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:
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 189
|
By:
Not be long before this post is removed.
|
|
By:
Hope he wins the full amount from this pure filth. Their gambling licence should be taken away. Of course they would not have refunded the difference between the sums of £2600 and £26000 had the selection lost. The scum want it it every which way. Pay up.
|
|
By:
 U cant make it up |
|
By:
Based on PaddyP's - 'later realisation' 'DEFENCE' .... The blindingly obvious question Must Be ....
Would PaddyP have REFUNDED the £23,400 - "OVERstaked" (in only THEIR Mind's Eye) - to his Account ... Had the horse LOST? They must have KNOWN what they were doing by letting the Trader letting him have, and confirming, a - "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand coming from [account name], is that correct?" - Bet. - to sanction such a bet. Strewth - Just How much were they holding in his Account in the first place? PaddyP quite obviously had got him down as a Mug Punter - there to be cleaned out. |
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
After a few winners with Paddy Power and making about £200 pounds, I was restricted to £2.50 ew. When I rang up to question this, the advisor said that the limit could not be changed, but I could get a lot more on if I opened a telephone account. At the time, this didn't register and I said goodbye and put the phone down. But apparently, I could have got bets on of upto £1300 ew at 16/1, or even £13,000 ew when the trader blunders. I just didn't take the advisor at his word :(
Regarding this case, court is the wrong place to decide this matter. It should go to arbitration. I remember, a long time ago, that the late Big Mac interviewed a ring inspector on course. The inspector said that when there was a genuine mistake that he told the 2 parties to split the difference. And he said that they were both happy to do this. (heaving betting ring and no computer print outs in those days) It is obvious that the trader made a mistake and likely the punter confused "thirteen hundred" with "thirteen thousand" when it was read back to him. Though the punter must have had at least £26,000 sitting in his account at the time, so there is a possibility that he was happy with the bet. So I say "split the difference", which means that Paddy Power should pay £157,300. I imagine both parties would be happy with that! |
|
By:
The chances of Paddy Power paying back the £23-700 if the horse had been unplaced were nil , they not only took the bet but it was confirmed by the punter in the recoded call. pay up.
|
|
By:
robbers pay the man the money
|
|
By:
If the above facts are true I think PP should pay up.
Something does not feel right about this story. Would a trader approve a £13,000 ew bet on a 16/1 shot in a class 6 at Wolves? The sp was 12/1. Anyone know James Longley? Not too many people would have more than £26,000 in their PP account, we don't know the balance apart from it must have been >£26,000 . The horse at the time was trained by John Butler who used be Curley's assistant. I wonder was there a connection between Longley and Curley? RP comment on the race "REDEMPTIVE got the run of the race from her decent draw and responded to maximum pressure once taking up the lead. This was her breakthough at the 14th attempt and a recent break seems to have done her good. |
|
By:
checked his account and noted that a stake of £26,000 had indeed been deducted from his available balance
pay up paddy  |
|
By:
Another case of a Bookmaker dragging things out for a long as possible.
Settled out of Court ( NAP ) |
|
By:
nothing rings true right here
|
|
By:
James longley is involved with Charles Tatnall in both horse ownership and a company called Plutus Powergen plc. Am not going to say anything on here but you might find it interesting to google it’s last set of results. Big losses and write offs !
What I don’t understand is how redemptive started at 12/1 .The horse starte with butler then went to Ellsworth then back to butler before being moved on ! |
|
By:
There's a James Longley who had interests in a couple of nags in training with Vicky Haigh 15 years ago, including one called Honey Monster who landed a claimer at Wolverhampton.
|
|
By:
if his acc was restricted to £203 how all of a sudden would he be permitted £13,000ew?
|
|
By:
Maybe 'restricted' meant the limit without reference to a trader.
|
|
By:
I agree with ali1959.
