Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Jun 21
19:12
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Feb 02
Punter sues Paddy Power over disputed £286,000 winning bet at Wolverhampton
Paddy Power: bookmaker considers itself "bound in honour" to pay £28,600 to a punter
Paddy Power: bookmaker considers itself "bound in honour" to pay £28,600 to a punter
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
1 of 1
By Chris Cook
UPDATED 5:57PM, JUN 14 2021
Paddy Power are being sued by a punter after crediting his account with £286,000 for a winning bet, only to claw it back two days later on the grounds that he had originally wanted to place a much smaller bet.
The dispute is expected to result in a High Court hearing at the end of this month, at which one of the issues to be put before the judge will be the fairness and legality of the 'error' rule commonly used by bookmakers, which has so often been the cause of complaint among punters denied a payout to which they believed they were entitled.
James Longley backed Redemptive when she won at Wolverhampton in September 2019, phoning up Paddy Power to ask for £1,300 each-way at the 16-1 that was then on offer. The operator who took the call said she would seek authorisation from a trader, as the maximum stake for his account was £203.
At this point, the operator mistakenly relayed the bet to a trader as a request for £13,000 each-way. The bet was approved and the operator relayed that information to Longley, who says he was happy to be allowed a much larger bet than the one he had sought.
Longley's phone call was recorded and a transcript has been included in court documents from the defence, seen by the Racing Post. It shows the operator telling him: "I got that cleared with a trader for you" and adding: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand coming from [account name], is that correct?"
Longley replied: "Yeah, that's it, yeah". The parties do not agree as to whether he had realised at this point that a much larger bet had been authorised, Paddy Power insisting he must have misheard, misunderstood or thought the operator had made a slip of the tongue.
'An unfair contract term'
Before the race started, Longley says he checked his account and noted that a stake of £26,000 had indeed been deducted from his available balance. The bookmakers argue that it was only at this point Longley realised he had been allowed a bet much larger than he had asked for, and that therefore there had been no true agreement between the parties as to the bet and it should be void in law.
The claim document written on Longley's behalf states that "no demand for repayment of the sum of £286,000 was made by the defendants", the implication being it was taken back from his account with no prior indication that the bet was in dispute. Paddy Power's defence document admits Longley's assertion but calls it irrelevant because the firm's error clause "permits the defendants to reclaim balance from the account".
That error clause is attacked by Longley's lawyers as "an unfair contract term", causing "a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations". They state that Paddy Power "had the opportunity, on the one hand, to lay off the full amount of the bet accepted [£13,000 each-way] and thereby reduce its exposure to the bet while the claimant, thinking his bet had been accepted in full, has no similar right".
The lawyers assert that, while Paddy Power claim the right after the race to insist the stake was £2,600 rather than £26,000 and resettle the bet accordingly, Longley would have been unable to make the same unilateral reduction in stake if Redemptive had finished unplaced.
Paddy Power's lawyers deny the clause is unfair and say the Gambling Commission's code of practice specifically envisages there will be situations in which a bookmaker may void a bet. They insist the firm "have corrected and do correct errors which favour them, whenever the same occur, and will adduce evidence to that effect".
The firm views Longley's bet as a winner at £1,300 each-way and credited his account with £28,600 at the same time as clawing back the £286,000. Some of the arguments advanced on its behalf would mean, if correct, that it had no liability to pay anything, as the bet would be void but the defence document says the firm considers itself "bound in honour" to pay.
This article is exclusive to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Read more articles for members here:
Paddy Power: bookmaker considers itself "bound in honour" to pay £28,600 to a punter
Paddy Power: bookmaker considers itself "bound in honour" to pay £28,600 to a punter
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
1 of 1
By Chris Cook
UPDATED 5:57PM, JUN 14 2021
Paddy Power are being sued by a punter after crediting his account with £286,000 for a winning bet, only to claw it back two days later on the grounds that he had originally wanted to place a much smaller bet.
The dispute is expected to result in a High Court hearing at the end of this month, at which one of the issues to be put before the judge will be the fairness and legality of the 'error' rule commonly used by bookmakers, which has so often been the cause of complaint among punters denied a payout to which they believed they were entitled.
James Longley backed Redemptive when she won at Wolverhampton in September 2019, phoning up Paddy Power to ask for £1,300 each-way at the 16-1 that was then on offer. The operator who took the call said she would seek authorisation from a trader, as the maximum stake for his account was £203.
At this point, the operator mistakenly relayed the bet to a trader as a request for £13,000 each-way. The bet was approved and the operator relayed that information to Longley, who says he was happy to be allowed a much larger bet than the one he had sought.
Longley's phone call was recorded and a transcript has been included in court documents from the defence, seen by the Racing Post. It shows the operator telling him: "I got that cleared with a trader for you" and adding: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand coming from [account name], is that correct?"
Longley replied: "Yeah, that's it, yeah". The parties do not agree as to whether he had realised at this point that a much larger bet had been authorised, Paddy Power insisting he must have misheard, misunderstood or thought the operator had made a slip of the tongue.
'An unfair contract term'
Before the race started, Longley says he checked his account and noted that a stake of £26,000 had indeed been deducted from his available balance. The bookmakers argue that it was only at this point Longley realised he had been allowed a bet much larger than he had asked for, and that therefore there had been no true agreement between the parties as to the bet and it should be void in law.
The claim document written on Longley's behalf states that "no demand for repayment of the sum of £286,000 was made by the defendants", the implication being it was taken back from his account with no prior indication that the bet was in dispute. Paddy Power's defence document admits Longley's assertion but calls it irrelevant because the firm's error clause "permits the defendants to reclaim balance from the account".
That error clause is attacked by Longley's lawyers as "an unfair contract term", causing "a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations". They state that Paddy Power "had the opportunity, on the one hand, to lay off the full amount of the bet accepted [£13,000 each-way] and thereby reduce its exposure to the bet while the claimant, thinking his bet had been accepted in full, has no similar right".
The lawyers assert that, while Paddy Power claim the right after the race to insist the stake was £2,600 rather than £26,000 and resettle the bet accordingly, Longley would have been unable to make the same unilateral reduction in stake if Redemptive had finished unplaced.
Paddy Power's lawyers deny the clause is unfair and say the Gambling Commission's code of practice specifically envisages there will be situations in which a bookmaker may void a bet. They insist the firm "have corrected and do correct errors which favour them, whenever the same occur, and will adduce evidence to that effect".
The firm views Longley's bet as a winner at £1,300 each-way and credited his account with £28,600 at the same time as clawing back the £286,000. Some of the arguments advanced on its behalf would mean, if correct, that it had no liability to pay anything, as the bet would be void but the defence document says the firm considers itself "bound in honour" to pay.
This article is exclusive to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Read more articles for members here:
Show More
Ibrahima Sonko - Unless PP contacted the punter before the race then their is no case to answer.
