Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
mrcombustible
14 Jun 21 18:12
Joined:
Date Joined: 18 Feb 02
| Topic/replies: 3,114 | Blogger: mrcombustible's blog
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:
Pause Switch to Standard View Betting Dispute goes to court RP C Cook
Show More
Loading...
Report stewarty b June 15, 2021 5:21 PM BST
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.
Report Duncan Disordorli June 15, 2021 6:26 PM BST
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.
Report posy June 15, 2021 8:38 PM BST
I agree with DD ;there's more to come out and I'm not at all convinced there isn't some sort of scam.
Report spyker June 15, 2021 10:32 PM BST
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?
Report Dodadae2 June 15, 2021 10:38 PM BST
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?
Report dave1357 June 16, 2021 7:38 AM BST
there must be a PP account in existence as they wouldn't be able to reclaim the funds from his bank easily.
Report ali1959 June 27, 2021 5:01 PM BST
Anyone know if there have been any developments lately?
Report 1830 June 27, 2021 10:26 PM BST
Anybody know the name of the legal firm dealing with the punters case?
Report impossible123 June 29, 2021 7:24 PM BST
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.
Report mrcombustible June 29, 2021 8:38 PM BST
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.
Report carrot1960 June 29, 2021 9:04 PM BST
Game set and match to  Mr Longley , " new balls please " !
Report carrot1960 June 29, 2021 9:07 PM BST
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.
Report Dr Gonzo June 29, 2021 11:20 PM BST
@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.
Report dave1357 June 30, 2021 7:41 AM BST
^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.
Report dave1357 June 30, 2021 7:42 AM BST
*Chris Cook's
Report Ramruma June 30, 2021 8:30 AM BST
It does seem a bit odd that the PP traders who accepted the bet will not be giving evidence.
Report MythWA June 30, 2021 9:17 AM BST
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.
Report Celeric June 30, 2021 10:39 AM BST
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.
Report .Marksman. June 30, 2021 11:15 AM BST
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

I see what happened now.  £1300 ew would have been a small bet for the punter and the trader realised that the punter may have made an error and had meant to say "£13,000 ew", which seems to have been the case because the bet was accepted when read back to him.  So, in view of this, I now think he should be paid the whole amount.  (I had originally said that it could have been settled out of court by splitting the difference, but that is clearly wrong now).  (There is no way that he would have got a refund from Paddy Power if he had asked for it after the horse had lost.)
That Paddy Power are not putting up much of a defence is a sign that they are guilty as sin.
Report slickster June 30, 2021 11:30 AM BST
Also guilty of employing people with limited intelligence. Leaving aside the punter at least 3 of their staff appear confused with the difference between 13 HUNDRED and 13 THOUSAND. Punter wins this case all day long.
Report sparrow June 30, 2021 11:42 AM BST
1,300 to 13,000 was the sort of mistake I wouldn't expect a 10 year old to make.
Report Ramruma June 30, 2021 1:01 PM BST
@sparrow -- "1,300 to 13,000 was the sort of mistake I wouldn't expect a 10 year old to make."


It wasn't aiui "one thousand, three hundred" but "thirteen hundred" that got transformed into "thirteen thousand".

And now I'm wondering if the problem is not 10 year olds but telephone operators whose own language or even their own variant of English does not include "XX hundred" to refer to amounts over a thousand.

Counting and even the way we group numbers is language and sometimes culture-specific. Think of French where 96 is quatre-vingt-seize, or 4 20s and 16. Americans can be slightly thrown by Brits saying "double 3" instead of "3 3" when giving out phone numbers.
Report sparrow June 30, 2021 1:11 PM BST
Maybe in the 1950s we were all taught wrong then ramruma?
Report Ramruma June 30, 2021 1:21 PM BST
@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.
Report .Marksman. June 30, 2021 1:23 PM BST
I can see how mistakes can be made if Paddy Power are living in the past and record their bets in Roman Numerals.
Report sparrow June 30, 2021 1:34 PM BST
The first time I would here figures above a thousand called in hundreds was when I watched my father clerking on the racecourse but the people dealing with this case might never have set foot on a racecourse.
Report hulk23 June 30, 2021 2:06 PM BST
relationship manager ... could offer little evidence as to trading decisions

probably just as well Wink
Report screaming from beneaththewaves June 30, 2021 2:09 PM BST
I used to have this all the time with my non-betting mate when he joined me for a day on-course. Ten fifties, a five to eighty, even five-and-a-half hundred to four - he'd have no idea what I was talking about, and couldn't have worked it out if he'd tried.
Report Storm Alert June 30, 2021 3:04 PM BST
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.
Report Fashion Fever June 30, 2021 3:24 PM BST
so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like
Report hulk23 June 30, 2021 3:28 PM BST
so if the punter seems to be chasing he/she can have what they like

high-roller on the chase CoolCool yes please.
Report sparrow June 30, 2021 3:38 PM BST
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.
Report impossible123 June 30, 2021 6:03 PM BST
PaddyPower ought to be renamed WelchingPaddy after this abysmal behaviour.
Report slickster June 30, 2021 7:29 PM BST
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.
Report Senyatta June 30, 2021 8:58 PM BST
so true slick, so true.
Report posy June 30, 2021 9:13 PM BST
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.
Report slickster June 30, 2021 9:25 PM BST
1-5 punter wins. 5s the green mob find a way to wriggle out. Some COMPETENT staff required also.
Report mrcombustible June 30, 2021 9:37 PM BST
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.
Report hulk23 June 30, 2021 9:49 PM BST
"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 Wink
Report dave1357 June 30, 2021 10:10 PM BST
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.
Report Dr Gonzo June 30, 2021 11:40 PM BST
@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.
Report mrcombustible July 1, 2021 7:19 AM BST
I hope the Judge considers what would the outcome be if the horse had lost.
Report HGS July 1, 2021 8:52 AM BST
Just pay the man. Shocking really that people chasing losses are fair game. Promoting responsible gambling may arris.
Report MythWA July 1, 2021 8:55 AM BST
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.
Report the dealer July 1, 2021 9:11 AM BST
How do you know they haven't done affordability checks with him MWA?

