Non Runner No Bet (post #1 for updates)

[HesTheOne]

Still, it doesn’t make Bet365’s actions any less shoddy. It must have breached their contract they enter into with punters when accepting a bet.

Their T&Cs make for very grim reading. Worth a read out of interest to see a David v Goliath contract. Pretty much agree to whatever rules they want to use when making an account. Relevant extract below

6.2 Incorrect Price - Prior to the start of an event, In-Play or after the event, where an Obvious Error is identified any bets will stand and be settled at the bet365 revised price. Where a revised price is deemed less than 1/1000 then bets will be void.


edit - sharing as unfortunately it’s worth being informed what your rights are if any with these multi national companies, case in point if you wanted to dispute you take it up in a court governed by the laws of Malta?

Shower of

[TCH29]

Their T&Cs make for very grim reading. Worth a read out of interest to see a David v Goliath contract. Pretty much agree to whatever rules they want to use when making an account. Relevant extract below

6.2 Incorrect Price - Prior to the start of an event, In-Play or after the event, where an Obvious Error is identified any bets will stand and be settled at the bet365 revised price. Where a revised price is deemed less than 1/1000 then bets will be void.

there’s way worse in there too

Appreciate that. I know we sign our lives away to play. But they could not defend this as an “Obvious Error” in court, when a) the price was up for hours during which they took lots of bets, and b) we know some bets were referred to a trader, who accepted the bet.

That means it’s not an “obvious error”; they’ve decided/realised later on that their liability is too high OR someone else (manager, etc) has decided his colleague was wrong and changed the price. Retrospectively changing the price on bets accepted where the price wasn’t an obvious error is shady. If it was an obvious error, it would have been taken down within minutes.

Equally, for anyone who managed to take the cash out, having that money taken back from your account is extremely dodgy legally.

[Lostinleith]

Well, yes, I’ve done the same. So has everyone else, I assume. It’s not a ditch worth dying in to call them up and have it out; you’ll just be putting a great big flag on your account.

Still, it doesn’t make Bet365’s actions any less shoddy. It must have breached their contract they enter into with punters when accepting a bet.

It wasn’t an error where they’ve miskeyed 12/1 as 121/1 or something. They have offered a price that is common in these markets. They’ve accepted bets in size referred to traders.

One trader and his supervisor have severely screwed up, and rather than take it on the nose, they’ve taken a punt that no one will take them to court, which they won’t. And anyone who complains they can bin their account.

Agreed that this is shoddy, and remarkable that a bet was accepted once referred to a trader. However, they haven't breached their contract with the punter. Like every bookie they have a provision in their ts and cs dealing with howlers.

"6.2 Incorrect Price - Prior to the start of an event, In-Play or after the event, where an Obvious Error is identified any bets will stand and be settled at the bet365 revised price. Where a revised price is deemed less than 1/1000 then bets will be void.

Where there is sufficient time before the start of an event, bet365 will endeavour to contact the customer and may in our absolute discretion allow the option of cancelling the bet."

I assume that they have a process for documenting decisions like this in the event of a complaint. Unfortunately this is quite an easy one. They just need to point to the prices being offered for GDC in the Ryanair by other bookies who have gone NRNB (4/5 with Hills) to demonstrate that this is an 'Obvious Error'. I wonder if they were being a bit ballsy and meant to offer 2-1, at least for a while?

[Saxon Warrior]

That 12/1 NRNB Galopin price looked dodgy too most folk backing it, I would think?

Palpable error clause was incoming, many would have guessed, but probably willing to chance the firm wouldn't do it.

I don't have an account with them, but seeing how they seem to have got hotter on a few thing lately, you'd have Fingers-crossed that no Flags added to accounts for anyone hammering that price and then complaining.

Bookmakers rules are probably a sack of shite if taken to court or through a consumer rights lawyer, but no-ones going to try that for this bet.

It did remind me of 1st lockdown Consumer Lawyers laying down the consumer right laws to the likes of air passenger firms, and Holiday Cottage companies etc, on what rights consumers had to full refunds if holidays, hotels and flights couldn't be delivered by those businesses to their customers.

Some contracts appeared to be written against Consumer rights laws. and totally in the providers favour. Which was pointed out to those firms and full cash/card refunds had to be an option offered (not flight vouchers or rebook a cottage next year)

Just cashout or void the bets and move on, would probably be best.

[Quevega]

The only mistake I believe they made was with the cash out when the price dropped.
Forcing them to report it as a palpable error in the first place.

The price was around for too long and referred to traders as mentioned for them not to have been aware.
So something is not right.

I think they were probably hoping to stockpile stakes/account balances due to the unlikely runner aspect.

They will have had a limit of liabilities to reach IMO.
Which would have been dwarfed or less than the the liabilities on the Gold cup, or at least the figure they calculated would have been So.
He can't win both races, can he ?