You would have thought so. I haven't read all through the thread, but on the RP site it is reported a PP operative in an email the court has seen has said he was guilty of {allowing} "massively overlaying a horse" and had done so in part because "the customer appeared to be chasing".
The punter should be paid out and PP should be fined.
You would have thought so. I haven't read all through the thread, but on the RP site it is reported a PP operative in an email the court has seen has said he was guilty of {allowing} "massively overlaying a horse" and had done so in part because "the customer appeared to be chasing".
The punter should be paid out and PP should be fined.
so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like
so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like
high-roller on the chase
yes please.
high-roller on the chase
yes please.
Fashion Fever 30 Jun 21 14:24
so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like
Especially when you're £106,000 down since 2013.
so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like
Especially when you're £106,000 down since 2013.
PaddyPower ought to be renamed WelchingPaddy after this abysmal behaviour.
So a chasing mug with too much money can have 13k ew on no worries. But shrewdies trying to stay under their radar and asking for 10 ew will be offered 50 pence ew. Get the police involved here. Normal punters are fed up with it all.
By Chris Cook
UPDATED 8:57PM, JUN 30 2021
The High Court has been urged to rule that Paddy Power must pay a punter £286,000 for a bet of £13,000 each-way on the grounds that all those involved had agreed on that stake, rather than the £1,300 each-way for which the punter had originally asked.
Lawyers for the bookmaker maintain there was no agreement for the increased stake, which was first mentioned mistakenly by the operator who answered the call when she relayed it to traders for approval.
Closing arguments were presented on Wednesday, with the barrister Mark James – representing James Longley, the punter in question – insisting: "Objectively, it's a bet for £13,000 each-way.
"That's how Mr Longley understood it, that's how the phone operator understood it and that's the bet that Paddy Power's trader authorised. It would be a very unusual outcome if they were all wrong."
Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, presiding over the two-day hearing, intervened to ask if it were realistic that someone seeking a bet of £1,300 each-way would then be offered a stake ten times as large.
"It's not plausible for many," responded James, "but it is plausible for a punter in the situation of Mr Longley."
The court had heard on Tuesday that Longley is a wealthy punter who had already lost £19,000 to Paddy Power earlier the same day from an initial balance of £78,000 before seeking the disputed bet at 16-1 on Redemptive, a winner at Wolverhampton.
James regretted no evidence had been heard from the trader in question, suggesting it could have been given remotely in less than an hour had the defendants agreed. Drawing on email correspondence submitted in evidence, the barrister said of the trader's decision to approve the bet: "He seems to have been tempted into doing that because he thought the customer was chasing his losses.
"He thought this was a good chance to make a profit for the business. He says in that email, 'For some reason, the liability just went out of my mind'. We know he thought he was in trouble."
Paddy Power cleared disputed £26,000 bet thinking punter was chasing losses
James argued an 'error' clause relied upon by the bookmaker was unfair. He noted that Paddy Power had been able to lay off part of the bet, recovering £17,000, and could in theory have laid off the entire sum.
"They can lay off their bets, make a profit on the deal, and then tell the bettor, 'We're keeping our winnings but you can't have yours'."
Summing up for Paddy Power earlier, barrister Kajetan Wandowicz pointed to the phone call and said the claimant was relying too much on the phone operator telling Longley: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand," from his account.
"It beggars belief," said Wandowicz, "that a highly intelligent and sophisticated punter who has only just been told that his requested bet has been approved" would regard that mention of a different sum of money as a counter-offer.
Wandowicz said there was "overwhelming" evidence, from the context and from Longley's reaction, that the punter did not register a larger sum had been mentioned during the call and only realised he had been given a larger bet when checking an app on his phone later. As a result, the defence argues, the parties had been at cross purposes and a contract had never been agreed.
The judge is considering her verdict.
UPDATED 8:57PM, JUN 30 2021
The High Court has been urged to rule that Paddy Power must pay a punter £286,000 for a bet of £13,000 each-way on the grounds that all those involved had agreed on that stake, rather than the £1,300 each-way for which the punter had originally asked.
Lawyers for the bookmaker maintain there was no agreement for the increased stake, which was first mentioned mistakenly by the operator who answered the call when she relayed it to traders for approval.
Closing arguments were presented on Wednesday, with the barrister Mark James – representing James Longley, the punter in question – insisting: "Objectively, it's a bet for £13,000 each-way.
"That's how Mr Longley understood it, that's how the phone operator understood it and that's the bet that Paddy Power's trader authorised. It would be a very unusual outcome if they were all wrong."
Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, presiding over the two-day hearing, intervened to ask if it were realistic that someone seeking a bet of £1,300 each-way would then be offered a stake ten times as large.
"It's not plausible for many," responded James, "but it is plausible for a punter in the situation of Mr Longley."
The court had heard on Tuesday that Longley is a wealthy punter who had already lost £19,000 to Paddy Power earlier the same day from an initial balance of £78,000 before seeking the disputed bet at 16-1 on Redemptive, a winner at Wolverhampton.
James regretted no evidence had been heard from the trader in question, suggesting it could have been given remotely in less than an hour had the defendants agreed. Drawing on email correspondence submitted in evidence, the barrister said of the trader's decision to approve the bet: "He seems to have been tempted into doing that because he thought the customer was chasing his losses.
"He thought this was a good chance to make a profit for the business. He says in that email, 'For some reason, the liability just went out of my mind'. We know he thought he was in trouble."
Paddy Power cleared disputed £26,000 bet thinking punter was chasing losses
James argued an 'error' clause relied upon by the bookmaker was unfair. He noted that Paddy Power had been able to lay off part of the bet, recovering £17,000, and could in theory have laid off the entire sum.
"They can lay off their bets, make a profit on the deal, and then tell the bettor, 'We're keeping our winnings but you can't have yours'."
Summing up for Paddy Power earlier, barrister Kajetan Wandowicz pointed to the phone call and said the claimant was relying too much on the phone operator telling Longley: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand," from his account.
"It beggars belief," said Wandowicz, "that a highly intelligent and sophisticated punter who has only just been told that his requested bet has been approved" would regard that mention of a different sum of money as a counter-offer.
Wandowicz said there was "overwhelming" evidence, from the context and from Longley's reaction, that the punter did not register a larger sum had been mentioned during the call and only realised he had been given a larger bet when checking an app on his phone later. As a result, the defence argues, the parties had been at cross purposes and a contract had never been agreed.
The judge is considering her verdict.
1-5 punter wins. 5s the green mob find a way to wriggle out. Some COMPETENT staff required also.
Barrister for PP
---------------------
Kajetan has a substantial practice in gambling law, advising and acting for large gambling operators as well as their customers. Recent instructions have included bet outcome disputes, issues of cheating/dishonest bets, withholding of winnings pending completion of integrity investigations, claims by problem gamblers, self-exclusion, disputes with high-value / VIP customers, and the interface between findings of regulatory authorities and private law actions between the customer and the bookmaker. He has particular experience in bet outcome disputes in respect of events without an obvious mathematical outcome or official result of a governing body, where the gambling operator has made an evaluative judgment as to the correct settlement of the bets.
