Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
06 Dec 23
19:32
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Feb 02
Punter (83) loses bid to force Paddy Power to pay him almost €14k extra on four-horse winning bet
Pensioner Anthony Whelan told court the bookie capped his winnings at €7,718
He claimed he was due €21,554 after four horses romped home
Anthony Whelan lost his bid to force Paddy Power to pay him nearly €14,000 more for his four horse winning bet
Anthony Whelan lost his bid to force Paddy Power to pay him nearly €14,000 more for his four horse winning bet
Ray Managh
Today at 13:59
An 83-year-old punter has lost his legal bid to force Paddy Power to pay him almost €14,000 extra on a winning four-horse accumulator.
Anthony Whelan’s four horses romped past the post at starting prices of 15/2, 12/1, 11/1 and 7/1 which, he claimed, would have given him winnings of €21,554.
He told Judge John O’Connor in the Circuit Civil Court that the bookie capped his bet at €7,718, an alleged shortfall of €13,836.
Whelan, who lives in Dalkey and had made the bet in his local betting shop, sued Power Leisure Bookmakers Limited and Flutter Entertainment PLC, otherwise Paddy Power, for the shortfall and today (Wednesday) lost.
Judge John O’Connor told barrister David Boughton, who appeared with Hayes Solicitors for the bookie, the court was not satisfied Mr Whelan’s claim for damages fell within the consumer protection legislation as he alleged.
“Even if I am wrong in relation to that, then if Mr Whelan had asked the betting clerk about the situation of a maximum pay-out he would have been told what that was,” Judge O’Connor said.
The judge said that the terms of pay-out under Mr Whelan’s Lucky 15 bet were visible in the shop in the promotional advertisements relating to the Lucky 15 maximum, including a €1,000 bonus.
Mr Whelan had told the court that when he had placed his bet he had marked down the starting prices existing before the off in all four races.
He chose 6/1, 5/1, 6/1 and 11/2 and it was on these prices that Paddy Power stated it would pay out plus the bonus which brought the punter’s return to €7,718.
He claimed in evidence that it had always been the case that where a four horse accumulator was successful Paddy Power promised to pay out on the actual starting prices existing at “the off” in each race.
Paddy Power district manager Stephen Langan told Judge O’Connor this was not the case and there was an advertised maximum on the Lucky Fifteen bet.
Mr Boughton had told Judge O’Connor the case was not about a refusal by Paddy Power to pay out a winning bet and added that the €7,718 winnings were always available to Mr Whelan.
The case, he said, was about a winning bonus cap on Mr Whelan’s winnings.
Judge O’Connor, dismissing Whelan’s claim, said the limit was in the shop rules but was not obvious. It wasn’t prominent in the shop but it was obvious and Mr Whelan could have inquired about it and had not.
Asked to make an order against Whelan for the bookie’s legal costs, Judge O’Connor refused on the basis the punter’s claim had been a novel one was not without some merit.
Mr Whelan can still pick up his €7,718 restricted winnings in the Dalkey Paddy Power betting shop.
Pensioner Anthony Whelan told court the bookie capped his winnings at €7,718
He claimed he was due €21,554 after four horses romped home
Anthony Whelan lost his bid to force Paddy Power to pay him nearly €14,000 more for his four horse winning bet
Anthony Whelan lost his bid to force Paddy Power to pay him nearly €14,000 more for his four horse winning bet
Ray Managh
Today at 13:59
An 83-year-old punter has lost his legal bid to force Paddy Power to pay him almost €14,000 extra on a winning four-horse accumulator.
Anthony Whelan’s four horses romped past the post at starting prices of 15/2, 12/1, 11/1 and 7/1 which, he claimed, would have given him winnings of €21,554.
He told Judge John O’Connor in the Circuit Civil Court that the bookie capped his bet at €7,718, an alleged shortfall of €13,836.
