There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
EXCLUSIVE: How to beat the bookies! Punter fighting Coral for £15,000 World Cup winnings is told to take the bookmakers to court - by blackjack player who won payout from Betfred after they refused to pay £1.7m
Liam Manifold, 30, said he had put a 1495/1 treble on at his local Coral branch
But bookmakers said his three bets could not be combined and refused to pay
Now Andrew Green, who took Betfred to court for £1.7million, has spoken
He has suggested Mr Manifold may want to contact his lawyers for advice
By DAN SALES FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 11:19, 4 January 2023 | UPDATED: 11:31, 4 January 2023
Mr Green landed his huge sum accumulating chips playing Frankie Dettori's Magic Seven game on his phone in January 2018.
But the bookmakers said there had been a software glitch and withheld his payment.
It took Mr Green three years in a legal fight which ended with High Court judge Mrs Justice Foster ruling in April 2021 Betfred had to pay out.
Speaking exclusively to MailOnline from his Lincoln home today, Mr Green said of this latest problem: ‘If he knows he has got a concrete case – he should take them all the way with it.
Liam Manifold, 30, had planned how to spend the cash when Coral said it would not pay out
+5
View gallery
Liam Manifold, 30, had planned how to spend the cash when Coral said it would not pay out
The betting slip which Mr Manifold had expected to fetch him winnings of nearly £15,000
+5
View gallery
The betting slip which Mr Manifold had expected to fetch him winnings of nearly £15,000
‘What I found the most difficult was finding someone who would take my case on a no-win no-fee basis.
‘I never could have won my case without my lawyers Coyle White Devine.
‘I would urge him to speak to them. These betting places all have heard of my story and heard who my solicitor was.
‘If they have offered him money to settle they may know they are partially to blame.
‘In my case, as soon as they offered me some money, I knew I was in the right and had to carry on.
How one punter bagged a '£2MILLION' payout after taking Betfred to court over unpaid bet... but others weren't so lucky
In 2021 a blackjack gambler won a landmark High Court battle against Betfred after the online betting firm refused to pay out his £1.7million jackpot.
Father-of-three Andrew Green spent three years fighting to get his hands on the seven-figure prize he won by accumulating chips while playing Frankie Dettori's Magic Seven game on his phone in January 2018.
Though he was congratulated by a member of staff from Betfred on his winnings, the betting shop said just five days later it would not pay out the sum, claiming he only won because of an alleged software glitch.
Andrew Green successfully reclaimed around £2million from Betfred after a three-year legal battle
Andrew Green successfully reclaimed around £2million from Betfred after a three-year legal battle
Betfred claimed a malfunction had prevented the game from resetting properly, meaning Mr Green, a single parent from Washingborough, Lincolnshire, would have seen his money grow exponentially had he continued playing.
Instead, the bookmaker allegedly offered Mr Green a £60,000 'goodwill gesture' on condition that he remained quiet - a deal the father-of-three turned down before launching a three-year legal fight to reclaim his winnings.
In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained of missing out on more than £20,000 after a 'human error' in a bet they placed with William Hill
In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained of missing out on more than £20,000 after a 'human error' in a bet they placed with William Hill
High Court judge Mrs Justice Foster ruled in April 2021 that Betfred had no grounds for withholding payment from Mr Green. The judgment meant he was awarded the payout plus interest, estimated to be around £2million.
Betfred apologised to Mr Green for the delay in paying out, and said it would not appeal against the judgment.
In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained of missing out on more than £20,000 after a 'human error' in a bet they placed with William Hill.
The pair were celebrating when Salford Red Devils' Jackson Hastings was named rugby league's Steve Prescott MBE Man of Steel after a wager they placed in January.
They thought they were in line to scoop £23,400 after a £100 double bet of Hastings winning the Man of Steel and Salford finishing in Super League's top five came in.
But bookmaker William Hill refused to pay out, insisting they are separate bets and should never have been allowed - though they admitted it was a human error on their part.
Mr Smeaton took the bookies to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS), which offers an impartial adjudication on disputes between customers. He and his friend were awarded £4,000 each due to the 'inconvenience' they had endured.
