Bookie refuses to pay out £7 million on snow bet

[English Noodles]

Bookmaker Ladbrokes is refusing to pay out more than 7 million pounds to a man who gambled on a white Christmas across the UK, as the bet was accepted by mistake.

Cliff Bryant, 52, had placed two 5-pound accumulator bets that snow would fall on 24 towns and cities across the north of England on Christmas Day.


"We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet when our own rules state that only single bets are available on a market of this nature," said a Ladbrokes spokesman.


"We are happy to void the bets and to pay the customer his winnings on the relevant singles."


They however amount to just 31.78 pounds, rather than the 7.1 million Bryant was expecting.


The graphic designer from Southampton, who told the local Southern Daily Echo newspaper he was "gutted" and would seek legal advice, claims the first accumulator would have won him 4.9 million pounds, with the second adding 2.2 million.


"If I make a mistake in my work like that it costs me dearly and I think the offer should be a lot more generous than they have made," he told the paper.
Ladbrokes should have made their rules clearer, he added.


"They are one of the leading bookmakers in the country and I think they ought to do their homework a bit better in future."


Ladbrokes gave Bryant details of the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS), an impartial adjudicator on disputes that arise between gambling operators and their customers.


English Noodles, a manager of the IBAS, told Reuters that Bryant had been in contact and they would be investigating the issue once he had completed the relevant forms.


Bookie refuses to pay out £7 million on snow bet - Yahoo! News UK


Gutted!

[English Noodles]

I put this in the news forum, why is it in the lounge?

[Mid]

I put this in the news forum, why is it in the lounge?

Danny Cracknell, a manager of the IBAS, told Reuters that Bryant had been in contact and they would be investigating the issue once he had completed the relevant forms.

Bookie refuses to pay out £7 million on snow bet - Yahoo! News UK

[AntRobertson]

Gutted is right. Hope it works out for him, don't much fancy his chances with this English Noodles bloke from the IBAS though.

[Marmite the Dog]

I put this in the news forum, why is it in the lounge?

Maybe because you altered it?

And no; I didn't move it.

[dirtydog]

I put this in the news forum, why is it in the lounge?

No idea noodles

Some wanker who is a manager of the IBAS, told Reuters

[panama hat]

Gutted is right. Hope it works out for him, don't much fancy his chances with this English Noodles bloke from the IBAS though.

Hear that the bugger is on the take . . . and isn't even English, though that would speak in his favour

[Stinky]

"We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet

I had thought that a bet made at a licensed Bookies was a legally binding contract.
I doubt they will end up settling in or out of court though, the bastards will have some loophole in the small print that lets them off the hook

I hope this damages Ladbrooks business a lot

[PattyFlipper]

I had thought that a bet made at a licensed Bookies was a legally binding contract.

It used to be the case in the UK and most other common law jurisdictions, that gambling contracts were cosidered 'debts of honour' only, and therefore unenforceable in law. Depending on where the bet was taken, the only recourse a bilked punter had was to report the matter to Tattersalls, who usually either decided in favour of the bookmaker, or else made some derisory order for minimal compensation. However, the Gambling Act 2005, which came into force in late 2007, states "the fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not affect its enforcement"; thus wiping out 200 years of precedent.

I'll take his case on a no-win no-fee contingency basis, at 25% of any award.

[Stinky]

I had thought that a bet made at a licensed Bookies was a legally binding contract.

It used to be the case in the UK and most other common law jurisdictions, that gambling contracts were cosidered 'debts of honour' only, and therefore unenforceable in law. Depending on where the bet was taken, the only recourse a bilked punter had was to report the matter to Tattersalls, who usually either decided in favour of the bookmaker, or else made some derisory order for minimal compensation. However, the Gambling Act 2005, which came into force in late 2007, states "the fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not affect its enforcement"; thus wiping out 200 years of precedent.

I'll take his case on a no-win no-fee contingency basis, at 25% of any award.

So there is hope for the guy...coolio

[The Ghost Of The Moog]

It used to be the case in the UK and most other common law jurisdictions, that gambling contracts were cosidered 'debts of honour' only, and therefore unenforceable in law.

Correct. I remember learning this when I did my Law exams. You can't enforce it in the UK.

[PattyFlipper]

It used to be the case in the UK and most other common law jurisdictions, that gambling contracts were cosidered 'debts of honour' only, and therefore unenforceable in law.

Correct. I remember learning this when I did my Law exams. You can't enforce it in the UK.

