Small Claims Court - Bookies

Mark27

Hi, hope its ok to make this post here.

I recently put on an 8 team football accumulator with a bookies in Dublin City Center. All of my eight teams won, (Man City beat Fulham in the 24th minute of extra time) but when i went down to collect my winnings i was informed at the counter that because one of my games had been won in extra time then i was not entitled to anything.

I still have the original sheet that i marked my teams off on and it mentions nothing about having to win within 90 minutes, it just says mark '1' for a win which is what i did. It does not even say anything about 'Terms and Conditions apply'.

I was thinking about going to the Small Claims Court in the hope that i might get somewhere. Does anyone if this is the right move??

Thanks

dats_right

What you were told by the Bookmakers staff was quite correct and I think to be fair most football punters would know that Extra Time is excluded for betting purposes, i.e. 90 mins only and over 90 mins the bet was a draw. In fact, there would have been a seperate betting market or 'book' for the result of the cup tie i.e. which team would qualify for the next round, as opposed to who would win the match, and of course there is only 2 possible results as a draw is impossible. So the odds for that result would have been a lot shorter than what you were quoted.

In any event, even if you were wronged in some way by the Bookmakers no legal remedy would lie as by virtue of section 36 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956; every wagering contract is unenforceable. So the small claims court is not a runner as you have suffered no legal wrong known to the law.

The only remedies open to you, would be to bring your claim to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service - I.B.A.S, who most Bookmakers agree to abide with its decisions, but as previously stated the error is yours and not the Bookmakers so I very much doubt whether you have much chance of success with them.

cup of tea

Yes,the above poster is correct,90mins of play only.Also already said they are not legally bound to pay you out it's a ''gentlemans agreement''.No point pursuing it any further.

civis_liberalis

When odds for football games are advertised, in fairness to the bookies, it is usually stated relatively clearly that prices are only valid for 90 minutes play.

Ab roller plus

While I acknowledge Datsright's post is spot on, I would still challenge the bookies on this.

I had a bet for portugal to beat england in the euros or the world cup and they did it in extra time (after full time whistle was blown), i think Ronaldo scored the goal. I think I predicted the score as well. Bookie gave me the same answer re 90 minutes but I just argued for a while and he paid out. Granted he only had to pay out approx €80.00.

I don't agree with this rule one bit and you should make a big deal about it.

mikemac

What you bet on OP was for 90 minutes result.
There might have been an option for qualifying for the next round and this would have been different odds to what you choose.

I've seen bookies with a sign on their wall with their terms and conditions which you can read at your leisure.
Or the cashiers will answer any question you have before you place the bet.

All you can do now if go for adjudication by the IBAS but sorry, I can't see you gettting anywhere

Ace2007

Ab roller plus wrote: »

I don't agree with this rule one bit and you should make a big deal about it.

cup of tea wrote: »

they are not legally bound to pay you out it's a ''gentlemans agreement''.No point pursuing it any further.

You should know what your talkin about before you give advice Ab.

johnnysmurfman

He does know what he is talking about. It is a contract which is void for illegality, you can not sue for a gambling debt in Irish law.

murrayp4

johnnysmurfman wrote: »

He does know what he is talking about. It is a contract which is void for illegality, you can not sue for a gambling debt in Irish law.

Why is it void for illegality?

Reloc8

That's what the gaming and lotteries act says - you can't sue for an unpaid gambling debt, end of.

murrayp4

s36. Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. Ouch!

Reloc8

Doesn't mean you can't go and have a big old noisy whinge in the bookies though - they may take a pragmatic decision and do something for you.

sh_o

Book makers also have to renew their licence regularly.... which if you felt strongly enough about you could lodge an objection.

Jo King

johnnysmurfman wrote: »

He does know what he is talking about. It is a contract which is void for illegality, you can not sue for a gambling debt in Irish law.

It is not void for illegality. It is not enforceable on grounds of public policy, which is a different thing entirely.

Reloc8

Jo King wrote: »

It is not void for illegality. It is not enforceable on grounds of public policy, which is a different thing entirely.

Actually it is neither, if we're into accuracy. Correct - it is not void for illegality - there is nothing illegal about placing a bet. But it is not unenforceable on grounds of public policy either (to be honest, I wouldn't be convinced these two concepts are in fact entirely different things anyway as if either pertained the contract would be unenforceable).

