Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

[benreado]

Yesterday I placed a bet at my local bookmakers on a horse called Saharia in the 21:00 at Kempton. The bet was placed about 10 minutes before the off at 33/1 and the stake was £100. The young cashier (who didn't look old enough to be in a bookmakers, yet alone taking bets) took the bet with no questions asked. I was expecting the horse to run well but I must admit I surprised when the horse hacked up. I went to collect my winnings, or at least agree a time to collect the winnings (the shop policy is anything above £400 can take up to 48 hours), and to my horror the young lad serving told me there'd been an error and he'd "accidentally" processed the bet as £1.00 instead of £100 (my theory is he thought the horse had no chance and planned to pocket the £99!). The manager wasn't working at the time so he returned my slip and told me to come back today. I went back to the shop after work today and was told if the bet was entered into the system as £100 the bet would've been denied because the liability was too big for a class 6 on the polytrack. He said as a goodwill gesture they will pay me out based on a £20 stake and refund the other £80. For now I've kept hold of the betting receipt. Where do I stand legally. The slip says £100 on it, does that mean I'm entitled to the full return of £3400? Is it worth pursuing, or should I just accept it was a mistake and bet elsewhere in the future?

[Aidymac]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand? You don't have a leg to stand on with a private bookmakers. Always check your betting slip at the counter. If it was me, i would bate it out of them! I would harass them until i got it, and threaten their families. :D

[MPLouis]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

Yesterday I placed a bet at my local bookmakers on a horse called Saharia in the 21:00 at Kempton. The bet was placed about 10 minutes before the off at 33/1 and the stake was £100. The young cashier (who didn't look old enough to be in a bookmakers, yet alone taking bets) took the bet with no questions asked. I was expecting the horse to run well but I must admit I surprised when the horse hacked up. I went to collect my winnings, or at least agree a time to collect the winnings (the shop policy is anything above £400 can take up to 48 hours), and to my horror the young lad serving told me there'd been an error and he'd "accidentally" processed the bet as £1.00 instead of £100 (my theory is he thought the horse had no chance and planned to pocket the £99!). The manager wasn't working at the time so he returned my slip and told me to come back today. I went back to the shop after work today and was told if the bet was entered into the system as £100 the bet would've been denied because the liability was too big for a class 6 on the polytrack. He said as a goodwill gesture they will pay me out based on a £20 stake and refund the other £80. For now I've kept hold of the betting receipt. Where do I stand legally. The slip says £100 on it, does that mean I'm entitled to the full return of £3400? Is it worth pursuing, or should I just accept it was a mistake and bet elsewhere in the future?

I don't bet on horses (bet mainly on football online), and I don't know the law on this. But the fact that you have a receipt acknowledging the £100 bet must count for something. I don't see why should you just accept that a bookmaker made a mistake and take the loss. Would a bookmaker accept it if you placed a £100 losing bet, then went back and said 'oh sorry I made a mistake, I only meant to bet £1 on that, please give me my £99 back? I'm sure others will explain the legal position in more detail.

[Jase82]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

I don't bet on horses (bet mainly on football online)' date=' and I don't know the law on this. But the fact that you have a receipt acknowledging the £100 bet must count for something. I don't see why should you just accept that a bookmaker made a mistake and take the loss. Would a bookmaker accept it if you placed a £100 losing bet, then went back and said 'oh sorry I made a mistake, I only meant to bet £1 on that, please give me my £99 back? I'm sure others will explain the legal position in more detail.[/quote'] I would have said it depends on whether it formed part of their terms and conditions, or was a company wide standard, prior to the bet being placed. If this was the first time that a maximum liability had been mentioned company wide, then that would be different. The thing is with these type of issues is that you'll always have people for or against it, and there are usually pretty good arguments on both sides. Until someone takes a bookmaker to court on the issue of palps etc, then it's for the regulator to adjudicate on? Where your example fails totally IMO is that at the time you entered into the 'contract' of a £100 wager, it could be shown that both parties were in agreement of all the terms and conditions that formed said contract. Where you would probably fall down is trying to demonstrate that £1 was the correct amount, or that you somehow were disadvantaged by these terms and conditions that formed the basis of the contract. If the bookie can demonstrate that their maximum liability is xxx amount, then they can show that the contract disaffected them severely enough to make the contract null and void from the off, as by their own standards they would have been basically shooting themselves in the foot (for want of a better phrase). That is what would kill the contract for me. I think the OP has done well with the gesture of goodwill, but I woul;d go one step further and ask what their maximum liability was for that card. If it was greater than the payout a £20 stake would return (and we have to assume it would be). I'd push for that.