He has also undertaken urgent advisory work in this field in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Featured Gambling and Betting cases
Advised a major bookmaker on settlement of bets on events cancelled and postponed due to COVID-19 (both one-off events such as matches/tournaments, and long-running events cancelled or postponed mid-way such as leagues).
Acting as sole counsel for a bookmaker in an ongoing £250,000 claim in respect of a horseracing bet.
Advised an online bookmaker in respect of its exposure to ca. 120 small claims totalling over £500,000 in respect of the same subject matter.
Acted for a major bookmaker in defence of a claim brought by a high-value customer whose winnings were voided on the basis that he had been at the centre of a horserace-rigging conspiracy (successfully ended with the claimant being forced to abandon the claim at an early stage).
Advised a betting exchange on multiple claims in respect of its settlement of a domestic political event market.
Acted for a betting exchange in defending several claims in respect of bets on the date of a party leader’s official departure from office.
Drafted the operator’s submissions to IBAS in a successfully-defended six-figure adjudication brought by a customer in respect of bets on an international political event.
Acted for a bookmaker in a successful defence of a claim in respect of alleged breach of a self-exclusion agreement.
Acted for a bookmaker on a successful strikeout application in a claim in respect of freezing a customer’s winnings for 10 months pending an integrity investigation.
Advised a problem gambler on recovering his online gambling losses.
---------------------
Kajetan has a substantial practice in gambling law, advising and acting for large gambling operators as well as their customers. Recent instructions have included bet outcome disputes, issues of cheating/dishonest bets, withholding of winnings pending completion of integrity investigations, claims by problem gamblers, self-exclusion, disputes with high-value / VIP customers, and the interface between findings of regulatory authorities and private law actions between the customer and the bookmaker. He has particular experience in bet outcome disputes in respect of events without an obvious mathematical outcome or official result of a governing body, where the gambling operator has made an evaluative judgment as to the correct settlement of the bets.
He has also undertaken urgent advisory work in this field in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Featured Gambling and Betting cases
Advised a major bookmaker on settlement of bets on events cancelled and postponed due to COVID-19 (both one-off events such as matches/tournaments, and long-running events cancelled or postponed mid-way such as leagues).
Acting as sole counsel for a bookmaker in an ongoing £250,000 claim in respect of a horseracing bet.
Advised an online bookmaker in respect of its exposure to ca. 120 small claims totalling over £500,000 in respect of the same subject matter.
Acted for a major bookmaker in defence of a claim brought by a high-value customer whose winnings were voided on the basis that he had been at the centre of a horserace-rigging conspiracy (successfully ended with the claimant being forced to abandon the claim at an early stage).
Advised a betting exchange on multiple claims in respect of its settlement of a domestic political event market.
Acted for a betting exchange in defending several claims in respect of bets on the date of a party leader’s official departure from office.
Drafted the operator’s submissions to IBAS in a successfully-defended six-figure adjudication brought by a customer in respect of bets on an international political event.
Acted for a bookmaker in a successful defence of a claim in respect of alleged breach of a self-exclusion agreement.
Acted for a bookmaker on a successful strikeout application in a claim in respect of freezing a customer’s winnings for 10 months pending an integrity investigation.
Advised a problem gambler on recovering his online gambling losses.
"I got that cleared with a trader for you"
how much was traded on here between 20.0 & 25.0 when his 16/1 was green-lighted ?
He noted that Paddy Power had been able to lay off part of the bet, recovering £17,000, and could in theory have laid off the entire sum.
Fee's in the post James. You're welcome
how much was traded on here between 20.0 & 25.0 when his 16/1 was green-lighted ?
He noted that Paddy Power had been able to lay off part of the bet, recovering £17,000, and could in theory have laid off the entire sum.
Fee's in the post James. You're welcome
Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, presiding over the two-day hearing, intervened to ask if it were realistic that someone seeking a bet of £1,300 each-way would then be offered a stake ten times as large.
They are going to win.
how much was traded on here between 20.0 & 25.0 when his 16/1 was green-lighted ?
It actually drifted on here, the average price matched was 14.5 and the SP was 16. The morning price was 7.5 and the max price traded was 23. There was also less that 16k traded pre. I can't see that there was much opportunity to lay off a bet of that size without taking a substantial loss.
They are going to win.
how much was traded on here between 20.0 & 25.0 when his 16/1 was green-lighted ?
It actually drifted on here, the average price matched was 14.5 and the SP was 16. The morning price was 7.5 and the max price traded was 23. There was also less that 16k traded pre. I can't see that there was much opportunity to lay off a bet of that size without taking a substantial loss.
@dave1357
Tend to agree after that question from the judge - it seems quite telling, even though I’d question just how relevant it is. Suspect she’s going to rule that there was no genuine agreement between them because there was a lack of certainty over what was being agreed.
Tend to agree after that question from the judge - it seems quite telling, even though I’d question just how relevant it is. Suspect she’s going to rule that there was no genuine agreement between them because there was a lack of certainty over what was being agreed.
I hope the Judge considers what would the outcome be if the horse had lost.
Just pay the man. Shocking really that people chasing losses are fair game. Promoting responsible gambling may arris.
The GC need to ask why one punter can get a £26k bet when others cant get minimal stakes on.
Their answer will be 'traders decision'.
That must show that their licence allows them to profit from non-savvy punters without affordability/laundering checks which I thought was the objective of addressing that very issue.
Their answer will be 'traders decision'.
That must show that their licence allows them to profit from non-savvy punters without affordability/laundering checks which I thought was the objective of addressing that very issue.
How do you know they haven't done affordability checks with him MWA?
Unfortunately my gut feeling is they are going to win.
Unfortunately my gut feeling is they are going to win.
Dealer Didnt he have a limit of £203? The authorising of the bet was instant was it not? Hence no time for due process.
because "the customer appeared to be chasing".
Thought it would be worth £200k to keep that line out of the papers....
Thought it would be worth £200k to keep that line out of the papers....
The main issue for the GC is lax systems and controls. A trader could authorise a bet with a payout well in excess of PP's published limits ie 100k for that grade of race. I would guess that is why the "trader" won't testify - he could find himself liable. And also why PP have gone down the "punter didn't mean to bet that amount" route for their defence and not the "our trader employee made an error in authorising the bet" route.
It was the phone operators limit of what he could lay without referring to trader. I thought the same,
Can't see the man getting paid £286,000, but I hope I'm wrong.
Ramruma 30 Jun 21 12:21
@sparrow, no, we were not taught wrongly. The point is that different languages and cultures count differently. There is no universal standard. It is probably a blessing he was not asking for monkeys.
