Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Tiger Tiger
07 Apr 21 14:34
Joined:
Date Joined: 14 Jul 09
| Topic/replies: 20,332 | Blogger: Tiger Tiger's blog
A Betfred punter denied a £1.7m jackpot over an alleged software glitch has won a legal battle to claim the winnings.

Andy Green, from Lincolnshire, scooped the prize in January 2018 while playing a blackjack game on his phone.

The bookmaker refused to pay out, claiming the error meant the game was not operating properly.

High Court judge Mrs Justice Foster ruled in Mr Green's favour and said the company had no grounds for withholding payment.

Mr Green, from Washinborough, said he went "absolutely crazy" after scooping the jackpot on the Frankie Dettori Magic Seven Blackjack game.

Following the win, he extended his overdraft and spent more than £2,500 celebrating with family and friends.

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Foster said when he later contacted Betfred they "did not seek at this point to suggest other than that he was a big winner".

But a few days later, a Betfred director called him to say there had been a "software error" and it was rejecting the claim.

Speaking in November 2018, Mr Green said he felt like he had been kicked and had his "insides ripped out" after receiving the call.

After he challenged the decision, the company at one stage offered him £60,000 as a token of "goodwill"
on the grounds he agreed not to talk about it ever again, but he refused.

In October 2020 he took his case to the High Court aiming to sue Betfred and its parent company, Gibraltar-based Petfre, for £2m, to include the interest he would have earned from the win.


Well done that man Love
Pause Switch to Standard View Betfred punter wins £1.7m battle in...
Show More
Loading...
Report geoff m April 7, 2021 3:35 PM BST
Lovely jubbly.

Wonderfull to see the welching b@stards get their comeuppance.
Report greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy April 7, 2021 3:36 PM BST
great news...vermin ****s.
Report dave1357 April 7, 2021 3:37 PM BST
of course the f-cking useles gambling commission washed their hands of this.
Report scaredmoney April 7, 2021 3:37 PM BST
Made my day , hope he enjoys it.
Report Gaze733 April 7, 2021 3:38 PM BST
I didn't expect the little guy beat their army of lawyers, good for him.

Fuggin jokers got what they deserved for their laughable £60,000 offer. Maybe he would've taken £500k.
Report smirnoff2therescue April 7, 2021 3:39 PM BST
glad to see he won the case CoolCoolCool
Report wallis April 7, 2021 3:40 PM BST
Excellent , its a shame Baldy and Playtech cant get fined on top of it for the way his firm have treated him.

"you cant have your money , there was a software error so all plays are void"

"doesnt that mean you should be refunding everyone else who was was playing as well then if there was an error and all plays void?"

"errr..... no .... errr thats different...err ...um... "
Report Gaze733 April 7, 2021 3:41 PM BST
I don't think he'll win the second case though. How can he prove he would've put the entire winnings into a savings account? Perhaps he would've bought a new house and a Ferrari instead.
Report posy April 7, 2021 3:43 PM BST
They should certainly have to pay damages for the stress caused. Imagine he's on a no win no fee contract with his lawyers and will be paying them a substantial amount of the 'winnings'.
Report dave1357 April 7, 2021 3:44 PM BST
loss of interest is standard in claims at a rate that is redic given current markets.
Report punts April 7, 2021 3:51 PM BST
posy: yes something like 30% I would imagine but there you go
Report onlooker April 7, 2021 4:04 PM BST
Will BaldFred now SUE Playtech .... For THEIR "Software Error" ?
Report Brian April 7, 2021 4:20 PM BST
Yippee!
Report dave1357 April 7, 2021 4:22 PM BST
here's the judgement if anyone wants to read

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/842.html&query=(petfre)
,
Report DancingBraveTheBest April 7, 2021 4:24 PM BST
Shud boycott baldyfred imo
Report Whippin Piccadilly April 7, 2021 4:29 PM BST
Looks like the RP is ignoring this story. Nothing about it on their website
Report casemoney April 7, 2021 4:46 PM BST
Baldy Seething IMO Grin   Filth
Report casemoney April 7, 2021 4:48 PM BST
Should be all over the Media crooks try to rob man of 1.7 million winnings .
Report Tiger Tiger April 7, 2021 4:52 PM BST
The RP wont want to upset any bookies!
Report stewarty b April 7, 2021 4:52 PM BST
Superb news.
Report impossible123 April 7, 2021 4:52 PM BST
Wonderful news for the bloke. I think 'baldie' ought to be fined for causing undue distress and welching on a casino game they pedalled.

