Bookie refuses to pay out £7 million on snow bet

[Ninja Elephant]

Young Billy Smart in Worthing lost a bet some years ago when a company, I think it was Ladbrokes, refused to pay out on a dog accumalator because one of the races was on the slip as 9.17 and the actual race was listed as 9.19 or vice versa and they argued that the race didnt exist. If I remeber right they returned his stake money and not the winnings of about £8k, which was a sizeable win in the 60s, that was going on the last race. They deemed the whole bet null and void.

Can't talk about how it was back then, but nowadays if he'd named the dog in the bet he'd be fine, if he'd just put the number then it's a bit ambiguous... but considering how far apart the dog races are timed, it wouldn't be an issue. Unless it was a virtual race, which go off every couple of minutes when there's sod all else to show...

 

[Easy 10]

They took the stake. They accepted the bet.
To then say it was a "mistake" when it comes in is not good enough. They always tell the punter that mistakes can only be rectified when questioned at the till - well surely that cuts both ways.

This guy should get the full value paid up, or sue those arseholes for the lot plus costs.

 

[BensGrandad]

Can't talk about how it was back then, but nowadays if he'd named the dog in the bet he'd be fine, if he'd just put the number then it's a bit ambiguous... but considering how far apart the dog races are timed, it wouldn't be an issue. Unless it was a virtual race, which go off every couple of minutes when there's sod all else to show...

Their argument was, as I heard it from Billy, that he named the dog lets call it Mr Smith in the 9.17 at Catford but the bookies argued that Mr Smith didnt run in the 9.17 at Catford because their wasnt a 9.17 race. Mr Smith ran in the 9.19 at Catford for which there was a race. Also in the 60s betting debts were unenforcable as you couldnt take them to court but reading this thread it has been suggested that that is not so now.

This man with the snow bet should be able to take it court if he can afford it or contact John Catt at Withdean for advice on how to obtain legal aid for him.

 

[Gwylan]

Not strictly true.

In what parallel universe is this "not strictly true".

Gambling debts are now legally enforceable under Section 335 of the 2005 Gambling Act.

See here
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/WhiteListingCriteria.pdf (Chapter 4.2)

This bloke has a vary good case - although I bet he won't get the full £7m

 

[Durlston]

Too many staff in bookies now can't be bothered to even look at the slip.You could write your own odds on and they wouldn't notice!

Whoever accepted the bet should lose their job after that massive f***-up.Legal action is not going to make one jot of difference in the hope of getting their £7m.These type of novelty bets it always seems to be singles only.

Bookies are slippery fuckers who should be treated with contempt.:hammer:

 

[LABHA]

1; They only pay out 1 mil per slip anyway
2: Its is a related bet,ie if it snows in London,there is bloody good chance it will snow in Brighton.
3; The bookies employ kids these days,who aint got a clue,so they put it down to mistake,and guess what,they dont pay out on staffs mistakes.
4; He wont get his money,maybe they will chuck a few vouchers his way at best.

 

[desprateseagull]

i wonder if the bookieswould have offered refund of stakes if the guy had LOST?

they seem so strict on other bets taken in error'.. surely a binding contract is made if they log it, and take payment?

i say sue the buzzards!

 

[simon195]

Too many staff in bookies now can't be bothered to even look at the slip.You could write your own odds on and they wouldn't notice!

Whoever accepted the bet should lose their job after that massive f***-up.Legal action is not going to make one jot of difference in the hope of getting their £7m.These type of novelty bets it always seems to be singles only.

Bookies are slippery fuckers who should be treated with contempt.:hammer:

i went in bookmakers the other day.. i said, have i come to right place to back a horse in ?? yeah the woman said.... g up, in yer come boy

 

[Spun Cuppa]

It seems like the bookies have all angles covered. They will take your money and photocopy your slip, THEN if the bet comes in, decide if they fancy paying out, and invoke all sort of legalese if they don't

I had a Lucky 15 on the four English footie division winners that owed me coppers, but when I went in to collect, they told me they shouldn't have accepted the bet! How gutted would I have been if all four had come in!?

 

[Mtoto]

Stories like this one are hardly unusual, but do not necessarily suggest that bookies are evil bastards who will pull any trick going to avoid paying out. Most of the time, the punter involved is a chancer who knows full well that their bet should not have been accepted, but has managed to get it past a new or particularly stupid member of staff, who might not have seen a bet like this before and was probably just trying to be helpful.
As has already been pointed out, it is a related contingency. Would you expect to have a bet accepted that snow will fall on your house and the houses either side, and be treated as a straight treble? The locations may be more separated, but the principle is the same: the odds about one event are affected by the other.
If this bloke sues, it proves only that he was an honest, but hopelessly misguided, punter. If he does not, it would suggest to me that he knows he's trying it on, and does not stand a hope in hell. Gambling debts are definitely recoverable in law these days, but this is not a debt, as the bet breached the firm's rules. The case would not last 10 seconds.
Quite what was wrong with Spun Cuppa's footie Lucky 15, on the other hand, is beyond me. If it was on cricket - when the same team plays in four competitions - it would be another matter, but thousands of punters do that bet every year with not problems.