You can now since the Gambling Act 2005.

[withnallstoke]

I doubt they will end up settling in or out of court though, the bastards will have some loophole in the small print that lets them off the hook

About thirty years ago, i had an accumulator of 7 horses come in. The amount owed me by the bookie was a little over 37,000 pounds. When i went to collect the winnings, the smug bastard gave me a copy of the rules, on which the phrase "maximum payout on accumulators is 2,000 pounds" had been underlined. Never went into another bookies after that.

[Stinky]

About thirty years ago, i had an accumulator of 7 horses come in. The amount owed me by the bookie was a little over 37,000 pounds. When i went to collect the winnings, the smug bastard gave me a copy of the rules, on which the phrase "maximum payout on accumulators is 2,000 pounds" had been underlined. Never went into another bookies after that.

That's a bit of bad mate eh was it a small independent bookies?

[keda]

I doubt they will end up settling in or out of court though, the bastards will have some loophole in the small print that lets them off the hook

About thirty years ago, i had an accumulator of 7 horses come in. The amount owed me by the bookie was a little over 37,000 pounds. When i went to collect the winnings, the smug bastard gave me a copy of the rules, on which the phrase "maximum payout on accumulators is 2,000 pounds" had been underlined. Never went into another bookies after that.

High street bookies have always had maximum payouts on accumulators which can quickly reach the stratosphere, and with no protection against future and variable odds.

Tough break but look on the bright side, how much do you think you've saved in the past 30 years?

I hope the guy gets something extra out of it, if only 1% of what he expected.

[withnallstoke]

was it a small independent bookies?

Indeed it was. Bastards.

[Stinky]

was it a small independent bookies?

Indeed it was. Bastards.

Bastards they are, they often layoff bets like those to the bigger boys out there, that way they don't refuse the bet, and as they still have their own minimum payout they can clean up if it comes up and loose nothing if it doesn't.... pretty shitty for guys like you though eh

[keda]

was it a small independent bookies?

Indeed it was. Bastards.

Bastards they are, they often layoff bets like those to the bigger boys out there, that way they don't refuse the bet, and as they still have their own minimum payout they can clean up if it comes up and loose nothing if it doesn't.... pretty shitty for guys like you though eh

Correct. You won't often see a gloomy bookie, and if their bladder protests they can lay off the entire bet and rake in a commission.

Those compiling the microprint do so for themselves, and care less than a toss for Joe public.

Fex, if you dump piles of chips on the roulette table, as people do, and inadvertently overload on a number or combo (min-max posted on all tables) that comes up, the dealer will simply remove and return your excess chips. Naturally if your overload loses so do you, and without even knowing you had no run for your money.

[Stinky]

15 or 20 years ago a Ladbrokes betting shop manager took a bet from one of his friends.

The bet was over who would come top of the division and the odds given to his friend were 1 million to one.

The bet was lost but the manager lost his job all the same when his boss's found out abou it.

They said at the time that had the bet been won they were legally obliged to pay out

[withnallstoke]

pretty shitty for guys like you though eh

At the time, a decent house could have been had for less than my "winnings". Also, as the bet was won on a Saturday, and i went for my winnings on Monday, over half of the winnings had been spent on a two day pissup for everybody in the pub.

[English Noodles]

they often layoff bets like those to the bigger boys out there, that way they don't refuse the bet, and as they still have their own minimum payout they can clean up if it comes up and loose nothing if it doesn't.

That's exactly what they do, it's just like how insurance companies work.

the smug bastard gave me a copy of the rules, on which the phrase "maximum payout on accumulators is 2,000 pounds" had been underlined.

Wanker, they should not have taken the bet in the first place.

[Stinky]

they often layoff bets like those to the bigger boys out there, that way they don't refuse the bet, and as they still have their own minimum payout they can clean up if it comes up and loose nothing if it doesn't.

That's exactly what they do, it's just like how insurance companies work.

And banks...and a fine job they are doing too

[CharleyFarley]

My mum and I used to have a betting shop in Wales and laying off bets is common, just as having a maximum payout which on a Yankee bet was 500-1. Piss poor as much of the betting was a sixpenny yankee costing 5s 6d.

I used to do the settling, imagine the workings of an each way yankee with all four in the frame.

[12Call]

Acid in the Face treatment is required.

[the dogcatcher]

Some years ago I believe Ladbrookes failed to pay an Accumilator on horses.
They said it would have bankrupted them and that their small print states that if they don,t wanna pay any bet they don't have to.