I wonder if Chris Cook would comment on it now he's with the sh1tty Racing Post.
Report Whippin Piccadilly April 7, 2021 5:00 PM BST
Yeah, that's what I figured too, Tiger. But I'm sure "award" winning Chris Cook will be all over this story at some point......
Report pulio April 7, 2021 5:06 PM BST
He is going to lose most of it. Playing -ev games and winning is the worst thing that can happen to some people.
Report DOUBLED April 7, 2021 5:17 PM BST
Surely he will not lose very much with the new responsible gambling approach by our friendly bookmakers Laugh
Report punts April 7, 2021 5:19 PM BST
I'd imagine 30-50 % will go to the lawyers. QCs aren't cheap
Report Magic__Daps April 7, 2021 5:29 PM BST
Baldy will get it back by pushing some high interest loans to his staff that have had a bad year, the bloke has no morals whatsoever.

Can he sue for stress, that in turn affected his work life and earnings (with interest of course), that would be the icing on the cake for most of us looking in.
Report johnnythebull April 7, 2021 5:32 PM BST
he hasn't 'won' anything until said money is in his a/c

i wouldn't necessarily be counting my chickens just yet

hopefully it will prove to be other than a pyrrhic victory
Report FOYLESWAR April 7, 2021 5:34 PM BST
hope some first time punters think twice about playing on his casino games or anything to do with betting with him ,knowing if they do have a decent win it could take 3 years and a costly court battle to get yer winnings,hope he loses bundles of buissness
Report FOYLESWAR April 7, 2021 5:34 PM BST
hope some first time punters think twice about playing on his casino games or anything to do with betting with him ,knowing if they do have a decent win it could take 3 years and a costly court battle to get yer winnings,hope he loses bundles of buissness
Report hulk23 April 7, 2021 5:34 PM BST
reckon fred lost more the day he limited Rico to buttons ...
Report k sera sera April 7, 2021 5:39 PM BST
Great news! One up against the blook-sucking parasites!
Report Rollo Tomasi April 7, 2021 5:59 PM BST
Great news!

Are Betfair going to do the decent thing and pay the Voler La Vedette punters that they withheld due to a software glitch?
Report FOYLESWAR April 7, 2021 6:02 PM BST
nay chance rollo ,i was one of the many on here  who backed vlv in running ,
Report Rollo Tomasi April 7, 2021 6:12 PM BST
Hasn't a legal precedent been set with this high court decision? A supposed 'software glitch' and they must pay. I backed VLV in running .
Report Storm Alert April 7, 2021 6:17 PM BST
Wow, I didn't expect that result. Reading up on about six months ago, it was pretty clear the slot game had glitched and effectively kept paying the bonus jackpot. Amazing Betfred did not have a "technology" clause to cover them. No doubt all bookies will get a cast iron one written in to the T&C's forward or they could be one glitch away from bankruptcy.
Report punts April 7, 2021 6:24 PM BST
FOYLES:  Never played a casino game* and never would either. screw them

Probably speak for a lot of people here.

I guess racing is just my thing..

*Used to play the odd game of poker does that count?
Report Storm Alert April 7, 2021 6:24 PM BST
The VLV was slightly different as Betfair had the following rule in T&C's which they decided not to adhere to:

Your betting limit is represented by the lesser of: (i) your 'Available to Bet' balance shown in your account and (ii) your ‘Exposure Limit’ (which is available in the “Account Summary” tab in “My Account”). However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand.

