funds rather than to benefit the 3rd party

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.

Clayfield,i'm not defending 365 in the slightest,from what I was told the Fear is nearer the mark.

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.

if they win based on that they're going to be refunding every credit card deposit they've ever received ... all supplied by a third party

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!!

you both seem to be missing that they aren't voiding bets, they are "withholding payment" - even if the clause at sometime mentioned funding, it would still allow them to keep the money.  (The keeping the money in the existing clause being part of the unfairness imo)

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

good luck to the girl

she,s got the best man for the case

come on lads any more comments like this and bet 365 will begin to think the girl was placing bets for herself,

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.

This case is quite significant for anyone who sends people round the shops putting on £50 at a time no?

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.

@TheFear -- not Barney -- rumour is one of the Paddy Power traders (which has a certain irony).

cheers ramruma. V interesting.

Surely 365 can't win whatever the decision. if they can void a bet because of 3rd party involvement, them it'll cost them millions like the PPI scandal, and if they pay out , then they can't hide behind that T&C anymore.

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

that's a bit worrying for the girl.  In the scottish rangers relegation case the judge ruled that the pursuer wasn't a "consumer" entitled to protection because of his bookmaking experience.  Obviously different legal system but the law in question is the same.

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.