Mr Manifold had expected odds of 1,495/1 after correctly predicting that Argentina would be crowned overall winners of the World Cup in Qatar, Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and France would also make the final.
But when the delighted maintenance engineer rushed back to the betting shop in Horninglow the day after the final he left empty-handed.
Coral said the bets could not be combined into a treble because the three events were closely related to each other. It also claimed Mr Manifold wrote the odds on the slip himself.
A spokesman for the bookmakers said the events were 'closely related to each other so the prices offered on them individually could not be included in a multiple bet'.
It added it had made a 'very fair and generous offer for the settlement of the bet' – said by Mr Manifold to have been just £660.
He was planning to buy his disabled dad a new mobility scooter with the money, as well as put some away for the future.
Mr Manifold said the firm should pay up as his treble bet was accepted without any issue.
He said: 'I went to cash in the bet and they said it shouldn't have been placed and offered me £660 for it.
'I've gone through their complaints system, there's no leeway. I've gone to an independent complaints committee and I'm waiting to hear back from them.
'I've since had different companies contact me saying if that was their company, they'd pay out.
'When I placed the bet the guy behind the counter said it was absolutely fine. They're now saying it's a related bet.
'It's now two weeks after the final and I don't seem to be getting anywhere. If there's an error it's their fault for accepting the bet. It's very frustrating.
'Just under £15,000 for a big betting company is pennies for them, but for me it's a life-changing amount of money.
'My dad's disabled so I was going to buy him a new disability scooter and keep the rest in savings.'
A spokesman for Coral said: 'If Argentina and France have made the final, then the odds of Argentina winning it are clearly much shorter than they were at the outset.
'If Argentina have then won the World Cup, the chances of Messi being player of the tournament will be long odds-on.
'So we have settled the bet in the fairest way possible, paying out on the event with the biggest price, an Argentina v France final, at 22/1, and then on the basis that that had happened, we applied the price of Argentina winning the final which was 10/11 before the game.
'And then on the basis that Argentina had won the cup, we applied an over-generous price on Messi to be player of the tournament at 1/2, as the odds on that happening should Argentina have won the World Cup would have been much shorter.
'The prices on the slip had been written on by the customer not the member of staff.
'We have settled the bet in line with our terms and conditions, and we have made a very fair and generous offer for the settlement of the bet that exceeds what would have been the odds of such an eventuality had a customer asked for rush specific treble on December 11.'
Coyle White Devine Solicitors told MailOnline it would be happy to listen to details of Mr Manifold's case, but said often the cost of legal action could be prohibitive.
Partner David Sheahan said: ' Every case is different. We would be more than happy to speak to him if he wanted to get in touch.'
Liam Manifold, 30, said he had put a 1495/1 treble on at his local Coral branch
But bookmakers said his three bets could not be combined and refused to pay
Now Andrew Green, who took Betfred to court for £1.7million, has spoken
He has suggested Mr Manifold may want to contact his lawyers for advice
By DAN SALES FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 11:19, 4 January 2023 | UPDATED: 11:31, 4 January 2023
Mr Green landed his huge sum accumulating chips playing Frankie Dettori's Magic Seven game on his phone in January 2018.
But the bookmakers said there had been a software glitch and withheld his payment.
It took Mr Green three years in a legal fight which ended with High Court judge Mrs Justice Foster ruling in April 2021 Betfred had to pay out.
Speaking exclusively to MailOnline from his Lincoln home today, Mr Green said of this latest problem: ‘If he knows he has got a concrete case – he should take them all the way with it.
Liam Manifold, 30, had planned how to spend the cash when Coral said it would not pay out
+5
View gallery
Liam Manifold, 30, had planned how to spend the cash when Coral said it would not pay out
The betting slip which Mr Manifold had expected to fetch him winnings of nearly £15,000
+5
View gallery
The betting slip which Mr Manifold had expected to fetch him winnings of nearly £15,000
‘What I found the most difficult was finding someone who would take my case on a no-win no-fee basis.
‘I never could have won my case without my lawyers Coyle White Devine.
‘I would urge him to speak to them. These betting places all have heard of my story and heard who my solicitor was.