That wouldn't have been a problem if their trading team were based in Gibraltar: they could have sent him a flange of baboons as his winnings
@sparrow, no, we were not taught wrongly. The point is that different languages and cultures count differently. There is no universal standard. It is probably a blessing he was not asking for monkeys.
That wouldn't have been a problem if their trading team were based in Gibraltar: they could have sent him a flange of baboons as his winnings
Mr C
Instructing Kajetan seems to have been a very smart move; has Longley's barrister got a track record dealing with betting disputes ?
Instructing Kajetan seems to have been a very smart move; has Longley's barrister got a track record dealing with betting disputes ?
Acted for a betting exchange in defending several claims in respect of bets on the date of a party leader’s official departure from office.
https://community.betfair.com/football/go/thread/view/94070/31530579/theresa-may-to-leave-in-june-112-free-money?post_id=557240473#557240473#flvWelcomeHeader
https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/31534697/exit-date-theresa-may-as-party-leader?post_id=557322491#557322491#flvWelcomeHeader
Looks like some people actually did go to court over this. Rather than learning there lesson, they ignored their rules in the next US president market, inviting further potential claims.
https://community.betfair.com/football/go/thread/view/94070/31530579/theresa-may-to-leave-in-june-112-free-money?post_id=557240473#557240473#flvWelcomeHeader
https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/31534697/exit-date-theresa-may-as-party-leader?post_id=557322491#557322491#flvWelcomeHeader
Looks like some people actually did go to court over this. Rather than learning there lesson, they ignored their rules in the next US president market, inviting further potential claims.
if the fella agreed to the bigger bet and the £26k
went from his balance,surely this bet should be honoured?
went from his balance,surely this bet should be honoured?
The court did not hear from the trader in question, referred to as a Mr McCarthy and based in Ireland, with Longley's legal team saying they could not compel him to attend. But in an email he sent to a colleague in the days after the bet, McCarthy evidently admitted he was "guilty of massively overlaying a horse" and had done so in part because "the customer appeared to be chasing".,,,, Surely a quick look at the Email should be enough to settle the case one way or the other.
If it had got beat would Paddy have contacted client and said we are pleased to tell you it looks like you meant only £1300 eacy way and therefore we are refunding the overstake of £23,400
Of course they wouldnt. They took the money and the client agreed to that revised stake .They should be made to pay up.
Otherwise i need a 90% refund on all my losing bets which i overstaked.
Of course they wouldnt. They took the money and the client agreed to that revised stake .They should be made to pay up.
Otherwise i need a 90% refund on all my losing bets which i overstaked.
Acted for a betting exchange in defending several claims in respect of bets on the date of a party leader’s official departure from office.
ref this dispute- i assume over theresa Mays's resignation date. I took betfair to the gambling commission, along with many others and won. I was fully reimbursed.
ref this dispute- i assume over theresa Mays's resignation date. I took betfair to the gambling commission, along with many others and won. I was fully reimbursed.
The GC doesn't normally deal with complaints - how did you get them to do so on this occasion?
it wasn't exactly a complaint it was an incorrect decision by betfair over the result. I backed June and betfair declared it was lost. I made a submission to GC over incorrect result as did many others. My money was not massive so i wasn't unduly concerned but i was bothered about the principle. The GC sent me Betfair's interpretation of the rules and asked me if they were wrong. I argued betfair interpretation wasn't wrong, but it could be interprtted that june won, because the exact conditions of a result were not adequately stated. The GC agreed, that both interpretations were reasonable, that betfair were wrong in their sole interpretation, and stated that in future they need to be clearer on how the result is achieved. I was fully reimbursed.
well done, I bottled out for a small loss or profit, can't remember which. I thought the game was over when the tory party said she was staying on as interim party leader. Amazing that after that rebuke, they produced a whole raft of complex market terms in the US election and ignored them for months by not settling them.
the rules for boris resignation are now...This market will be settled based on the first official announcement of the next permanent Conservative Party leader after Boris Johnson, as chosen by a Conservative Party leadership contest. So its not exactly when he resigns its the date of the new leader, still very confusing. As you say learn from it and stay out of it.
Ibas have an article about
us election on their website.
us election on their website.
Says they considered 50 cases
dealing with leaving date.
dealing with leaving date.
It's in pdf
https://www.ibas-uk.comPDF
21 Years of Championing Fair Play - IBAS
https://www.ibas-uk.comPDF
21 Years of Championing Fair Play - IBAS
Wandowicz put it to Longley that, had Redemptive finished unplaced, he could have called the firm to insist he had only intended to stake £1,300 each-way and been refunded. Longley said he had no such intention, adding: "I think it's a very dangerous strategy."
Is this before or after the result? Can someone from Betfair/PP Towers please confirm as my future betting strategy hinges on the answer?
Is this before or after the result? Can someone from Betfair/PP Towers please confirm as my future betting strategy hinges on the answer?
he could have called the firm to insist he had only intended to stake £1,300 each-way and been told to fook right off ...
prepared83 says:
Anyway I was going to reply to the pa ddy court case thread.
Not so long ago my dad who only ever bets a tenner a race realised
he'd many an error on one bet and accidentently clicked 100.
In a bit of a panic he phoned me and I straight away emailed the company(Not paddy)
saying he'd made a mistake and that he quite clearly only meant 10 as all his other bets
10. This was way before the race by the way. The horse lost and next day he had
an email saying sorry can't change it bet accepted. So my question is does one single person
on here think they would've paid him out to a £100 stake if the horse won?
Anyway I was going to reply to the pa ddy court case thread.
Not so long ago my dad who only ever bets a tenner a race realised
he'd many an error on one bet and accidentently clicked 100.
In a bit of a panic he phoned me and I straight away emailed the company(Not paddy)
saying he'd made a mistake and that he quite clearly only meant 10 as all his other bets
10. This was way before the race by the way. The horse lost and next day he had
an email saying sorry can't change it bet accepted. So my question is does one single person
on here think they would've paid him out to a £100 stake if the horse won?
I twice placed a bet in error and when I phoned up both bookie`s they told me that they couldn`t be cancelled. I lost.
seems farly cut and dry to me............Would PP have settled the bet if horse lost as 2,600 or 26.000.
When i googled the case tonite thinking it would have been adjudicated upon today i see that PP have a judgement against them for 816 million for a case taken against Pokerstars a subsidary of Flutter upheld by Kentuckeys Supreme Court.
Hope the pumter wins his case but would'nt shed any tears if PP/Flutter got clipped for 816 million with the possibility of other states using the case as a precedent to take similar cases.
It couls be merging with Stars group for 10 Billion was a poison pill
When i googled the case tonite thinking it would have been adjudicated upon today i see that PP have a judgement against them for 816 million for a case taken against Pokerstars a subsidary of Flutter upheld by Kentuckeys Supreme Court.
Hope the pumter wins his case but would'nt shed any tears if PP/Flutter got clipped for 816 million with the possibility of other states using the case as a precedent to take similar cases.
