'Bookie' policy

huberto

From the B'Fair forum:

"spoils bookmakers

they have refused to payout a bet on a dog from last saturday 100 at 3 to 1 the reason given is that being a restricted customer the cashier took the bet without having time to ring it in customer service told me diplomatically f o if dog loses docket in bin dog wins money back any suggestions ps this is exactly what happend even though its hard to believe"

If this is as reported it must be a new low in Bookmaker policy - pity the trade paper is so beholden to their advertisers that they turn a blind eye to this kind of carry on. Maybe it's time some legislation was mooted.

HandsomeBob

Usually I'm dubious of the punter in this situation but that does sound dubious on their part to be fair and not very transparent. There should be a way to escalate it, check their dispute/complaints procedure.

Gavin "shels"

IBAS

lemush

Certainty to get paid once he issues proceedings for the small claims court.

lemush

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

IBAS

Sham of an organization, Paul Fairhead gives the right advice in my opinion which is bypass IBAS and go straight for the small claims.

Fanny Wank

lemush wrote: »

Certainty to get paid once he issues proceedings for the small claims court.

You'd have to assume so

I'm hoping the bookies shaft the wrong person one day. A solicitor who can represent himself or someone with deep pockets and a lot of time on their hands. They simply make up the rules as they go along. Something needs to be done to protect consumers

posturingpat

Pure BS. Slow counting At work would be my assumption.
If it was just a case of the cashier taking the bet in error the customer would be paid out and cashier get a good talking to I suspect.

ustari

I know something somewhat similar happened in local bookies and wanted to know if it is common place and/or fair? It may be completely right and normal but it doesn't seem it to me.

Punter places bet just after race goes off (seconds), bet accepted behind counter and docket provided. Horse wins but they refuse to pay out as they said the race had started.

Like above, they took the bet at the time and there was no chance of a refund if it lost I would imagine.

What do you think?

Fanny Wank

ustari wrote: »

I know something somewhat similar happened in local bookies and wanted to know if it is common place and/or fair? It may be completely right and normal but it doesn't seem it to me.

Punter places bet just after race goes off (seconds), bet accepted behind counter and docket provided. Horse wins but they refuse to pay out as they said the race had started.

Like above, they took the bet at the time and there was no chance of a refund if it lost I would imagine.

What do you think?

Not sure about legality but it's definitely sharp practice

There was a story in the RP years ago about a certain bookie (pretty sure I remember which but won't name as I can't back it up with the original story). Someone leaked an internal email (or possibly physical memo) to shop managers where they were explicitly told to void late bets that won and classify as losers those that lost

There was a spat on twitter not so long ago where skybet asked for bank statements off a customer after a £200 bet won. On the bank statement there was a transfer in from another person for £200 the same day the bet was placed. Skybet voided the bet as punting for another person supposedly violates their T&Cs. Same person said they'd done similar bets in the past which had lost and could provide bank statements as evidence to have them voided. Skybet refused to entertain it. No idea how it ended up.

As I said they make it up as they go along and nobody apart from aggrieved punters care. Similar with account restrictions. I always use the following example:.

3 people walk into Dunnes to buy a shirt advertised for sale at €40. First person is told to work away and buy as many as they like. 2nd person told the price for them is €60. 3rd person is told they can't buy the shirt at any price. No way would that be allowed. A bunch of Scottish MPs had been talking about challenging bookmaker practices under consumer legislation but don't know if it got anywhere

Fanny Wank

The Skybet "incident"

https://twitter.com/steven_punter/status/763650275806736384

Kablamo!

ustari wrote: »

I know something somewhat similar happened in local bookies and wanted to know if it is common place and/or fair? It may be completely right and normal but it doesn't seem it to me.

Punter places bet just after race goes off (seconds), bet accepted behind counter and docket provided. Horse wins but they refuse to pay out as they said the race had started.

Like above, they took the bet at the time and there was no chance of a refund if it lost I would imagine.

What do you think?

There would be a refund if the time stamp on the bet matched after the off time of the race on screens.

Gavin "shels"

Fanny **** wrote: »

The Skybet "incident"

https://twitter.com/steven_punter/status/763650275806736384

They've gone to the dogs tbh - don't allow E Wallets anymore either. Account being shut down on Monday which my open bet settles.

Farmer Bob

huberto wrote:

Maybe it's time some legislation was mooted.

lemush wrote: »

Certainty to get paid once he issues proceedings for the small claims court.

As I understand it, gambling debts aren’t enforceable by the bookie or the punter. Section 36 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 says

36.—(1) Every contract by way of gaming or wagering is void.

2) No action shall lie for the recovery of any money or thing which is alleged to be won or to have been paid upon a wager or which has been deposited to abide the event on which a wager is made.

posturingpat

Farmer Bob wrote: »

As I understand it, gambling debts aren’t enforceable by the bookie or the punter. Section 36 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 says

Was that not updated a few years back?

Farmer Bob

posturingpat wrote: »

Was that not updated a few years back?

Some guy had a case against a casino kicked out of the Circuit Court in March 2017. Judge said casino had no obligation to pay, referred to that section of the Act so I’d assume it’s current...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/casino-not-compelled-to-pay-11-000-roulette-win-under-law-1.3017271

BumperD

Farmer Bob wrote: »

Some guy had a case against a casino kicked out of the Circuit Court in March 2017. Judge said casino had no obligation to pay, referred to that section of the Act so I’d assume it’s current...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/casino-not-compelled-to-pay-11-000-roulette-win-under-law-1.3017271

Yes it’s current http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/WP15000254

The maximum bet in a casino in 2 & 1/2 pence under the 1956 act. Hopelessly redundant but of course in true paddy whackery fashion, don’t update the laws, let the problems fester and allow the industry’s to operate in a grey areas of the law or completely lawless .

Farmer Bob

Hopelessly redundant but of course in true paddy whackery fashion, don’t update the laws, let the problems fester...

Agree 100%. And true for so many things in this country...

BumperD

Farmer Bob wrote: »

Agree 100%. And true for so many things in this country...

A great country for giving out and moaning about shxt, but when it comes to taking effective action, absolutely spineless

Hulk Hands

Gavin shels wrote: »

They've gone to the dogs tbh - don't allow E Wallets anymore either. Account being shut down on Monday which my open bet settles.

I'll buy it off ya

Peintre Celebre

Hulk Hands wrote: »

I'll buy it off ya

So would I don't shut it down PM if you're selling

Gavin "shels"

Premium rate gents

Copper_pipe

I thought Sky allowed PayPal if you had previously used it on the account

Gavin "shels"

Only Card these days they told me. I had Skrill linked to it previous.

byronbay2

ustari wrote: »

I know something somewhat similar happened in local bookies and wanted to know if it is common place and/or fair? It may be completely right and normal but it doesn't seem it to me.

Punter places bet just after race goes off (seconds), bet accepted behind counter and docket provided. Horse wins but they refuse to pay out as they said the race had started.

Like above, they took the bet at the time and there was no chance of a refund if it lost I would imagine.

What do you think?

Happens every day of the week in every bookies! Only an absolute idiot puts a bet on in a bookies shop after the OFF (even if the screen says "bets still accepted") - you are at the mercy of the bookie if the bet wins, not a nice place to be!!