‘If they have offered him money to settle they may know they are partially to blame.
‘In my case, as soon as they offered me some money, I knew I was in the right and had to carry on.
How one punter bagged a '£2MILLION' payout after taking Betfred to court over unpaid bet... but others weren't so lucky
In 2021 a blackjack gambler won a landmark High Court battle against Betfred after the online betting firm refused to pay out his £1.7million jackpot.
Father-of-three Andrew Green spent three years fighting to get his hands on the seven-figure prize he won by accumulating chips while playing Frankie Dettori's Magic Seven game on his phone in January 2018.
Though he was congratulated by a member of staff from Betfred on his winnings, the betting shop said just five days later it would not pay out the sum, claiming he only won because of an alleged software glitch.
Andrew Green successfully reclaimed around £2million from Betfred after a three-year legal battle
Andrew Green successfully reclaimed around £2million from Betfred after a three-year legal battle
Betfred claimed a malfunction had prevented the game from resetting properly, meaning Mr Green, a single parent from Washingborough, Lincolnshire, would have seen his money grow exponentially had he continued playing.
Instead, the bookmaker allegedly offered Mr Green a £60,000 'goodwill gesture' on condition that he remained quiet - a deal the father-of-three turned down before launching a three-year legal fight to reclaim his winnings.
In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained of missing out on more than £20,000 after a 'human error' in a bet they placed with William Hill
In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained of missing out on more than £20,000 after a 'human error' in a bet they placed with William Hill
High Court judge Mrs Justice Foster ruled in April 2021 that Betfred had no grounds for withholding payment from Mr Green. The judgment meant he was awarded the payout plus interest, estimated to be around £2million.
Betfred apologised to Mr Green for the delay in paying out, and said it would not appeal against the judgment.
In 2021, rugby league fans Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton complained of missing out on more than £20,000 after a 'human error' in a bet they placed with William Hill.
The pair were celebrating when Salford Red Devils' Jackson Hastings was named rugby league's Steve Prescott MBE Man of Steel after a wager they placed in January.
They thought they were in line to scoop £23,400 after a £100 double bet of Hastings winning the Man of Steel and Salford finishing in Super League's top five came in.
But bookmaker William Hill refused to pay out, insisting they are separate bets and should never have been allowed - though they admitted it was a human error on their part.
Mr Smeaton took the bookies to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS), which offers an impartial adjudication on disputes between customers. He and his friend were awarded £4,000 each due to the 'inconvenience' they had endured.
Mr Manifold had expected odds of 1,495/1 after correctly predicting that Argentina would be crowned overall winners of the World Cup in Qatar, Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament and France would also make the final.
But when the delighted maintenance engineer rushed back to the betting shop in Horninglow the day after the final he left empty-handed.
Coral said the bets could not be combined into a treble because the three events were closely related to each other. It also claimed Mr Manifold wrote the odds on the slip himself.
A spokesman for the bookmakers said the events were 'closely related to each other so the prices offered on them individually could not be included in a multiple bet'.
It added it had made a 'very fair and generous offer for the settlement of the bet' – said by Mr Manifold to have been just £660.
He was planning to buy his disabled dad a new mobility scooter with the money, as well as put some away for the future.
Mr Manifold said the firm should pay up as his treble bet was accepted without any issue.
He said: 'I went to cash in the bet and they said it shouldn't have been placed and offered me £660 for it.
'I've gone through their complaints system, there's no leeway. I've gone to an independent complaints committee and I'm waiting to hear back from them.
'I've since had different companies contact me saying if that was their company, they'd pay out.
'When I placed the bet the guy behind the counter said it was absolutely fine. They're now saying it's a related bet.
'It's now two weeks after the final and I don't seem to be getting anywhere. If there's an error it's their fault for accepting the bet. It's very frustrating.
'Just under £15,000 for a big betting company is pennies for them, but for me it's a life-changing amount of money.
'My dad's disabled so I was going to buy him a new disability scooter and keep the rest in savings.'
A spokesman for Coral said: 'If Argentina and France have made the final, then the odds of Argentina winning it are clearly much shorter than they were at the outset.