Whelan, who lives in Dalkey and had made the bet in his local betting shop, sued Power Leisure Bookmakers Limited and Flutter Entertainment PLC, otherwise Paddy Power, for the shortfall and today (Wednesday) lost.
Judge John O’Connor told barrister David Boughton, who appeared with Hayes Solicitors for the bookie, the court was not satisfied Mr Whelan’s claim for damages fell within the consumer protection legislation as he alleged.
“Even if I am wrong in relation to that, then if Mr Whelan had asked the betting clerk about the situation of a maximum pay-out he would have been told what that was,” Judge O’Connor said.
The judge said that the terms of pay-out under Mr Whelan’s Lucky 15 bet were visible in the shop in the promotional advertisements relating to the Lucky 15 maximum, including a €1,000 bonus.
Mr Whelan had told the court that when he had placed his bet he had marked down the starting prices existing before the off in all four races.
He chose 6/1, 5/1, 6/1 and 11/2 and it was on these prices that Paddy Power stated it would pay out plus the bonus which brought the punter’s return to €7,718.
He claimed in evidence that it had always been the case that where a four horse accumulator was successful Paddy Power promised to pay out on the actual starting prices existing at “the off” in each race.
Paddy Power district manager Stephen Langan told Judge O’Connor this was not the case and there was an advertised maximum on the Lucky Fifteen bet.
Mr Boughton had told Judge O’Connor the case was not about a refusal by Paddy Power to pay out a winning bet and added that the €7,718 winnings were always available to Mr Whelan.
The case, he said, was about a winning bonus cap on Mr Whelan’s winnings.
Judge O’Connor, dismissing Whelan’s claim, said the limit was in the shop rules but was not obvious. It wasn’t prominent in the shop but it was obvious and Mr Whelan could have inquired about it and had not.
Asked to make an order against Whelan for the bookie’s legal costs, Judge O’Connor refused on the basis the punter’s claim had been a novel one was not without some merit.
Mr Whelan can still pick up his €7,718 restricted winnings in the Dalkey Paddy Power betting shop.
Show More
I’m guessing he was badly advised. If their cap states £1000 maximum for BOG then he was never gonna win.
It’s amazing what a difference the SP’s were to their early prices. As soon as BOG is available the prices must be heavily reduced to compensate.
It’s amazing what a difference the SP’s were to their early prices. As soon as BOG is available the prices must be heavily reduced to compensate.
Possible problem here could be .... The 'Reporter' does Not understand Bettimng ( No surprise, really, id that)
'Mr Whelan had told the court that when he had placed his bet he had marked down the starting prices existing before the off in all four races.'
-----
As we all know .... ' STARTING prices - cannot exist before the off
Looks like Mr Whelan - took 'Early Prices' - and there was NO BOG facility for Lucky 15s
All this stuff about - 'A MAXIMUM Payout on Lucky 15s' - does not add up.
Perhaps others - more a fait with Betting Shops - can enlighten us further.
'Mr Whelan had told the court that when he had placed his bet he had marked down the starting prices existing before the off in all four races.'
-----
As we all know .... ' STARTING prices - cannot exist before the off
Looks like Mr Whelan - took 'Early Prices' - and there was NO BOG facility for Lucky 15s
All this stuff about - 'A MAXIMUM Payout on Lucky 15s' - does not add up.
Perhaps others - more a fait with Betting Shops - can enlighten us further.
rico currently advising Mr Whelan on which brand of glue will work best on the locks ...
They cap the BOG at £1000. You win £5k, with BOG it would be £6k then you get £6k.
You win £5k, with BOG it should be £12k, you get £6k.
You win £5k, with BOG it should be £12k, you get £6k.