Unfortunately my gut feeling is they are going to win.
Report MythWA July 1, 2021 9:46 AM BST
Dealer Didnt he have a limit of £203? The  authorising of the bet was instant was it not? Hence no time for due process.
Report freerolling July 1, 2021 10:12 AM BST
because "the customer appeared to be chasing".

Thought it would be worth £200k to keep that line out of the papers....
Report dave1357 July 1, 2021 10:17 AM BST
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.
Report the dealer July 1, 2021 10:19 AM BST
It was the phone operators limit of what he could lay without referring to trader. I thought the same,
Report sparrow July 1, 2021 10:24 AM BST
Can't see the man getting paid £286,000, but I hope I'm wrong.
Report The Sawyer July 1, 2021 10:40 AM BST
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
Report posy July 1, 2021 10:57 AM BST
Mr C
Instructing Kajetan seems to have been a very smart move;  has Longley's barrister got a track record dealing with betting disputes ?
Report dave1357 July 1, 2021 11:23 AM BST
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.
Report penzance July 1, 2021 11:32 AM BST
if the fella agreed to the bigger bet and the £26k
went from his balance,surely this bet should be honoured?
Report carrot1960 July 1, 2021 3:21 PM BST
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.
Report geoff m July 1, 2021 3:28 PM BST
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 £23,400LaughLaughLaugh

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.Laugh
Report Celeric July 1, 2021 5:31 PM BST
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.
Report dave1357 July 1, 2021 5:59 PM BST
The GC doesn't normally deal with complaints - how did you get them to do so on this occasion?
Report Celeric July 1, 2021 6:42 PM BST
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.
Report Celeric July 1, 2021 6:47 PM BST
sorry, to clarify it was IBAS.
Report dave1357 July 1, 2021 6:51 PM BST
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.
Report dave1357 July 1, 2021 6:52 PM BST
ah IBAS that's more like it.
Report Celeric July 1, 2021 7:00 PM BST
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.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- July 1, 2021 7:06 PM BST
Ibas have an article about
us election on their website.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- July 1, 2021 7:13 PM BST
Says they considered 50 cases
dealing with leaving date.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- July 1, 2021 7:15 PM BST
It's in pdf

https://www.ibas-uk.comPDF
21 Years of Championing Fair Play - IBAS
Report spyker July 1, 2021 8:45 PM BST
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?
Report hulk23 July 1, 2021 9:16 PM BST
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 ...
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 1, 2021 10:10 PM BST
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?
Report themightymac July 1, 2021 10:19 PM BST
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.
Report bustino July 1, 2021 11:55 PM BST
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
Report bustino July 2, 2021 12:15 AM BST
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
Report bustino July 2, 2021 12:15 AM BST
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
Report Ramruma July 2, 2021 12:27 AM BST
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!
Report GAZO July 2, 2021 6:25 AM BST
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
Report Lee Ho Fooks July 2, 2021 11:53 AM BST
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
Report Lee Ho Fooks July 2, 2021 11:55 AM BST
As for the outcome, she's taking her time isn't she?
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 2, 2021 12:05 PM BST
Does she understand betting? Many women don't.
Report Lee Ho Fooks July 2, 2021 12:24 PM BST
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.
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 2, 2021 12:25 PM BST
The best cooks are male though. Silly to ask a woman on that count.
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 2, 2021 12:26 PM BST
How do we bet this?
paddy 1/3
punter 11/4
Report barstool July 2, 2021 12:27 PM BST
It is all to do with contract law. I am sure she will know where the land lies.
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 2, 2021 12:33 PM BST
You can still get different verdicts depending on who the judge is, imo
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 2, 2021 12:39 PM BST
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
Report The Management July 2, 2021 1:28 PM BST
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.
Report .Marksman. July 2, 2021 2:24 PM BST
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.
Report mrcombustible July 2, 2021 2:46 PM BST
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
Report dave1357 July 2, 2021 2:57 PM BST
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.
Report know all July 2, 2021 3:06 PM BST
once that bet is read out to you that is the contract, he will get paid imo
Report posy July 2, 2021 3:27 PM BST
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.
Report HGS July 3, 2021 11:12 AM BST
Can I have some of that 11/4 please? Wink
Report BARROWBOY July 3, 2021 11:54 AM BST
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.
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 3, 2021 12:24 PM BST
I would gladly pay you HGS Grin. Stake restricted to 39p (the paddy power world of bookmaking rules apply) Cool
Report know all July 3, 2021 1:00 PM BST
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
Report Jumping-cuckoo-monk July 3, 2021 1:10 PM BST
Is the verdict due soon?
Report Billy Liddell July 3, 2021 2:41 PM BST
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..
Report mrcombustible July 3, 2021 3:15 PM BST
The Judge has probably gone to Sandown today to see how racing and betting work. She will be enlightened after the first photo finish.
Report Lee Ho Fooks July 6, 2021 6:32 PM BST
Why has the judge "reserved her judgment on the case until a later (unspecified) date?"
Report hulk23 July 6, 2021 6:44 PM BST
waiting for the paddy hamper to arrive to see if it's fortnum & mason ?
Report dave1357 July 6, 2021 6:59 PM BST
They have to consider legal precedents and write a judgement in all but the clearest cases.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com