It couls be merging with Stars group for 10 Billion was a poison pill
Paddy Power POWER owner Flutter Entertainment is on the hook for $870m (€709m) after a US court reinstated a massive damages claim against The Stars Group, which Flutter merged with earlier this year.
The Irish gambling group said it’s “wholly surprised” by the decision.
The legal action by the Commonwealth of Kentucky was initiated in 2010. It sought recovery of alleged losses incurred by residents of the state who played real-money poker on the PokerStars website between 2006 and 2011. PokerStars was bought by The Stars Group (TSG) in 2014.
A state law allows people who lose $5 or more in illegal bets to file a lawsuit within six months to recover the money. But if they fail to do so, any other person can sue to recover the money. The lower court ordered that $290m be paid by PokerStars. The amount was tripled by the judge by way of a penalty.
However, in 2018, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the judgement. The court said at the time that permitting the action to move forward “would lead to an absurd, unjust result”.
But the Kentucky Supreme Court has just reinstated the $870m award.
“The outcome of today’s Kentucky Supreme Court ruling is that the $870m judgement against TSG has been reinstated with compounding interest of 12pc per annum,” Flutter told the stock market yesterday evening.
“There are a number of legal processes available to Flutter and having taken legal advice, Flutter is confident that any amount it ultimately becomes liable to pay will be a limited proportion of the reinstated judgement,” it added.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Flutter is wholly surprised by today’s ruling and strongly disputes the basis of this judgement which, it believes, runs contrary to the modern US legal precedent,” it said. “No liability was previously recognised by either TSG or Flutter in relation to this.”
Business Newsletter
Read the leading stories from the world of business.
Enter your Email Address
Sign Up
Promoted Links
by
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than You Think
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than…
TooCool2BeTrue
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
https://refinancegold.com/
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
eToro
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or other giant companies
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or…
Start investing today
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar To You
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar…
Life Indigo
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
Dads News
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
Vitaminews
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable Hearing Aids
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable…
Hidden Hearing
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
FamilyMinded
Promoted Links by
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
eToro
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
Life Indigo
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Hidden Hearing
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
TooCool2BeTrue
Most Watched
'You need to calm down' – Varadkar accuses Doherty of 'aggressive display' for social media
Visa LocalGreen_18.mp4
Eamon Ryan cleans glasses with face mask on Claire Byrne
William and Harry put on united front at unveiling of Diana statue
The Irish gambling group said it’s “wholly surprised” by the decision.
The legal action by the Commonwealth of Kentucky was initiated in 2010. It sought recovery of alleged losses incurred by residents of the state who played real-money poker on the PokerStars website between 2006 and 2011. PokerStars was bought by The Stars Group (TSG) in 2014.
A state law allows people who lose $5 or more in illegal bets to file a lawsuit within six months to recover the money. But if they fail to do so, any other person can sue to recover the money. The lower court ordered that $290m be paid by PokerStars. The amount was tripled by the judge by way of a penalty.
However, in 2018, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the judgement. The court said at the time that permitting the action to move forward “would lead to an absurd, unjust result”.
But the Kentucky Supreme Court has just reinstated the $870m award.
“The outcome of today’s Kentucky Supreme Court ruling is that the $870m judgement against TSG has been reinstated with compounding interest of 12pc per annum,” Flutter told the stock market yesterday evening.
“There are a number of legal processes available to Flutter and having taken legal advice, Flutter is confident that any amount it ultimately becomes liable to pay will be a limited proportion of the reinstated judgement,” it added.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Flutter is wholly surprised by today’s ruling and strongly disputes the basis of this judgement which, it believes, runs contrary to the modern US legal precedent,” it said. “No liability was previously recognised by either TSG or Flutter in relation to this.”
Business Newsletter
Read the leading stories from the world of business.
Enter your Email Address
Sign Up
Promoted Links
by
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than You Think
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than…
TooCool2BeTrue
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
https://refinancegold.com/
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
eToro
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or other giant companies
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or…
Start investing today
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar To You
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar…
Life Indigo
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
Dads News
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
Vitaminews
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable Hearing Aids
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable…
Hidden Hearing
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
FamilyMinded
Promoted Links by
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
eToro
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
Life Indigo
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Hidden Hearing
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
TooCool2BeTrue
Most Watched
'You need to calm down' – Varadkar accuses Doherty of 'aggressive display' for social media
Visa LocalGreen_18.mp4
Eamon Ryan cleans glasses with face mask on Claire Byrne
William and Harry put on united front at unveiling of Diana statue
Paddy Power POWER owner Flutter Entertainment is on the hook for $870m (€709m) after a US court reinstated a massive damages claim against The Stars Group, which Flutter merged with earlier this year.
The Irish gambling group said it’s “wholly surprised” by the decision.
The legal action by the Commonwealth of Kentucky was initiated in 2010. It sought recovery of alleged losses incurred by residents of the state who played real-money poker on the PokerStars website between 2006 and 2011. PokerStars was bought by The Stars Group (TSG) in 2014.
A state law allows people who lose $5 or more in illegal bets to file a lawsuit within six months to recover the money. But if they fail to do so, any other person can sue to recover the money. The lower court ordered that $290m be paid by PokerStars. The amount was tripled by the judge by way of a penalty.
However, in 2018, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the judgement. The court said at the time that permitting the action to move forward “would lead to an absurd, unjust result”.
But the Kentucky Supreme Court has just reinstated the $870m award.
“The outcome of today’s Kentucky Supreme Court ruling is that the $870m judgement against TSG has been reinstated with compounding interest of 12pc per annum,” Flutter told the stock market yesterday evening.
“There are a number of legal processes available to Flutter and having taken legal advice, Flutter is confident that any amount it ultimately becomes liable to pay will be a limited proportion of the reinstated judgement,” it added.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Flutter is wholly surprised by today’s ruling and strongly disputes the basis of this judgement which, it believes, runs contrary to the modern US legal precedent,” it said. “No liability was previously recognised by either TSG or Flutter in relation to this.”
Business Newsletter
Read the leading stories from the world of business.
Enter your Email Address
Sign Up
Promoted Links
by
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than You Think
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than…
TooCool2BeTrue
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
https://refinancegold.com/
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
eToro
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or other giant companies
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or…
Start investing today
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar To You
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar…
Life Indigo
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
Dads News
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
Vitaminews
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable Hearing Aids
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable…
Hidden Hearing
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
FamilyMinded
Promoted Links by
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
eToro
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
Life Indigo
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Hidden Hearing
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
TooCool2BeTrue
Most Watched
'You need to calm down' – Varadkar accuses Doherty of 'aggressive display' for social media
Visa LocalGreen_18.mp4
Eamon Ryan cleans glasses with face mask on Claire Byrne
William and Harry put on united front at unveiling of Diana statue
The Irish gambling group said it’s “wholly surprised” by the decision.