 

[Spun Cuppa]

The Lucky 15 was about two/three years ago and they might have changed it since, as I can imagine it would be a popular bet. I posted about it at the time and someone said you could do doubles, trebles and a fourfold, (patent/yankee? Not that clued up tbh) but not the Lucky 15. I wonder if you went large on the four favourites, the bookies would take a bashing?

 

[HarryNT]

The bookies should legally have to pay

 

[Deleted User X18H]

The Lucky 15 was about two/three years ago and they might have changed it since, as I can imagine it would be popular bet. I posted about it at the time and someone said you could do doubles, trebles and a fourfold, (patent/yankee? Not that clued up tbh) but not the Lucky 15. I wonder if you went large on the four favourites, the bookies would take a bashing?

That sounds very strange!

 

[Ninja Elephant]

The Lucky 15 was about two/three years ago and they might have changed it since, as I can imagine it would be a popular bet. I posted about it at the time and someone said you could do doubles, trebles and a fourfold, (patent/yankee? Not that clued up tbh) but not the Lucky 15. I wonder if you went large on the four favourites, the bookies would take a bashing?

A lucky 15 is 4 singles, 6 doubles, 4 trebles and an accumulator. It's mainly meant to be a special horse bet, and if you only have one 1 winner then you get double odds on it, and if you get all 4 winners then you get a bonus for having all 15 bets come in.

You don't get that on football bets, but there's no reason why you can't do a normal lucky 15 bet on the winners of all 4 divisions, as each outcome has no impact on the others. Can't advise what was wrong with it.

Even if you went with (for this season), Chelsea, Newcastle, Leeds and Rotherham (who I would imagine were the favourites), the bet should still be accepted. It might have to be authorised by the powers that be first, depending on your stake and potential return, but in theory it should be accepted. If you placed it today, it should still be accepted.

 

[Spun Cuppa]

I did it e/w, making 30 bets if that makes a difference? I think it was 10p. each bet, and I got a first and second, which paid out about £1.56. Not like it ran into thousands!?

It would seem the Lucky 15 is an ideal bet for 4 independent outcomes?

Baffling tbh

 

[Albalbion]

i work in william hill and our rules state that we do not have to pay out any bet at all, its our disgression, we dont even need a proper reason to not pay it. and besides the rules also mean that were not allowed to pay over 1.000.000 for any bet.

 

[Djmiles]

i work in william hill and our rules state that we do not have to pay out any bet at all, its our disgression, we dont even need a proper reason to not pay it. and besides the rules also mean that were not allowed to pay over 1.000.000 for any bet.

That's messed up. So in theory I could start up a bookies and never pay out ANYTHING, and just rake in the money on losing bets?

 

[Spun Cuppa]

i work in william hill and our rules state that we do not have to pay out any bet at all, its our disgression, we dont even need a proper reason to not pay it. and besides the rules also mean that were not allowed to pay over 1.000.000 for any bet.

My Lucky 15 was with William Hill Took about four phone calls to another shop re: a £1.56 payout!!!!

 

[Mtoto]

Believe it or not, most bookies enjoy paying out - so long as it is to the "right" people. It is a low margin, high turnover business, and paying out keeps the money circulating. So long as they have the margin on their side, they will finish up in profit.
Small independents and small internet start-ups would be possible exceptions, particularly the internet operators. The market is so competitive that they often attract money only when they have a price that's out of line, and if you are only ever taking "live" money, your margin disappears.
It's always worth knowing the particular bets they would rather duck, too. An acquaintance of mine set up an internet firm a couple of years ago and is just about making it pay, but tells me he now understands why all bookies hate dead-8 and dead-16 handicaps so much. There is no margin in these at all from their point of view, in fact the advantage is very much with the punter.

 

[Albalbion]

My Lucky 15 was with William Hill Took about four phone calls to another shop re: a £1.56 payout!!!!

yeh see to be honest, anyone who rings customer services will get payed. a guy came in once and asked me for a price on a horse and hed wrote an illegible number down, so i asked thwe guy is that a four or a six? he says a six and i gave him the price for number six, four won the race and he comes to get payed out arguing that it was a four, i refused to pay him cos hed already confirmed it was a six and he rang customer services, they rang our shop, gave us a bollocking and told us to pay him over 100 pounds.