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:
waiting for the paddy hamper to arrive to see if it's fortnum & mason ?
|
|
By:
They have to consider legal precedents and write a judgement in all but the clearest cases.
|
|
By:
Does anyone have any updates on this case? I've checked on google but all articles are months old
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
clayfield1 14 Jun 21 18:24
Not be long before this post is removed. Well thats nearly 4 months now and still here.  |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
Still searching for news of the verdict and can't find a thing. Anyone got any updates?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Westlaw database do not have the case which suggests she is still pontificating
|
|
By:
Judgment is in. Paddy Power won. Punter lost.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18417101/paddy-power-punter-won-best-money-taken-back/ |
|
By:
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/ |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
He was doomed after glentoby posted his evaluation of what should happen.
|
|
By:
PP most prob layed the bet off so won both ways.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
It is quite likely he wouldn't have been paid back. But he would have tried to get it back!
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
Not that it matters but the judge was a she. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
This is exactly the problem. No one believes PP would have refunded as an over-staked bet if the bet had lost.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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 |