The get out clause in all Powers related queries and claims is usually ' it's in the terms and conditions'. But unlike a few years ago these terms and conditions are no longer displayed on the walls (in any Power shop I've been in anyhpw) as there's screens only on the walls. I don't know how they continually get away with this. I had a problem myself a few months ago, got the 'look at the terms and conditions displayed in the shop' line from the agent on the phone. I doubled back to the shop to make sure I didn't miss this display but I didn't as it wasn't there. I told the guy behind the counter that in future when I'm placing a bet there I will be asking him the terms and conditions, and will encourage every punter I know to do likewise. And apologies in advance for the queue this will cause. He rang his boss who immediately gave him the ok to pay me the extra I was claiming.
irish law must've changed. until recently under Irish law bets were no more than a gentlemans agreement meaning padi could've turned round and told Anthony not only was he not getting the extra but they didn't fancy giving him anything.
glue returned hulk..if its on their t&c under limits then dont know why it managed to get to court.
Is this a relatively new T & C, or has it been the case in shops for some time?
Because I would think that most people who are betting at BOG, wouldn't expect a £1000 cap on the winnings.
And is this also the case online now?
Because I would think that most people who are betting at BOG, wouldn't expect a £1000 cap on the winnings.
And is this also the case online now?
I think it’s been in for a while, George, in shop. Fred Done has mentioned it every Saturday morning for a while now. Paddy Poor as he likes to say!
Cheers sk.
That must have been a sickener, walking into the shop thinking you've won over 21K. Nope, we're only giving you just under 8K
That must have been a sickener, walking into the shop thinking you've won over 21K. Nope, we're only giving you just under 8K
The likes of hills,corals and Ladbroke back in the 80s90s would just have paid times have changed since this new breed have come along ,betfred in particular do not like paying.
A friend had a £1 lucky and £2:50 ew acca at a local indo and took early prices,sp would have been oner 60k he got 32k as a cap on bog terms this about 2/3 years ago GN meeting
Appeal to the High Court
-----------------------
Pensioner taking Paddy Power to High Court over cap placed on winnings
Punter says bookies bound by consumer protection laws over disagreement on rules
Paddy Power
Paddy Power
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
Paddy Power
Paddy Power
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
thumbnail: Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
thumbnail: Paddy Power
Mark Tighe
Today at 02:30
An 83-year-old pensioner is taking Paddy Power to the High Court in an effort to prove consumer law should apply to bets after he said the bookie unfairly withheld almost €14,000 of his winnings.
Under Irish law gambling wagers are deemed “void” contracts and are not enforceable in court. Anthony Whelan, a pensioner from Dalkey, is hoping to establish that bookmakers are bound by Irish and EU consumer protection law.
On December 14, Mr Whelan lodged an appeal of his Circuit Court case where the judge ruled earlier this month in favour of the gambling giant, which is part of the Flutter group.
Mr Whelan claimed his winnings from four horse races should have come to €21,554, but instead Paddy Power in Dalkey capped his winnings at €7,718, an alleged shortfall of €13,836.
John W Carroll, a solicitor at Crowley Millar, which is representing Mr Whelan, said the case could have wider ramifications if it is found that consumer law protections apply to punters in gambling shops.
“The majority of people betting don’t realise that a bet is not an enforceable contract in contract law,” said Mr Carroll.
“Now, nine times of out 10 they will pay. But the bookies rely on their terms and conditions that can be 60 pages long if you download them from their website. We say in this case that there were unfair terms and conditions that were not brought to the customer’s attention before his bet so consumer law should apply.”
Mr Whelan’s case centres on a January 16, 2022, “Lucky 15” promotion bet of €30 that he wagered in the Dalkey branch of Paddy Power, which has since closed. The Lucky 15 bet comprised of four single predictions which were then broken down into 15 possible combinations: one fourfold accumulator, four trebles, six doubles and four singles. Mr Whelan’s case is that at no point were any additional terms or conditions provided to him or any material on his betting docket or betting slip that purported to limit his potential winnings.