But it's a difficult case I remember in early Internet days having a steak taken twice by bookie and me phoning them, only to be told the bet had to stand. You'd hope that the bookie here, has evidence to back up their claim of refunding steaks to oversteaked bets, when they lose! |
|
By:
think they have to pay him out , he could have got back on the blower to paddys if he wernt happy with the stake ,have done it a few times mistakenly put in a stake much bigger than i intended ,realised my mistake and thought fook it let it run on "sods law " basis if ya cancel the bet it will win .
|
|
By:
"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 ? |
|
By:
^not a hope there was £130 available on here much less £13k.
|
|
By:
Their systems must have shown their liability and they could have contacted the punter before the race (as they did once to me many years ago though that was wrong price).
The only sure winners are the legal teams but I hope PP loses the case. |
|
By:
I notice with all my losing bets they have a zero to many on the end. Any chance of a refund??
|
|
By:
i think pp are going to win this one unless they have proof of something like this happening before and pp wouldnt refund the difference
|
|
By:
That'll be £26000 coming from your account, sir? Yes, that's OK. What defence does this scum company think it has?
|
|
By:
The phone call recording is the evidence, all depends what was said and /or agreed.
|
|
By:
surely PP would have had to replace the money into his account before the race not wait for the result
|
|
By:
It will be interesting to see if PP publishes the communications between the phone person and their trader who OK'd the deal -- for what amount?
|
|
By:
Trader!!!! You're having a laugh. Taking 13k ew bets at 16s ha haaaa. People not understanding he difference between 1300 hundred and 13 thousand. Another insider job.
|
|
By:
@ramruna, from the article:
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 If that is correct, there doesn't seem much doubt they were happy to accept the £26k bet. |
|
By:
Basic error from the operator, same as a bank crediting your account with too much money. The punter's an idiot even considering taking this to court. It's patently obvious that this instance is covered by the subsection (a) below in Power's T&C's.
16.9. If you are incorrectly awarded any winnings as a result of (a) any human error; (b) any bug, defect or error in the Software; or (c) the failure of the relevant Games product or the Software to operate in accordance with the rules of the relevant game, then Paddy Power will not be liable to pay you any such winnings and you agree to refund any such winnings that may have been paid to you as a result of such error or mistake. |
|
By:
The same T&C's Baldy was forced to pay out under t'other week? ^^
|
|
By:
Bet read out to punter
Punter acknowledges the bet END OF STORY |
|
By:
@stark why don't you quote some clauses from Easyjet, as they would have as much relevance as PP internet terms do to a telephone betting service.
|
|
By:
I wonder if PP have rules concerning bets by phone because if they're relying on software defects etc in their rules isn't going to stand up. Bet was read back, bet was agreed and bet won. I can't see PP winning this especially after Fred lost his case
|
|
By:
You'd think an organisation such as PP would just swallow this and avoid all the negative publicity. In the greater scheme of things it's hardly a significent amount of money to them I wouldn't have thought. Hopefully the bloke will get his dosh in full.
|
|
By:
--you-have-to-laugh--,
I remember about 10 years ago having a £50 football bet with another exchange. The market was taken down before the event in error (due to the same 2 teams having just played a cup tie). When the market was reinstated, my bet was not visible, and I took this to mean that I had imagined placing the original bet and I put another £5O on the same outcome. It was only when the game was over, and I had lost, that I realised what had happened because my p/l for that day showed 2 losing bets of £50 each. I rang up Purpledaq and they accepted the error and gave me a £50 refund. So some betting companies do act fairly over errors. Unlike these dodgy ones who keep going on about "Fair play" etc in their adverts. |
|
By:
Basic error from the operator, same as a bank crediting your account with too much money. The punter's an idiot even considering taking this to court. It's patently obvious that this instance is covered by the subsection (a) below in Power's T&C's.
16.9. If you are incorrectly awarded any winnings as a result of (a) any human error; (b) any bug, defect or error in the Software; or (c) the failure of the relevant Games product or the Software to operate in accordance with the rules of the relevant game, then Paddy Power will not be liable to pay you any such winnings and you agree to refund any such winnings that may have been paid to you as a result of such error or mistake. It does not matter, legally any term which is deemed unreasonable cannot be enforced, they may claim they are covered but I doubt a judge would agree. |
|
By:
would you really not question the bet if you heard it read back to you incorrectly ?
|
|
By:
rofl @ the idiots quoting internet casino terms
|