The legal action by the Commonwealth of Kentucky was initiated in 2010. It sought recovery of alleged losses incurred by residents of the state who played real-money poker on the PokerStars website between 2006 and 2011. PokerStars was bought by The Stars Group (TSG) in 2014.
A state law allows people who lose $5 or more in illegal bets to file a lawsuit within six months to recover the money. But if they fail to do so, any other person can sue to recover the money. The lower court ordered that $290m be paid by PokerStars. The amount was tripled by the judge by way of a penalty.
However, in 2018, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the judgement. The court said at the time that permitting the action to move forward “would lead to an absurd, unjust result”.
But the Kentucky Supreme Court has just reinstated the $870m award.
“The outcome of today’s Kentucky Supreme Court ruling is that the $870m judgement against TSG has been reinstated with compounding interest of 12pc per annum,” Flutter told the stock market yesterday evening.
“There are a number of legal processes available to Flutter and having taken legal advice, Flutter is confident that any amount it ultimately becomes liable to pay will be a limited proportion of the reinstated judgement,” it added.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Flutter is wholly surprised by today’s ruling and strongly disputes the basis of this judgement which, it believes, runs contrary to the modern US legal precedent,” it said. “No liability was previously recognised by either TSG or Flutter in relation to this.”
Business Newsletter
Read the leading stories from the world of business.
Enter your Email Address
Sign Up
Promoted Links
by
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than You Think
16 Long-Legged Female Movie Stars Who Are Taller Than…
TooCool2BeTrue
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
[Pics] At 53, Paul Gascoigne Lives In A House Like This
https://refinancegold.com/
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
What’s next for bitcoin? Learn if you should invest right now
eToro
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or other giant companies
Westport: How to get an income by investing € 250 in Tesla or…
Start investing today
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar To You
[Photos] Mark Labbett's Partner Might Look Familiar…
Life Indigo
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
[Pics] At 66, This Is The Car Rowan Atkinson Drives
Dads News
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
[Pics] Lou Ferrigno Is Now 68 Years Old, This Is Him Now
Vitaminews
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable Hearing Aids
Wanted: 150 People in Westport to Test New Digital Rechargeable…
Hidden Hearing
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
Celeb Couples with Major Age Differences
FamilyMinded
Promoted Links by
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
2020 was bitcoin’s year. What can we expect in 2021?
eToro
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
[Photos] Here's Emilia Clarke's Net Worth After GOT
Life Indigo
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Order a free sample hearing aid this Friday - only 500 left
Hidden Hearing
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
Your IQ Is 142 If You Get 15/20 On This General Knowledge Quiz
TooCool2BeTrue
Most Watched
'You need to calm down' – Varadkar accuses Doherty of 'aggressive display' for social media
Visa LocalGreen_18.mp4
Eamon Ryan cleans glasses with face mask on Claire Byrne
William and Harry put on united front at unveiling of Diana statue
Home town verdicts are not unusual in American courts.
And fwiw (almost nothing) I was allowed to cancel a bet I'd placed in error (not with PP). Ironically, the horse won!
And fwiw (almost nothing) I was allowed to cancel a bet I'd placed in error (not with PP). Ironically, the horse won!
this must have happened before with pp so if the can show they have refunded the extra stake to other punters after the bet lost then they may have a case,its quite clear he only wanted £1300 e/w and i thought they may show that they have refunded other punters before but if they dont then i dont see how they can win,you cant have it both ways
That's the argument for the defence. Y you would surely also have counter arguments based on letters refusing to alter the stake similar to J-c-m's dad's & themightymac's situations
As for the outcome, she's taking her time isn't she?
Does she understand betting? Many women don't.
She's probably getting advice from a male judge just like if there was a dispute where someone was suing a restaurant serving a meal where someone was taken ill & it was a male judge presiding he'd probably ask her for her opinion on the case.
The best cooks are male though. Silly to ask a woman on that count.
It is all to do with contract law. I am sure she will know where the land lies.
You can still get different verdicts depending on who the judge is, imo
The big issue here must be that the trader working on behalf of PP was eager to take the bet because of his interpretation that the punter was chasing his losses and he was to be accommodate because of this.
Absolutely damning of the real attitude towards problem gambling behind the scenes of the Bookmaking fraternity
That mp with the purple hair will have a far king field day
Absolutely damning of the real attitude towards problem gambling behind the scenes of the Bookmaking fraternity
That mp with the purple hair will have a far king field day
It is blindingly obvious that he only actually wanted £1300 each way imo.
But having said that - All the judge really needs to know (which she probably doesn't) is that there is not a cat in hells chance that they would have refunded the difference (£23,400.00) back to him after the race if the horse had finished out of the frame!
All parties have agreed the £13,000 ew stake prior to the race, £26,000 has been taken prior to the race and neither party has done anything to query/alter the stake prior to the race. It's just a shame that he seems to be a rich mug gambler that doesn't need the money.
But having said that - All the judge really needs to know (which she probably doesn't) is that there is not a cat in hells chance that they would have refunded the difference (£23,400.00) back to him after the race if the horse had finished out of the frame!
All parties have agreed the £13,000 ew stake prior to the race, £26,000 has been taken prior to the race and neither party has done anything to query/alter the stake prior to the race. It's just a shame that he seems to be a rich mug gambler that doesn't need the money.
I'd favour the punter to get his money. No one from Paddy Power was willing to take the stand. This strategy didn't save Derek Chauvin and I don't think it will work here.
The judge is not very experienced. I wonder will PP appeal to the court of appeal if they lose. They have the money to do it. I doubt the punter will appeal if he loses. The costs of this trial will not be cheap and if he loses he will be responsible for all costs
it depends om the basis of the ruling - I doubt this one will be as significant as the baldfred online casino error and bald didn't appeal.
once that bet is read out to you that is the contract, he will get paid imo
I'd forgotten that the losing plaintiff pays both sides' costs; Longley has an awful lot at stake . Presumably he's received advice that his chances of winning are in the region of say 60% plus.
The betting firms spend fortunes advertising pretendy multiples that punters are supposed to have landed,& return money on horses that don’t come out of the stalls or get beat a short head etc,it just doesn’t make sense that theyy can jepeordise their reputation & goodwill for a relatively small amount,especially when by the sound of it this punter would soon have given it back to them anyway.
I would gladly pay you HGS 
. Stake restricted to 39p (the paddy power world of bookmaking rules apply)
. Stake restricted to 39p (the paddy power world of bookmaking rules apply)
I'd forgotten that the losing plaintiff pays both sides' costs; Longley has an awful lot at stake . Presumably he's received advice that his chances of winning are in the region of say 60% plus.
i would think its higher 90% when they read you the bet back thats when the contract is made and you both agree, unless there is something else we are not getting
i would think its higher 90% when they read you the bet back thats when the contract is made and you both agree, unless there is something else we are not getting
How long did The Punter have to phone back and possibly cancel the bet, it looked like he was letting it ride after knowing PP's mistake and if it had lost would of accepted it..