When Mr Whelan’s four single predictions came in it resulted in all 15 possible combinations of his wager being correct. He contends this meant his €30 bet should have been redeemed for €21,544. When the pensioner went to collect his winnings on January 17, 2022, he was “shocked” to be told by Paddy Power’s staff “for the first time” that the terms and conditions on his bet put a €8,000 cap on his winnings.
Mr Whelan, who was a long-time customer of Paddy Power, maintained he was never made aware of any additional terms and conditions. He took legal action after he said Paddy Power failed to respond to legal letters sent on January 17 and February 3 of 2022.
His Circuit Court claim alleged Paddy Power “misrepresented” the bet and it neglected to have an adequate system in place to prevent such misrepresentation. He alleged Paddy Power was in breach of the 2007 Consumer Protection Act and EU consumer protections.
Mr Whelan also served a Notice of Objection to the renewal of Paddy Power’s bookmakers’ licence dated September 6, 2022, citing alleged breaches of the Consumers Protection Act 2007.
The 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act states that “every contract by way of gaming or wagering is void” and that “no action shall lie for the recovery of any money or thing which is alleged to be won or to have been paid upon a wager”.
In its defence, Paddy Power said “the purported contract in this case was void as a matter of law and could not have been enforced”. It submitted that case law on this point made it clear courts should not permit claims to enforce gambling wagers though legal action “whether made directly or indirectly”.
“The plaintiff cannot separate the dancer from the dance,” it said.
Paddy Power insisted there was “no breach of any consumer protection provision” in Mr Whelan’s case even if it disagrees that consumer law can apply to wagers under Irish law.
In its legal submission Paddy Power stated: “The plaintiff asks the court to apply consumer protection legislation to circumstances in which no contract is formed and no contract could be formed, by operation of law. This is misconceived.”
It also claimed Mr Whelan had “real opportunity” to “become acquainted” with the terms and conditions of the Lucky 15 promotion which it said were shown intermittently on in-shop screens.
Paddy Power said Mr Whelan “is disappointed due to his incorrect expectations regarding the outcome of the betting promotion that he availed of”.
In dismissing Mr Whelan’s claim in the Circuit Court, Judge John O’Connor said the limit was in the shop rules but was not obvious. He said Mr Whelan could have enquired about it and had not.
Asked by Paddy Power to make an order against Mr Whelan for the bookie’s legal costs, Judge O’Connor refused on the basis the punter’s claim had been a novel one and was not without some merit. His appeal will be up for mention on January 31 in the High Court.
Mr Whelan has yet to collect his capped winnings of €7,718 from Paddy Power.
In statement to the Sunday Independent, a spokesperson for Paddy Power said: “Paddy Power’s terms and conditions in relation to Best Odds Guaranteed offers are clearly outlined in our rules and displayed through various channels within all of our shops. The District Court ruled in favour of Paddy Power and agreed that the customer had been correctly awarded a €1,000 winning bonus in line with these terms.”
-----------------------
Pensioner taking Paddy Power to High Court over cap placed on winnings
Punter says bookies bound by consumer protection laws over disagreement on rules
Paddy Power
Paddy Power
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
Paddy Power
Paddy Power
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
thumbnail: Paddy Power case will be heard in the High Court
thumbnail: Paddy Power
Mark Tighe
Today at 02:30
An 83-year-old pensioner is taking Paddy Power to the High Court in an effort to prove consumer law should apply to bets after he said the bookie unfairly withheld almost €14,000 of his winnings.
Under Irish law gambling wagers are deemed “void” contracts and are not enforceable in court. Anthony Whelan, a pensioner from Dalkey, is hoping to establish that bookmakers are bound by Irish and EU consumer protection law.
On December 14, Mr Whelan lodged an appeal of his Circuit Court case where the judge ruled earlier this month in favour of the gambling giant, which is part of the Flutter group.
Mr Whelan claimed his winnings from four horse races should have come to €21,554, but instead Paddy Power in Dalkey capped his winnings at €7,718, an alleged shortfall of €13,836.
