There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 189 comments are related to the topic:
Betting Dispute goes to court RP C Cook
Betting Dispute goes to court RP C Cook
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 189
|
By:
I once did a few Tote Jackpot perms with the tote online.I pressed one twice by mistake and phoned up and asked if they could void it.The guy said he would do what he could.I did not hear back but the next day the money was back in my account so fair play to them.
|
|
By:
The bit I don't get is if he had restrictions on his account, max stake £203 why would he have so much in his account? I can't think of many who would keep over £26k in an account where you can't get on to the amounts you want.
The fact what he asked for was still large, would maybe suggest he didn't know but still a bit odd imho |
|
By:
So thats 2 betting companies to put in the fair play list: Daq and Tote.
Perhaps this subject needs its own thread. There is a lot of deservedly negative comments about betting companies, but we should give credit where credit is due. |
|
By:
In fairness, I don't think there is any other company that has paid out more, when they didn't have to than Paddy Power.
|
|
By:
the dealer - it wasn't the punter who was restricted to £203. It was the phone operator. Anything over that she had to refer to a trader, which she duly did, and the bigger bet was allowed. Which is why he had such a large account balance - because he wasn't restricted.
(I think.) |
|
By:
Many years ago I put this bet on at a Coral shop in East Ham and realized I hadn’t written the words “Stop at a Winner” at the bottom.
The girl behind the counter said she couldn’t do anything because it had gone through the till and I would have to phone head office. She gave me the number. I ran out of the shop to find a red phone box (before mobiles) but was told there was nothing they could do. Luckily the 3 singles showed a profit £100 Win Fav 2:30 Sandown £200 Win Fav 3:00 Sandown £400 Win Win Fav Sandown Stop at a Winner |
|
By:
About 30 years ago I phoned up Hills to have £90 tax paid on a 100/30 shot at Cartmel one Bank Holiday Monday. It won, but when the cheque arrived, it was for three grand. The bet had been settled at 100/3. I didn't hand the money back, mainly because I couldn't be bothered with the aggravation. It would have meant arguing with a computerized settler for one thing, and everyone knows computers don't make mistakes.
The only thing I'm a bit ashamed of was my first thought on realizing the error: "Oh bugger. Why did I only have 90 quid on it?!" |
|
By:
PP appear to have no problem with the Bet till it won . Why if the bet went to trader and was accepted did they even bother listening to the phone recording ?
|
|
By:
Ah right cheers screaming, that's not how I read the op
|
|
By:
It's not how I read it either, the dealer. But it's the only thing which makes sense.
It wouldn't be the first time a hack gets the detail of a gambling-related story a bit wrong, even one as good as Chris Cook. |
|
By:
Yeah that does make sense
|
|
By:
Unless PP contacted the punter before the race then their is no case to answer.
|
|
By:
The case isn't really gambling company exclusive law. His initial intention was clearly £1500ew and PP was clearly happy to take £15kew and offered him that. He maintains that he knew that before the race and was happy with it. So the case will be decided on whether a contract was formed which will probably rely on mcgonagle vs the eversure french letter co ltd from 1923.
As we are all aftertiming, years ago, I had £50 win place show in a lads shop, when they offered that bet. It won and I got paid out more than I should have - I said are you sure that is right? She said it was. Next day she moaned at me saying I got too much which I just ignored, mainly on the basis that I gave her a chance at the time (and could have lost back money). |
|
By:
Punter checked his account seen 13K ew was happy , surely it was up to him to cancel the bet if not ?
He has been told the bet and seen the bet , he knew his liability END OF STORY IMO. PAY THE MAN ! |
|
By:
"Palpable error". If the bet had lost, he would have only been wanting to settle for the lesser amount. He has no chance.
|
|
By:
Stinks of looking for a get out ,to me , as stated went to trader why are phone calls even being listened to ,26 k taken for bet from account
Who ever took the call needs to find other employment imo  |
|
By:
it isn't a palp, stark, and they aren't claiming it is.
|
|
By:
They went to a trader a bet was accepted read back and confirmed , pp don't have a leg to stand on.
|
|
By:
but the bet was £1300 e/w the £13000 e/w was not
|
|
By:
Marksman
Good to hear, and very much, correcting errors is good for custom. |
|
By:
In court, the crux will be whether the bet constituted a "contract" between the two parties. It did. The "contract" was to carry out the bettors instruction of £1300 each way. Hiding to nothing there, I hope he's got deep pockets as he may be liable for costs if the judge deems the case trivial or of no merit.
In previous cases, a palpable error has been defined as due to "an obvious mistake". Passing on a stake to the trader that is ten times that requested is an obvious mistake. It is a palpable error, whether PP are claiming it to be (or not). Compare, if you would, an operator recording a bet at 20-1 rather than the 2-1 showing. Stake or price, it makes no difference - it is an obvious error and it is also a breach of any presumed "contract" between bookmaker and customer. IBAS arbitrary stance is "...we do not consider the principle of correcting obvious errors to be unfair..." |
|
By:
Wow! Trader approved a £13k e/w bet (must be a big losing punter), and agreed by punter. After winning bookie unilaterally rescinded bet and settled at £1.3k e/w instead? How crooked is that?
I wonder if the bookie would allow the punter to correct his bet ie from £13k e/w to £1.3k e/w had his selection was a total loser? Or was that a stupid question? |
|
By:
The bit I don't get is if he had restrictions on his account, max stake £203 why would he have so much in his account?