The Judge has probably gone to Sandown today to see how racing and betting work. She will be enlightened after the first photo finish.
Why has the judge "reserved her judgment on the case until a later (unspecified) date?"
waiting for the paddy hamper to arrive to see if it's fortnum & mason ?
They have to consider legal precedents and write a judgement in all but the clearest cases.
Does anyone have any updates on this case? I've checked on google but all articles are months old
Dunno but aiui there can often be months between hearing and judgment. OP is from mid-June and says case will be heard at the end of the month (can't be bothered to read through the whole thread) which was three months ago.
So it would not surprise me if judgment has not yet been handed down. Equally, it would not surprise me if it has and the papers have not covered it. This would not be the first case this year that has disappeared without trace: remember the £2 million tricasts at Ladbrokes trial?
So it would not surprise me if judgment has not yet been handed down. Equally, it would not surprise me if it has and the papers have not covered it. This would not be the first case this year that has disappeared without trace: remember the £2 million tricasts at Ladbrokes trial?
clayfield1 14 Jun 21 18:24
Not be long before this post is removed.
Well thats nearly 4 months now and still here.
Not be long before this post is removed.
Well thats nearly 4 months now and still here.
Betting has nothing to do with this hearing,it is simply a case of deciding according to contract law.As far as I can see the judge needs no knowledge of betting.A contract was formed as soon as the telephone operator confirmed that the punters bet had been authorised by the trader.Whether or not the punter understood is not an issue,the fact he agreed confirmed he had entered into a contract.
Had the bet lost he would have had no comeback to claim misunderstanding the stake,the fact the conversation was recorded is massively in his favour as PP cannot deny the contract was formed.The rule they are trying to hide behind should be held as unfair/irrelevant as they could have acted to amend the contract before the race took place,in fact should have had they been unhappy with the bet.Even then the punter was under no obligation to accept any amendment and the only way PP could have enforced a change would be through palpable error which again is irrelevant as the bet was checked and authorised by two employees.
Legally and morally PP have not a leg to stand on imvho,certainly the punter should be long odds on to collect?
Had the bet lost he would have had no comeback to claim misunderstanding the stake,the fact the conversation was recorded is massively in his favour as PP cannot deny the contract was formed.The rule they are trying to hide behind should be held as unfair/irrelevant as they could have acted to amend the contract before the race took place,in fact should have had they been unhappy with the bet.Even then the punter was under no obligation to accept any amendment and the only way PP could have enforced a change would be through palpable error which again is irrelevant as the bet was checked and authorised by two employees.
Legally and morally PP have not a leg to stand on imvho,certainly the punter should be long odds on to collect?
Betting has nothing to do with this hearing,it is simply a case of deciding according to contract law.As far as I can see the judge needs no knowledge of betting.A contract was formed as soon as the telephone operator confirmed that the punters bet had been authorised by the trader.Whether or not the punter understood is not an issue,the fact he agreed confirmed he had entered into a contract.
Had the bet lost he would have had no comeback to claim misunderstanding the stake,the fact the conversation was recorded is massively in his favour as PP cannot deny the contract was formed.The rule they are trying to hide behind should be held as unfair/irrelevant as they could have acted to amend the contract before the race took place,in fact should have had they been unhappy with the bet.Even then the punter was under no obligation to accept any amendment and the only way PP could have enforced a change would be through palpable error which again is irrelevant as the bet was checked and authorised by two employees.
Legally and morally PP have not a leg to stand on imvho,certainly the punter should be long odds on to collect?
Had the bet lost he would have had no comeback to claim misunderstanding the stake,the fact the conversation was recorded is massively in his favour as PP cannot deny the contract was formed.The rule they are trying to hide behind should be held as unfair/irrelevant as they could have acted to amend the contract before the race took place,in fact should have had they been unhappy with the bet.Even then the punter was under no obligation to accept any amendment and the only way PP could have enforced a change would be through palpable error which again is irrelevant as the bet was checked and authorised by two employees.
Legally and morally PP have not a leg to stand on imvho,certainly the punter should be long odds on to collect?
Still searching for news of the verdict and can't find a thing. Anyone got any updates?
In July it was reported "The judge has reserved her judgement on the case until a later date.". No update as far as I can find.
Westlaw database do not have the case which suggests she is still pontificating
Judgment is in. Paddy Power won. Punter lost.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18417101/paddy-power-punter-won-best-money-taken-back/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18417101/paddy-power-punter-won-best-money-taken-back/
Having read the Sun's account, the judge's reasoning seems a bit odd but I've not heard the evidence and am not a lawyer.
Extract from the Sun:-
Mrs Justice Ellenbogen said: "I am satisfied that, as a question of fact, the traders’ intention, as communicated to and via [the operator], was that Paddy Power would accept Mr Longley’s requested bet, which they erroneously understood to have been of £13,000 each way.
"First, as he acknowledged in cross-examination, in his approximately ten years as an account-holder, Paddy Power had never offered him a bet at a stake higher than he had requested, let alone one at ten times the latter and, objectively, in such a substantial sum.
"Mr Longley is an experienced and sophisticated gambler who, I am satisfied, realised at the time, as would have anyone in that position, that a mistake had been made somewhere along the line, particularly as the higher sum in question had come with no discussion or explanation and would have resulted from the simple addition of a further zero to the stake which he had requested.
"I consider it to be likely that it was for that reason that he checked the amount which had been deducted from his account before the race began."
She added: "I reject Mr James’ submission to the effect that, whatever the origins of Paddy Power’s error, its consequential intention was to offer/accept an each-way bet of £13,000."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18417101/paddy-power-punter-won-best-money-taken-back/
Extract from the Sun:-
Mrs Justice Ellenbogen said: "I am satisfied that, as a question of fact, the traders’ intention, as communicated to and via [the operator], was that Paddy Power would accept Mr Longley’s requested bet, which they erroneously understood to have been of £13,000 each way.
"First, as he acknowledged in cross-examination, in his approximately ten years as an account-holder, Paddy Power had never offered him a bet at a stake higher than he had requested, let alone one at ten times the latter and, objectively, in such a substantial sum.
"Mr Longley is an experienced and sophisticated gambler who, I am satisfied, realised at the time, as would have anyone in that position, that a mistake had been made somewhere along the line, particularly as the higher sum in question had come with no discussion or explanation and would have resulted from the simple addition of a further zero to the stake which he had requested.
"I consider it to be likely that it was for that reason that he checked the amount which had been deducted from his account before the race began."
She added: "I reject Mr James’ submission to the effect that, whatever the origins of Paddy Power’s error, its consequential intention was to offer/accept an each-way bet of £13,000."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18417101/paddy-power-punter-won-best-money-taken-back/
Having said that, what Longley (the punter) should have done is called PP back to check the bet. If he had, doubtless the call handler (probably a different one this time) would have checked his account and confirmed it was £13,000 e/w.