'If Argentina have then won the World Cup, the chances of Messi being player of the tournament will be long odds-on.
'So we have settled the bet in the fairest way possible, paying out on the event with the biggest price, an Argentina v France final, at 22/1, and then on the basis that that had happened, we applied the price of Argentina winning the final which was 10/11 before the game.
'And then on the basis that Argentina had won the cup, we applied an over-generous price on Messi to be player of the tournament at 1/2, as the odds on that happening should Argentina have won the World Cup would have been much shorter.
'The prices on the slip had been written on by the customer not the member of staff.
'We have settled the bet in line with our terms and conditions, and we have made a very fair and generous offer for the settlement of the bet that exceeds what would have been the odds of such an eventuality had a customer asked for rush specific treble on December 11.'
Coyle White Devine Solicitors told MailOnline it would be happy to listen to details of Mr Manifold's case, but said often the cost of legal action could be prohibitive.
Partner David Sheahan said: ' Every case is different. We would be more than happy to speak to him if he wanted to get in touch.'
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 122
|
By:
A court can see things differently i always said those from 2011 on betfair where betfair claimed a software fault stopped them paying out millions could have won as its not the punters fault a software glitch just like betfred claimed
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
the 3 bets are obviously related..its in their rules.
next. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
argies win messi golden ball win was a well advertised plugged bet by bookmakers pre tourney at around 50,s
having backed argies in hindsight i was annoyed at not doing double as well, as odds on messi would win golden ball if argies won cup the france/argie final an obvious bet accepted in error should be settled alone,and if he only ataked a tenner split in to 3 bets around £3 each,around £700 not a bad offer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
the betfred payout 1.7 million was also against the rules but got payed out, unfair rules can be challenged the judge knows fa about betting but knows what is fair or not, personally if he had got them to sign the odds offered i think he could have won
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
the betfred payout 1.7 million was also against the rules but got payed out, unfair rules can be challenged the judge knows fa about betting but knows what is fair or not, personally if he had got them to sign the odds offered i think he could have won
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Andrews clearly no mug having amassed a fortune playing a wonky version of Frankie Dettori's Magic Seven game on his phone ....
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
theres a world of difference between a bookmaker claiming a softwear glitch and a related multiple that punters should be aware of...not even worth discussing.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Nice bet but obviously against rules, chap even wrote his own prices on the slip
 . | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Not often I stick up for the rubbish bookies we endure but there is no way any judge with half a brain or IBAS type would be on the side of the punter. Coral should pay him out £700 for bet and £100 for cheeky ingenuity.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Not a chance of winning in court
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
The only real problem is Bookmakers are still taking these " ambiguous " bets that should surely be stopped at source.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Yes Glasgow in an ideal world they would be but if this ruling went the way of the customer it would open a huge opportunity for future dishonesty.
Example being a " friend " of the manager in collusion of an obvious " wrong un " which could never be allowed to set any precedent. Normally stick up for the punter in these matters having been involved in both sides of the IBAS coin but on this occasion it has to go the way of the bookmaker and the £660 is a fair deal as no chance of winning a battle. Good luck today all  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Chuck in “I was going to buy a mobility scooter” or give money to food bank charity. Normally works when hits the papers.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
The "related" angle on this type of bet is the rule,but you have to question why,as it still relies on picking winners.
Backing a horse to win the 2000gns and the Derby in a double is not allowed as it is related.They say if the horse wins the 2000gns then it will be much shorter for the Derby,but it still has to win. Argentina still had to win,and Messi may not have scored,and France may not have been a finalist.So there ate 2 sides to these so called related bets.The three things still had to happen. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
FFS if anyone does not understand related bets they should not be betting unbiased et all.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
A better example was Frankie going through the card.You could say that if the early ones win ,then the later ones will be much shorter,as was the case in race 7 at Ascot that day,a 12/1 shot became a 2/1 or 9/4 shot.Related ???!!!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
frankies 1st winner has no relevance wotsoever to the chance of his 7th.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Nobody mentioned first race winner,but backing a jockey in multiples does result in later rides shortening up if the first few are winners,so it is RELATED but totally acceptable.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
IT's like a footy bet builder but surely at those prices before tourny started he would have got more than 65/1..?