Does anyone know if he had the 26k in his account or was it taken out of his bank account? Something that could easily be checked. |
|
By:
Opening post states it took two days for firm to nab it back, why on earth would the punter leave 300K plus in his account for 48 hours ? ESPECIALLY if it was a try on. The whole story seems like fiction. The bet was read back ? By a telephonist ? The firm's manager was entitled to rush to the phone and literally spell out the words "thirteen thousand"... Then there could be absolutely no doubt the guy wanted 26K on.
More to this than meets the eye..."hundred" and "thousand" are not words that should ever be mixed up by punter or clerk. |
|
By:
I agree with DD ;there's more to come out and I'm not at all convinced there isn't some sort of scam.
|
|
By:
Take out the phone call or internet aspect of this and PP wouldn't/don't have a leg to stand on. Imagine this happening at the course, punter asking for 1300 ew, bookie saying 13k ew, punter handing over 26k, bookie saying are you sure and ;pocketing the dosh - what would the result be 100 out of 100 times?
|
|
By:
By account.....isn't it possible this is just a transaction by debit card, so no balance on pp account reqd? The other possibility....do pp offer telephone credit accounts or are they a thing of the past?
|
|
By:
there must be a PP account in existence as they wouldn't be able to reclaim the funds from his bank easily.
|
|
By:
Anyone know if there have been any developments lately?
|
|
By:
Anybody know the name of the legal firm dealing with the punters case?
|
|
By:
More of this today.
The losing punter had £79k in his account after losing £106k. His call was answered by a Malta-based operator; limit £203, and bet was referred to and authorised by a trader for £26k (£13k e/way). This was relayed to and accepted by punter. A legal contract in existence surely. I think for the legal rep of Paddy to stipulate in court punter only had intended to stake £1300 e/way is poor defence and clutching at straw. |
|
By:
By Chris Cook
UPDATED 7:41PM, JUN 29 2021 A bet of £26,000 was accepted by a member of Paddy Power's trading team because he believed the customer was chasing his losses, the High Court heard on Tuesday. The revelation came during evidence in a hearing to determine whether the firm must pay £286,000 in winnings to the punter, James Longley, who phoned up to ask for £1,300 each-way on an eventual winner in September 2019, a bet that was mistakenly relayed at ten times its size by a Dial-A-Bet phone operator. 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". The excerpts were read out by Longley's barrister Mark James as he questioned the only witness produced by the defence, a relationship manager who has since left Paddy Power and said he was "just a middle man" and could offer little evidence as to trading decisions. He had not seen the relevant email before but its accuracy was not challenged by the defence. Punter sues Paddy Power over disputed £286,000 winning bet at Wolverhampton (Members' Club) Longley, a multi-millionaire through the sale of his company, said he had made a net loss on his Paddy Power account of £106,000 since he became a regular gambler in 2013. On the day in question, he had around £78,000 in the account initially but lost around £19,000 before seeking the bet in question, on Redemptive at Wolverhampton. A recording of the relevant phone conversations was played in court, a Malta-based phone operator telling Longley his account limit was £203 and offering to call a trader to authorise his bet. The court then heard her describe the bet to a trader, named as Mr Heffernan, as £13,000 each-way. After consulting with McCarthy, Heffernan said the bet had been authorised. Returning to her call with Longley, the operator told him: "So that's going to be twenty-six thousand coming from [account name], is that correct?" Longley replied: "Yeah, that's it, yeah." Paddy Power's barrister, Kajetan Wandowicz, stopped short of accusing Longley of lying but said the punter's memory of events had, over the intervening months, been "reinvented through the prism of feeling he had been wronged". He put it to Longley that he would not have responded so casually if he had in fact realised he was being allowed a bet ten times larger than he had sought. "You're wrapping up the call, going through the motions of placing your bet," said Wandowicz. "She said £26,000 to me and I accepted that," responded Longley. "I wasn't aware how they got to that figure and why. But they did." 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." The hearing continues, with legal argument scheduled for Wednesday. |
|
By:
Game set and match to Mr Longley , " new balls please " !
|
|
By:
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 told you confirmed the bet , is there anything else i can help you with , no have a nice day bye.
|
|
By:
@Stark
The only ‘mistake’ was PP’s misunderstanding of the punter’s initial intention when placing the bet. They were happy to lay the bet (as is obvious from the comments made by the trader) and it was read back to the punter. This is a long way from a case of them sticking the wrong odds up online, someone taking advantage, and them then voiding/correcting it. The reality is that they were happy with the bet when it was taken, then presumably some sort of audit was done on it, given the size of the liability, and they thought they’d found a get out clause. I’d be interested to see the full legal arguments, but my initial thought is that PP are going to be up against it - whether they rely on the terms and conditions as stated, or try and go down the ‘mutual mistake’ route (which dates back to a bit of contract law from the 1860s). That said, not being in court to hear the full facts/legal arguments makes it difficult to be too confident either way and I wouldn’t like to wager too much on the outcome. |
|
By:
^also the bookmakers' use of their "palpable error" clause has never been tested in court afaik and I don't think it is an issue here despite Chris Cool's comment in the article.
|
|
By:
*Chris Cook's
|
|
By:
It does seem a bit odd that the PP traders who accepted the bet will not be giving evidence.
|
|
By:
Regardless of the outcome what this shows is that a losing punter can be accommodated if his MO shows mug betting patterns.
In this case it seems he often chases loses. This contradicts them claiming that they take protecting problem gambling seriously. It appears that no checks re laundering and potential problem gambling issues were conducted. He was a multi-millionaire. They would have known that by a simple check on the internet and his postcode. Multi-millionaire with a chasing loses MO = £26k bet request no problem. |
|
By:
This was a large amount of money. Both parties had adequate time to approach the other to point the error. Why did Paddy wait so long and at what point did they consider it an error. thats why i dont trust the bookie.
|