If he turned up in the Ryanair they then go shortest price and lay off the rest with others.

That's my theory anyway and probably bullshit

One way or another, they are lying gets.

Summat to talk about for a bit though.

[somer1]

Just read this story......

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/punter-who-thought-he-d-won-15k-off-10-world-cup-bet-left-furious-after-bookies-refuses-to-pay-out/ar-AA15VtTl?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7b9a8355364c49239478c7e192ae1d8c

[Saxon Warrior]

Just read this story......
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...78c7e192ae1d8c

I'd seen that.

Nonsense bet,
France v Argentina Final
Argentina Win
Messi Top Player

The biggest contingent price slash in history that should be.

Taking the bet was silly

Making a big noise about not getting full odds each part of the Treble is gullible at best, if not dishonest.

[Benjy23]

Aye, they're completely right there Coral like. The three things are clearly related.

He should take the ?660.

[Lostinleith]

That 12/1 NRNB Galopin price looked dodgy too most folk backing it, I would think?

Palpable error clause was incoming, many would have guessed, but probably willing to chance the firm wouldn't do it.

I don't have an account with them, but seeing how they seem to have got hotter on a few thing lately, you'd have Fingers-crossed that no Flags added to accounts for anyone hammering that price and then complaining.

Bookmakers rules are probably a sack of shite if taken to court or through a consumer rights lawyer, but no-ones going to try that for this bet.

It did remind me of 1st lockdown Consumer Lawyers laying down the consumer right laws to the likes of air passenger firms, and Holiday Cottage companies etc, on what rights consumers had to full refunds if holidays, hotels and flights couldn't be delivered by those businesses to their customers.

Some contracts appeared to be written against Consumer rights laws. and totally in the providers favour. Which was pointed out to those firms and full cash/card refunds had to be an option offered (not flight vouchers or rebook a cottage next year)

Just cashout or void the bets and move on, would probably be best.

This discussion bring back memories of my working life in financial (not the best memories!). Lots of time spent poring over various iterations of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and the impact on customers ts and cs. Bookies will have their own legal teams advising on ts and cs, and you would hope that the Gambling Commission would have guidance for them on this sort of stuff.

I suspect the pandemic victories for consumers were due to a wide variety of factors.

a) Smaller providers whose ts and cs were unfair but where the unfair powers had either never been imposed or hadn't been challenged.
b) Providers taking the piss and ignoring the legal position - pretty sure this was the case with the sponsors of a big festival race
c) Providers who were technically in the right but forced to do 'the right thing' by pressure from the government/media.

My gut feel is that the bookies would win a case if somebody took it all the way. From a legal point of view anyone who has opened an account has agreed to the term in question. "I couldn't be arsed reading the ts and cs" isn't much of an argument unfortunately!

The rules for financial services are significantly more in favour of consumers thatn they are here for a variety of reasons. I won't clutter the thread any more by wittering on about that.

[Big Bucks]

Aye, they're completely right there Coral like. The three things are clearly related.

He should take the ?660.

100% agree. Take the ?660 and run! Very generous imo!

[Many Clouds]

Defo should take the ?660, a mate of mine did the same bet but with Mbappe top scorer added on and it was only 100/1. So without the top scorer but to still get 66s is generous. Its such a stupid bet with clearly related selections it shouldn't have even made it as a news article.

[FinalFurlong91]

Defo should take the ?660, a mate of mine did the same bet but with Mbappe top scorer added on and it was only 100/1. So without the top scorer but to still get 66s is generous. Its such a stupid bet with clearly related selections it shouldn't have even made it as a news article.

Shows how few people actually understand betting

including both the punters and the staff

[That Horse]

Shows how few people actually understand betting

including both the punters and the staff

Yep, it'd be hit and miss whether a staff member would even look at a bet slip these days before scanning and giving the receipt back, nevermind checking the bet actuals.

I remember when I was 18/19 going in and trying to double a first goalscorer with same team to win minus a goal, and another time trying to do a placepot using only five races.

[Saxon Warrior]

100% agree. Take the ?660 and run! Very generous imo!

Take the money and be glad too.

[Benjy23]

Yep, it'd be hit and miss whether a staff member would even look at a bet slip these days before scanning and giving the receipt back, nevermind checking the bet actuals.

I remember when I was 18/19 going in and trying to double a first goalscorer with same team to win minus a goal, and another time trying to do a placepot using only five races.

As someone (and I'm sure not the only one) that worked part time in a bookies when I was a bit younger, this is often the case. You'll have to throw slips through the machine without reading and try to translate them later as there's a queue of people rushing to get ?1.50 on the next virtual 2f chase that's about to start in 30 seconds.

I had someone who landed a few big priced winners on a placepot and brought a load of mates in to collect his big win and couldn't understand the return. Fun time explaining that.