Obviously not 1500/1 but probs more like 300/1...? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
but to what stakes
did he bet 3 x £10 takes or one £10 treble ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
@exactaman
"he would have got more than 65/1..? Obviously not 1500/1 but probs more like 300/1...?" so, from the article above: "'So we have settled the bet in the fairest way possible, paying out on the event with the biggest price, an Argentina v France final, at 22/1, and then on the basis that that had happened, we applied the price of Argentina winning the final which was 10/11 before the game. 'And then on the basis that Argentina had won the cup, we applied an over-generous price on Messi to be player of the tournament at 1/2, as the odds on that happening should Argentina have won the World Cup would have been much shorter." Which bit of that do you disagree with? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
If the ruling went the way of the punter it would indeed encourage the sharks but that is why it would rapidly follow that all multiple bets (and maybe all bets) must be entered by machine or on specially-designed slips. The underlying problem is bookies let punters write out their own bets.
1/2 for Messi's Golden Ball looks a poor price, given France were also in the final. What price Mbappe? Here are the past World Cup and Golden Ball winners. It is by no means a certainty that they wear the same shirts.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
him to win his case againgst corals,
absolutely no chance whatsever. he would have more chance of winning the lottery ten weeks in a row | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
@ramruma - what were Messi and Mbappe's goal totals before the final, given the 1/2 price quoted is in the eventuality of Argentina having won?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Lionel Messi would be named player of the tournament
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
@longbridge -- Golden Ball is Player of the Tournament; Golden Boot is top scorer.
Messi and Mbappe were equal on goals before the final, where Mbappe scored a hat-trick and Messi only two. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Apologies both -you can see why Football is not my betting medium of choice!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Settled very fair to me , can't see how anyone can dispute £660 not being fair and certainly a lot fairer than the application of their rules as single wins.
We move on | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
By bookies rules to the letter he should have been on 3 3.33 singles. End of. Very rare you can praise a bookie but in this instance giving him 660 the punter got a right result.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
golden boot,golden gloves matters of fact
golden ball someone/pundits opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
What I am alluding to Longbridge is that when he placed his bet on 11th Nov not a ball had been kicked and therefore the true odds for each outcome as a separate entity were the prices on his betting slip. The ampount of possible outcomes of those 3 bets for the whole comp would have run into many thousands of different combinations.
What the bookies seemed to have done is pay him on the 2 finalists and then settled the other 2 bets as if placed on the day of the final which is totally unjustified IMO. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
And if you believe "Fairest way possible" quoted by the bookies then you are living in cloud-cuckoo land IMO...!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
"true odds for each outcome as a separate entity were the prices on his betting slip"
Agreed. But the true odds for the double of (the finalists being Argentina and France) and (the winner being Argentina) are not the product of the odds for those two singles at the start of the tournament. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
I agree with that Longbridge but the bookies have given him the absolute shortest prices IMO..
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
A good way to wipe out the £660 would be to go to court. solicitors fees are ridiculous , and has no chance of winning the case. Fairly settled if
you understand betting to a reasonable level. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
I don't know about the player of the tournament thing, but it seems they gave him the price for Argentina/France that was true at the start of the tournament, and then the price that was live for France to win once that first bet had gone in.
That seems fair to me - as others have said, they could have stood behind their Rules and settled 3 * £3.33 singles, rather than aiming to go back in time and price up the treble he shoudl have asked for. Maybe the £660 is fair value - maybe it should have been £500 or £1000 - but there is no way he is entitled to or has a chance of seeing £15k. IMO | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
their not paying out on treble,once they,ve decided that as he only staked £10 he has 3 x £3.33 single bets
£3,33 on a 11 to 2 winner £3.33 on around a 50,s winner messi golden ball /argentina £3.33 on argi v fra final at 22,s £660 a right result imo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Agree he'll never get 15K but I think they have given him the absolute bare minimum..
Having worked for said firm many moons ago this was always the policy they adopted and a lot of their rules could be very ambiguous. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
in his defense the bookies are now all pushing these build a bet ,bets on football games which are really all related bets
|