Also:
In the UK most of the race was shown by ATR in the top left hand corner of the screen, the main race screen and commentary was from Leicester. The BetFair explanation is not the whole story as the 29.0 was available from at least the mid-point when Voler La Verdette was in midfield with several hurdles to jump and yet to mount her challenge. Mourad was an odds-on Mullins/Walsh favourite and was also going well mid-race. Bets were matched when the result was still in doubt regardless of price. In my view the whole point of in-running betting to monitor the market with one eye on the racing to try and exploit opportunities when the price is considered favourable?  Favourable prices are often available on the exchange and frequently don’t win.
Report RothmanMike April 7, 2021 6:25 PM BST
Sued Betfred and its parent company, Gibraltar based Petfre.
So why would Good old Freddie have to resort to going abroad.
Another tax fiddle or what.
He always makes out he’s a genial Brit with honourable intent.
What an absolute fake and a disgrace to his country on my opinion.
Report MythWA April 7, 2021 6:29 PM BST
Fred apologised for the delay which caused him extreme stress.
How rich is that.
It would have been the plan all along to put the guy under maximum pressure and stress by drawing the whole issue out before hoping to palm him of with a mere £60k.
Fred would have known his post code and estimated his financial status.
Ok lets make his life hell and then offer him £60k.
Im guessing the judge would have come up with the tactic too.
A disgusting human being.
Report cryoftruth April 7, 2021 7:03 PM BST
Not much sympathy for the welsher on here.

Good.

Serves him right.
Report Fashion Fever April 7, 2021 7:07 PM BST
fred must have been told that geezer was a million to win in court

one for the little man
Report FOYLESWAR April 7, 2021 7:09 PM BST
me neither punts never will never been near a fobt ,used to give yer free     £5 and £10  vouchers for the fobts when you put a footy bet on  with the slogan free go you cant lose, i used to give em back to the cashier saying you have a go.
Report FOYLESWAR April 7, 2021 7:11 PM BST
must admit tho i did play that free "beat the keeper " on here on one of the euros or world cups ,never scored against the little khant thoLaugh
Report Rollo Tomasi April 7, 2021 7:24 PM BST
@Storm Alert
My bet was matched because I had enough cash in my account to fulfil the contract. If you are implying my layer didn't have enough in their account due to a Betfair software glitch, that's not my fault. As Betfred found out today.
Report Storm Alert April 7, 2021 7:46 PM BST
No I'm not implying that at all. The glitch as I understand it was with the layers 3rd party software which was not trapped by Betfair exchange software despite the exposure level of 23m. Betfairs own rule in the T&C's which I quoted, clearly stated they should payout. Betfair were trying not to not adhere to its own T&C.

However common sense suggests bookmakers cannot have unlimited liability for what are obviously "software glitches", otherwise they are one step away from technology induced bankruptcy. Expect the T&C to be tightened up.
Report fluffchucker April 7, 2021 7:51 PM BST
I know of quite a few full time professional online game players......

Of course I don't,  they don't exist!

Online games are the curse of the exploited problem gamblers who get sucked dry until there is nothing left.

Should all be made illegal at all betting companies.
Seriously who monitors these online games. The bookies themselves! You couldn't make it up
Do they claim a computer error when anyone loses
Report tony6499 April 7, 2021 7:57 PM BST
Would have been funny if Fred had won but the judge had said you now have to repay anyone who has played that game in a set amount of time if there was a glitch . £1million pay out would have looked cheap. I guess there won't be any pushes in Fred's shops when they reopen though
Report EastLower Gooner April 7, 2021 8:37 PM BST
Reminds me of when Arsenal offered 40m + £1 for Suarez.

Maybe a more substantial settlement figure would’ve worked.

60k really left him with no choice but to gamble...
Report EastLower Gooner April 7, 2021 8:38 PM BST
Ps happy for the guy Laugh
Report know all April 7, 2021 8:44 PM BST
The observations made above when analysing the documents lead me inexorably to the conclusion that, whatever their true meaning, none of the terms seeking to exclude liability was sufficiently brought to the attention of Mr Green so as to be incorporated in the gaming contracts he entered with Betfred.

remember betfair refused to pay out 29million on in running claiming a malfunction i said at the time they had to pay out i bet those who never sued them are a bit sick they would have won imo
Report SEATHESTARS....NO1 April 7, 2021 8:46 PM BST
Had a case sometime ago myself. Was settled out of court eventually thanks to a solicitor i met on this very forum.

Wasn't anywhere near close to the value of this man's win mind you, a mere £20ew bet on Sprinter Sacre @ 25/1 in the 2016 QMCC. The claimed the bet was @ 16/1! Plenty of tooing and frowing and they caved.

It was small amount but it was also the principal!