John W Carroll, a solicitor at Crowley Millar, which is representing Mr Whelan, said the case could have wider ramifications if it is found that consumer law protections apply to punters in gambling shops.
“The majority of people betting don’t realise that a bet is not an enforceable contract in contract law,” said Mr Carroll.
“Now, nine times of out 10 they will pay. But the bookies rely on their terms and conditions that can be 60 pages long if you download them from their website. We say in this case that there were unfair terms and conditions that were not brought to the customer’s attention before his bet so consumer law should apply.”
Mr Whelan’s case centres on a January 16, 2022, “Lucky 15” promotion bet of €30 that he wagered in the Dalkey branch of Paddy Power, which has since closed. The Lucky 15 bet comprised of four single predictions which were then broken down into 15 possible combinations: one fourfold accumulator, four trebles, six doubles and four singles. Mr Whelan’s case is that at no point were any additional terms or conditions provided to him or any material on his betting docket or betting slip that purported to limit his potential winnings.
When Mr Whelan’s four single predictions came in it resulted in all 15 possible combinations of his wager being correct. He contends this meant his €30 bet should have been redeemed for €21,544. When the pensioner went to collect his winnings on January 17, 2022, he was “shocked” to be told by Paddy Power’s staff “for the first time” that the terms and conditions on his bet put a €8,000 cap on his winnings.
Mr Whelan, who was a long-time customer of Paddy Power, maintained he was never made aware of any additional terms and conditions. He took legal action after he said Paddy Power failed to respond to legal letters sent on January 17 and February 3 of 2022.
His Circuit Court claim alleged Paddy Power “misrepresented” the bet and it neglected to have an adequate system in place to prevent such misrepresentation. He alleged Paddy Power was in breach of the 2007 Consumer Protection Act and EU consumer protections.
Mr Whelan also served a Notice of Objection to the renewal of Paddy Power’s bookmakers’ licence dated September 6, 2022, citing alleged breaches of the Consumers Protection Act 2007.
The 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act states that “every contract by way of gaming or wagering is void” and that “no action shall lie for the recovery of any money or thing which is alleged to be won or to have been paid upon a wager”.
In its defence, Paddy Power said “the purported contract in this case was void as a matter of law and could not have been enforced”. It submitted that case law on this point made it clear courts should not permit claims to enforce gambling wagers though legal action “whether made directly or indirectly”.
“The plaintiff cannot separate the dancer from the dance,” it said.
Paddy Power insisted there was “no breach of any consumer protection provision” in Mr Whelan’s case even if it disagrees that consumer law can apply to wagers under Irish law.
In its legal submission Paddy Power stated: “The plaintiff asks the court to apply consumer protection legislation to circumstances in which no contract is formed and no contract could be formed, by operation of law. This is misconceived.”
It also claimed Mr Whelan had “real opportunity” to “become acquainted” with the terms and conditions of the Lucky 15 promotion which it said were shown intermittently on in-shop screens.
Paddy Power said Mr Whelan “is disappointed due to his incorrect expectations regarding the outcome of the betting promotion that he availed of”.
In dismissing Mr Whelan’s claim in the Circuit Court, Judge John O’Connor said the limit was in the shop rules but was not obvious. He said Mr Whelan could have enquired about it and had not.
Asked by Paddy Power to make an order against Mr Whelan for the bookie’s legal costs, Judge O’Connor refused on the basis the punter’s claim had been a novel one and was not without some merit. His appeal will be up for mention on January 31 in the High Court.
Mr Whelan has yet to collect his capped winnings of €7,718 from Paddy Power.
In statement to the Sunday Independent, a spokesperson for Paddy Power said: “Paddy Power’s terms and conditions in relation to Best Odds Guaranteed offers are clearly outlined in our rules and displayed through various channels within all of our shops. The District Court ruled in favour of Paddy Power and agreed that the customer had been correctly awarded a €1,000 winning bonus in line with these terms.”
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539