Bookie refuses to pay out £7 million on snow bet

DonJose

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out, they accepted the bet but are now refusing to payout on it.

---

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.

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.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100108/tuk-oukoe-uk-britain-bet-fa6b408.html

efb

The maximum liability on novelty bets are at €250,000 so there's no way he'd get 7,000,000 and you cant have related bets in an accumulator

Clemon

Ladcrooks

mike65

Well I'd be looking for compo for pain and discomfort.

PCPhoto

mike65 wrote: »

Well I'd be looking for compo for pain and discomfort.

I'd prob end out taking my £30+ .... thats still a profit....greedy git

(would it be correct that Ladbrooks didnt contact him until he had "won"....amazing how they didnt want to void the bet before it was a payout for them ...tut tut tut ...ladcrooks indeed !!)

oconnon9

hasnt a leg 2 stand on, bookies are clearly right.

PCPhoto

oconnon9 wrote: »

hasnt a leg 2 stand on, bookies are clearly right.

and he knows it.... thats why he's saying that they should pay out something extra instead of the actual winnings.

in fairness - he should have a point - if they only decided to acknowledge the bet when he went for payout and didnt attempt to cancel the bet before the event.

(I'm guessing he's hoping for a couple of hundred grand settlement)

oconnon9

if i was him id take 100 quid.. and run

callaway92

he is bringin them to court because of it...tis on Sky Text 102

Healio

PCPhoto wrote: »

in fairness - he should have a point - if they only decided to acknowledge the bet when he went for payout and didnt attempt to cancel the bet before the event.

Anyone who works/has worked in a bookmakers, will tell you that bets like this (dare i say all disputes) only arise when a customer try to get paid.
Mainly because it is only at this point the staff have the chance to analyse the slip.

From my own experience, these markets are how should I put it, not top priorty in the betting shops' system, and as such couldnt be entered like a premier league accum would be. And it is for this reason, the customer wouldnt have been contacted beforehand, rather than the usual cynicism punter associate with bookmakers being "out to get them" and not wanting to pay out.

Although it is the shop staff at the end of the day who are responsible for this.

Browney7

This guy knew well what he was doing. It's as related a bet as you are ever likely to see. Not a hope he should get more than what they are offering.

I don't know why he is bringing it to court because a bookie is under no legal obligation to even pay a legitimate bet I think.

tatoo

Browney7 wrote: »

This guy knew well what he was doing. It's as related a bet as you are ever likely to see. Not a hope he should get more than what they are offering.

I don't know why he is bringing it to court because a bookie is under no legal obligation to even pay a legitimate bet I think.

I'd say he is just chancing his arm talking of going to court with it ,
Ladbrokes rules will have all angles covered , I've zero sympathy for him - the chances of snow in neighbouring towns are as obviously a related as is possible .

myflipflops

tatoo wrote: »

I'd say he is just chancing his arm talking of going to court with it ,
Ladbrokes rules will have all angles covered , I've zero sympathy for him - the chances of snow in neighbouring towns are as obviously a related as is possible .

If he takes it to court, he'll just lose money on costs. He's wrong in every way on this.

Ladbrookes will probably end up giving him 10k or something to shut him up though. People do this to bookies all the time.

Whyno

He'll break himself if he tackles laddies in court...I blame the poor staff that they employ as there is no way the bet should have been allowed to be placed.

PhatPiggins

If Laddies where nt a bunch of tight fisted gits they should pay him 10K and get some good publicity out of it.

Granted he'll lose in court but Ladbrokes we come out looking like the tight odds thieves that they are.

If it was Paddy Power they be on the front page of The Star handing him a giant cheque

okidoki987

If it was Paddy Power they be on the front page of The Star handing him a giant cheque

I'd guess not for 7.1 million though :eek:

Mellor

Clemon wrote: »

Ladcrooks

moronic post imo

Miskatonic

PhatPiggins wrote: »

If Laddies where nt a bunch of tight fisted gits they should pay him 10K and get some good publicity out of it.

Granted he'll lose in court but Ladbrokes we come out looking like the tight odds thieves that they are.

If it was Paddy Power they be on the front page of The Star handing him a giant cheque

Ladbrokes and Paddy Power market themselves totally differently. This sort of publicity isn't really Ladbrokes style. Why would they need it anyway considering they are the biggest bookies in the UK AFAIK?

This guy was blatantly trying to place a related bet. Yes the shop staff shouldn't have taken the bet but like someone said, novelty bets and rules are hardly top priority. He will lose if he takes this to court. Maybe they will offer him a payout but probably not as much as he is hoping for

Moro Man

tatoo wrote: »

I'd say he is just chancing his arm
.

If you talk to people who work in and frequent betting shops they'll tell you that nothing is implausible to certain patrons.

Saw a guy recently argue with a clerk in a betting shop over the settlement of a double. First one won at 2/1 2nd one non runner.

Customer adamant that the non runner should be paid out as a winner and he was under the impression that non runners in accumulators are settled as even money shot winners.

tatoo

Moro Man wrote: »

he was under the impression that non runners in accumulators are settled as even money shot winners.

If only...............:rolleyes::D:D

EI111

PhatPiggins wrote: »

If Laddies where nt a bunch of tight fisted gits they should pay him 10K and get some good publicity out of it.

Granted he'll lose in court but Ladbrokes we come out looking like the tight odds thieves that they are.

If it was Paddy Power they be on the front page of The Star handing him a giant cheque

That would just encourage people to try the same type of thing over and over again.

Four-Too

Mellor wrote: »

moronic post imo

I suppose you work for them? What about all the false prices people are getting on some favourites? A few hundred on course, and the price of some of these favourites drops to a ridiculously low price. Notably recently, a favourite at Kempton went off at something like 5/4, while it was much bigger on the exchanges.

oconnon9

Four-Too wrote: »

I suppose you work for them? What about all the false prices people are getting on some favourites? A few hundred on course, and the price of some of these favourites drops to a ridiculously low price. Notably recently, a favourite at Kempton went off at something like 5/4, while it was much bigger on the exchanges.

irrelevant to the point he was making

Mellor

Four-Too wrote: »

I suppose you work for them?

No I don't work for them. Why would you think that?

I stand by my comment, you honestly think the bookies were in the wrong by not paying.

What about all the false prices people are getting on some favourites? A few hundred on course, and the price of some of these favourites drops to a ridiculously low price. Notably recently, a favourite at Kempton went off at something like 5/4, while it was much bigger on the exchanges.

I don't see what that has to do with the topic of the thread. But the exchanges are almost always better to begin with, plus bookies often reduce if they are getting a disproportionate amount of a particular horse (which is N/A to the exchanges)