That he did not do so raises the obvious suspicion that if the horse had lost, he'd have told Paddy he only asked for £1,300 e/w.
Equally, PP only reduced the stake after it had won (and after they'd paid out); they too were having their cake and eating it.
So it is a shame they could not both lose.
That he did not do so raises the obvious suspicion that if the horse had lost, he'd have told Paddy he only asked for £1,300 e/w.
Equally, PP only reduced the stake after it had won (and after they'd paid out); they too were having their cake and eating it.
So it is a shame they could not both lose.
And a week and a half later, the Racing Post catches up.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/the-286000-bet-that-was-lost-for-want-of-a-few-words/555087
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/the-286000-bet-that-was-lost-for-want-of-a-few-words/555087
He was doomed after glentoby posted his evaluation of what should happen.
Had to fail otherwise it would be allowing the phone operators to in effect sell extra to the customer....can I have £10 on so and so....well you can have 20 on if you want, oh go on then.....if the customer was on a bad run would be vulnerable....in the current climate it had to fail.
In truth they were both trying to have their cake and eat it.
In truth they were both trying to have their cake and eat it.
In truth they were both trying to have their cake and eat it.
Agree 100% with this statement. Whichever party "lost" on the outcome of the race would have cried foul
Agree 100% with this statement. Whichever party "lost" on the outcome of the race would have cried foul
The reality is if it had lost he wouldnt have been paid back - that's the point of the read back to the punter at end of call - its the receipt the confirmation of what you want If you say yes at that point - thats the contract done. If it had lost no way he would have got his money back imo - they would have said it was his mistake.
It is quite likely he wouldn't have been paid back. But he would have tried to get it back!
Yes and he'd have gone to court just as he did here and the judge would have come to the same conclusion as he did here
Not that it matters but the judge was a she. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen
duffy ...In truth they were both trying to have their cake and eat it...
Just catching up with this again. Your spot on duffy. The PP operative in an email the court has seen has said he was guilty of {allowing} "massively overlaying a horse" and had done so in part because "the customer appeared to be chasing.
An equitable decision would have been for PP to offer without prejudice the punter 50% of potential winnings. It's a shame the judge couldn't legally do anything but I suspect she doesn't really understand the relationship between bookmakers and punters when it comes to placing bets. The Gaming Commission (if their not at lunch) could look at fining PP for not applying responsible gambling checks when apparently realising the punter was chasing.
Just catching up with this again. Your spot on duffy. The PP operative in an email the court has seen has said he was guilty of {allowing} "massively overlaying a horse" and had done so in part because "the customer appeared to be chasing.
An equitable decision would have been for PP to offer without prejudice the punter 50% of potential winnings. It's a shame the judge couldn't legally do anything but I suspect she doesn't really understand the relationship between bookmakers and punters when it comes to placing bets. The Gaming Commission (if their not at lunch) could look at fining PP for not applying responsible gambling checks when apparently realising the punter was chasing.
PaddyPower may have won the argument in court. But, they've been proven for aiding and abetting a regular punter on a losing run chasing his money by offering him (mistakenly and unknowingly or not) and increasing his wager 10x than asked.
I know PaddyPower is a sh1t company. I know so because they welched on a free bet many moons ago. So glad I binned them soon after well before their association with Betfair.
PaddyPower may have won the battle but lost the war hence the bookies is the reason for Affordability Checks, and complicit to the increase in problem gamblers and addicts.
I know PaddyPower is a sh1t company. I know so because they welched on a free bet many moons ago. So glad I binned them soon after well before their association with Betfair.
PaddyPower may have won the battle but lost the war hence the bookies is the reason for Affordability Checks, and complicit to the increase in problem gamblers and addicts.
Not read the whole thread- I presume the money was returned or did pp let him gamble with money he didn't have? In which case obviously they need to be investigated (and get a huge fine) for doing that.
I think PP honoured the original bet ie £1300 e/w not £13k e/w meaning paying out 9x less. Would PP have take the money at 10x original if the punter had lost? of course not.
This is exactly the problem. No one believes PP would have refunded as an over-staked bet if the bet had lost.
A few months back, I spilt liquid on my laptop.
Placed a bet on the Betfair Sportsbook (Paddy Power)
Placed a bet about an hour before the race,Iused the Sportsbook because it was playing the extra place.
Typed in my bet £150 E/W.
Placed my bet,showed up as £1327 e/W.
Didnt want to place that much so looked for the now non existing customer services number.
Phoned the number used to place a bet and told them what happened, FCK OFF they said, the bets been placed cant do nothing go on the Sportsbook and cash out.
Told them my Laptop was fcked and I didnt want to use it in case it fcked up again.
TOUGH **** they said.
Had to go round to the in laws about 2 miles away, Managed to edit my bet with about 10 minutes to spare.
How would I rate Customer Service SHYYYTE.
Did they help me to cancel a bet over 8 times my normal bet, did they Fck.
Placed a bet on the Betfair Sportsbook (Paddy Power)
Placed a bet about an hour before the race,Iused the Sportsbook because it was playing the extra place.
Typed in my bet £150 E/W.
Placed my bet,showed up as £1327 e/W.
Didnt want to place that much so looked for the now non existing customer services number.
Phoned the number used to place a bet and told them what happened, FCK OFF they said, the bets been placed cant do nothing go on the Sportsbook and cash out.
Told them my Laptop was fcked and I didnt want to use it in case it fcked up again.
TOUGH **** they said.
Had to go round to the in laws about 2 miles away, Managed to edit my bet with about 10 minutes to spare.
How would I rate Customer Service SHYYYTE.
Did they help me to cancel a bet over 8 times my normal bet, did they Fck.
pablo-fanque • June 14, 2021 7:53 PM BST
if the horse had lost , i am sure the backer would have been on the phone stating how he only asked for £1,300 E/W and that PP made a mistake
that's how i see it, both parties were happy to let it run and then act accordingly (and dishonestly imv).
What was the final ruling?
if the horse had lost , i am sure the backer would have been on the phone stating how he only asked for £1,300 E/W and that PP made a mistake
that's how i see it, both parties were happy to let it run and then act accordingly (and dishonestly imv).
What was the final ruling?
The final ruling was given a few posts earlier by yours truly. Go back to 30 April, the first post of 2022.
PP won; the punter lost but might appeal.
The Sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18417101/paddy-power-punter-won-best-money-taken-back/
The Racing Post
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/the-286000-bet-that-was-lost-for-want-of-a-few-words/555087
PP won; the punter lost but might appeal.
The Sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18417101/paddy-power-punter-won-best-money-taken-back/
The Racing Post
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/the-286000-bet-that-was-lost-for-want-of-a-few-words/555087
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539