Section 36 says 'every contract by way of gaming or wagering is void'.

What that means is that by operation of law the contract simply never existed, from its inception, by operation of statute.

So eh, yep its void (but not for illegality) and nope matters of public policy don't come into it.

Pines

Coler wrote: »

So eh, yep its void (but not for illegality) and nope matters of public policy don't come into it.

Saying so don't make it so.

The 1956 Act was simply re-enacting section 18 of the 1845 Gaming Act. That act deemed void gambling contracts in order to discourage the increase of gambling, as a matter of - you guessed it - public policy.

amacachi

If extra time/penalties counted then the odds would be about half what they are for 90 minutes. It'll be a very generous bookie who'll cave on this one.

jt123456

I used to work for a bookies and every time a round of cup games came up we spent all the next day explaining this rule and ive heard way more cringe stories than this one. OP you should really know what you are betting on and read all the betting rules before placing the bets. According to terms and conditions of most bookmakers, you agree to all the betting rules for that market once you place a bet. However there is one bookmaker that might decide to pay you out if you complain a little and explain how hard done by you feel. But this would be just out of publicity reasons or generosity or an act of gratuity to keep you business. (you can probably guess what company im refering to.)

Bottom line is that the bet you placed is certainly a losing one (1=home 2=away X=draw) Even going to IBAS wont solve anything coz they will just point you back to the terms and conditions and the betting rules for the bookmaker. Call the companies customer service and chance your arm for a refund or a payout on generosity grounds and if that fails then move on and learn from your mistakes.

Reloc8

Pines wrote: »

Saying so don't make it so.

The 1956 Act was simply re-enacting section 18 of the 1845 Gaming Act. That act deemed void gambling contracts in order to discourage the increase of gambling, as a matter of - you guessed it - public policy.

Irrespective of the motivation of the legislature in enacting legislation, in legal terms gambling contracts are void because that's what the statute says.

If you say something is void for public policy, what is understood is that the courts by way of common law will of their own volition not enforce that kind of contract as the contract in question is considered undesirable. An example is the common law rule that a contract to do something illegal can not be enforced.

You wouldn't say for instance that certain things are crimes because of public policy, you'd say they were crimes because they contradicted statutes or common law, irrespective of the fact that the reason for enacting legislation to make certain acts or omissions criminal is 'public policy'.

jhegarty

This may be a silly question.

If all gambling contracts a void. what recourse would a bookies have if someone reached over the counter and took back the money after loosing a bet ?

Reloc8

LOL very good question.


Civil Law - tort of conversion or something - again interesting principles of the same nature to consider.

Criminal Law - theft/robbery would be the charge but it would be a very interesting defence to consider.

Jo King

jhegarty wrote: »

This may be a silly question.

If all gambling contracts a void. what recourse would a bookies have if someone reached over the counter and took back the money after loosing a bet ?

It would be theft. At the time of handing the money over the person intended to pass all property in the money to the bookie. They do not expect to get the same notes and or coins back when they win. It would be straightforward theft to take back the money as there can be no claim of right made in good faith.
It might be different if money was given to a stakeholder to retain pending the outcome of a wager. In that case the person expects to get the original money back if they win and they do not intend property to pass to the stakeholder.

jhegarty

Jo King wrote: »

It would be theft. At the time of handing the money over the person intended to pass all property in the money to the bookie. They do not expect to get the same notes and or coins back when they win. It would be straightforward theft to take back the money as there can be no claim of right made in good faith.
It might be different if money was given to a stakeholder to retain pending the outcome of a wager. In that case the person expects to get the original money back if they win and they do not intend property to pass to the stakeholder.

But by what method does the cash pass to the bookies.

It can't be a contract. It's not a gift. What legal reason gives the bookie a claim over the money ?

Jo King

jhegarty wrote: »

But by what method does the cash pass to the bookies.

It can't be a contract. It's not a gift. What legal reason gives the bookie a claim over the money ?

The bookie is in possession of the money. The punter cannot claim a refund under contract. The punter cannot claim a resulting trust since at the time of handing over money his intention was that property in the money would pass to the bookie. The property passes in the same way as a person puts money in a charity collection. No resulting trust arises because of the donative intent.