Utterly despicable company!!
Report hulk23 April 7, 2021 8:58 PM BST
can't see any of the scumbags turning up in court to defend ^^ this kind of thing.  would open up a huge window into what they get up to.
Report dave1357 April 7, 2021 9:47 PM BST
know all • April 7, 2021 8:44 PM BST
The observations made above when analysing the documents lead me inexorably to the conclusion that, whatever their true meaning, none of the terms seeking to exclude liability was sufficiently brought to the attention of Mr Green so as to be incorporated in the gaming contracts he entered with Betfred



the consumer rights act didn't exist when the VLV issue occured
Report dukeofpuke April 7, 2021 10:10 PM BST
Yes well done that man,hopefully he will never bet on anything again,i wouldnt
Report GLASGOWCALLING April 7, 2021 10:22 PM BST
Excellent .... Just came on the " News at 10 " LaughGrin
Report Knight Commander April 7, 2021 10:28 PM BST
Good for him!
Report cloone river April 7, 2021 10:32 PM BST
Well done to the punter it couldnt have been easy facing into a court case.Betfred has a bit of history of this.
Report Giddy April 7, 2021 11:19 PM BST
Well said one and all and well done Mr Green for your victory over these Insidious Scumbags. I despise them all!
Report know all April 7, 2021 11:42 PM BST
Storm Alert

The VLV was slightly different as Betfair had the following rule in T&C's which they decided not to adhere to:

Your betting limit is represented by the lesser of: (i) your 'Available to Bet' balance shown in your account and (ii) your ‘Exposure Limit’ (which is available in the “Account Summary” tab in “My Account”). However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand.

As proven by the winning case you cant hide behind any unfair terms and conditions see my post above, when you read the full transcript of the court case link above  them betfair would have lost there case as i pointed out at the time, if its still in time you would win the case simple, they had no leg to stand off foolish those who were fobbed off
Report ashleigh April 8, 2021 8:51 AM BST
andy green on gmb now.
Report tony6499 April 8, 2021 9:03 AM BST
Great publicity for Betfred on GMB on Grand National weekend when he wants everyone to bet online , hopefully punters go elsewhere
Report Nebs April 8, 2021 9:24 AM BST
They don't want you to win.
Report Rollo Tomasi April 8, 2021 9:45 AM BST
Re whether Voler La Vedette is in time, surely the high court decision yesterday is a "good reason". IBAS failed punters at the time.


####
However, the statute of limitations period as a defence does not, in theory automatically apply. Civil claims can be instigated by the claimant even if the limitation period has expired. If a defendant would like to strike the claim out on the grounds of it being time barred this must be raised as part of the defence. Even where the limitation period has elapsed, the Court can still grant permission for the case to proceed.

However the case would have to be compelling and strong enough for the court to do this and there must be a good reason for allowing the claim to continue.
https://allaboutuklaw.co.uk/statute-of-limitations/
####
Report dave1357 April 8, 2021 9:48 AM BST
know all • April 7, 2021 11:42 PM BST

As proven by the winning case you cant hide behind any unfair terms and conditions see my post above


The Consumer Rights Act wasn't law when the VLV issue occurred.
Report know all April 8, 2021 10:09 AM BST
unfair t and c has been in place for a long time,

the case is proven you can and should have been paid on betfairs mistake that you were due because i think everyone on here could prove when they get it wrong you pay for there mistake on many instances, that in law is now proven wrong no matter about the t and c they were unfair and one way only
Report know all April 8, 2021 10:13 AM BST
betfred was even on the main news that bad publicity will tarnish the brand for ever, big mistake not to pay up will have cost them multi millions
Report dave1357 April 8, 2021 10:39 AM BST
know fck all at his finest.

The specific requirement to have clear terms and to draw the consumer's attention to these terms (which is a major part of the judgement) didn't exist before 2015.
Report stewarty b April 8, 2021 10:48 AM BST
The story is on the Jeremy Vine show now. Probably best watched on +5.
Report stewarty b April 8, 2021 10:51 AM BST
* Which would probably best being watched at 11:43 ish now,
Report know all April 8, 2021 10:58 AM BST
know fck all at his finest.


lol ive been involved in terms and conditions for 30 years i know
Report dave1357 April 8, 2021 11:59 AM BST
ok where is the pre-2015 law specifically requiring contract terms to be transparent?
Report dave1357 April 8, 2021 12:03 PM BST
Why did the case kinloch vs corals (rangers bet) not refer to transparency but simply that any ambiguity would be deemed to favour the consumer?
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com