[BillyHills]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand? I agree with Jase, push for the maximum liability of the shop. You wont get anymore even if you take it further. I would then threaten to go to the press, ask if the cashier has been sacked and if all else fails superglue the locks of the shop door! (not that i would know if that would do any good of course?):p

[The Saint]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

Yesterday I placed a bet at my local bookmakers on a horse called Saharia in the 21:00 at Kempton. The bet was placed about 10 minutes before the off at 33/1 and the stake was £100. The young cashier (who didn't look old enough to be in a bookmakers, yet alone taking bets) took the bet with no questions asked. I was expecting the horse to run well but I must admit I surprised when the horse hacked up. I went to collect my winnings, or at least agree a time to collect the winnings (the shop policy is anything above £400 can take up to 48 hours), and to my horror the young lad serving told me there'd been an error and he'd "accidentally" processed the bet as £1.00 instead of £100 (my theory is he thought the horse had no chance and planned to pocket the £99!). The manager wasn't working at the time so he returned my slip and told me to come back today. I went back to the shop after work today and was told if the bet was entered into the system as £100 the bet would've been denied because the liability was too big for a class 6 on the polytrack. He said as a goodwill gesture they will pay me out based on a £20 stake and refund the other £80. For now I've kept hold of the betting receipt. Where do I stand legally. The slip says £100 on it, does that mean I'm entitled to the full return of £3400? Is it worth pursuing, or should I just accept it was a mistake and bet elsewhere in the future?

£100 @ 33/1? As your local shop - aren't you known to them? why aren't u betting online for one? As your local - do u feel they are trying it on or do u feel you were taking the piss trying to get that money on in that shop? Genuine question... I mean that is a fair stake in a betting shop - particularly at the odds. Is that your normal stake in there? Presumably the rules are up on display? Obviously with it being your 'local' you should have checked these well in advance but I am hoping that they aren't on display or that the weird payout liability is not displayed. You should be paid - If it lost, I can assure you that they would not have been rushing round the counter to give you £80 back or whatever figure they are trying to void because of the liability in a class 6 at Kempton, with 11 runners, at 2100, on a Wednesday, for horses drawn 7 or above, in August exceeds their liability... What a bull**** rule - I would really want to see these 'liabilities' in writing on an official looking document! If it's not there(the rules) you have a much better case in my humble opinion. You at least can get them in trouble which is the least I would want to do - you seem very calm - I would be spitting feathers!!!! I don't know your style of betting but 33/1 winners are incredibly rare and I would want paying in full - 33/1?!?! £100?!?!? They are the dicks that left a 'child' in charge - & why the feck wasn't the Manager (or a supervisor) there about 10 minutes before closing?! This is unheard of in my experience... Taking £700 odd quid when I was expecting(or could have easily had if I had spread bets or put them on well in advance of the race) £3,600 would be a complete piss take. This doesn't stack up for me but if it is genuine, I sincerely wish you luck with it.

[robert99]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand? Legally you are covered by the UK Gambling Act. This for the first time made bets recoverable by law. Only the Gambling Commission is legally allowed to void a bet. Terms and conditions that try to avoid the requirements of the Act are null and void in law. You paid the money and got a receipt - they accepted the bet. They are the professional party to the contract and should run their business accordingly. It is quite common for some independents to make up all sorts of rules and excuses when they face a large payout. Many of their customers are gullible and fall for it. They often have no rules on display which is also illegal. If they are on display then only the rules on display can be considered as possibly valid or relevant to dispute. As the sum in question is less than £5000 you can take case to a Small Claims court. You will certainly win but will almost certainly be paid in full before the case starts.

[BillyHills]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand? They didnt void the bet Robert, they said it was taken by error as it exceeded their limits on such races. All bookies have limits and can change the bet if taken in error or restrict it. I'm guessing it didnt exceed the limits in this case (would be more than £3k) but was taken without notifying the bet and its kicked the bookie in the nuts and is trying to limit the damage with the offer they made. Even Hills would have to notify a bet like that so am amazed he even thought he would get it on in the first place?

[The Saint]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

They didnt void the bet Robert, they said it was taken by error as it exceeded their limits on such races. All bookies have limits and can change the bet if taken in error or restrict it. I'm guessing it didnt exceed the limits in this case (would be more than £3k) but was taken without notifying the bet and its kicked the bookie in the nuts and is trying to limit the damage with the offer they made. Even Hills would have to notify a bet like that so am amazed he even thought he would get it on in the first place?

Agree completely with this but it does beg the question of whether or not the punter should be charged for the firm in question failing to train/staff the shop effectivly... At 2050!? None of this adds up to me! At 2050, I'd be taking the papers down, emptying the machines and praying there wasn't a photo finish in the last!:p

[BillyHills]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

Agree completely with this but it does beg the question of whether or not the punter should be charged for the firm in question failing to train/staff the shop effectivly... At 2050!? None of this adds up to me! At 2050' date='[b'] I'd be taking the papers down, emptying the machines and praying there wasn't a photo finish in the last!:p

Too right Saint, as the OP said the cashier could have been on the fiddle and came unstuck, doesnt change the view that you would have to be extremely optimistic or drunk to think you were going to get the bet on at anytime of day!

[MPLouis]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

you would have to be extremely optimistic or drunk to think you were going to get the bet on at anytime of day!

What makes you say it's unreasonable to expect to place a bet of £100 at 33/1? I think you are saying that bookmakers would normally have to get a bet of this size approved first - is that right? But if the bookie takes the bet without running their normal internal approval, isn't that their fault?

[Jase82]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

Legally you are covered by the UK Gambling Act. This for the first time made bets recoverable by law. Only the Gambling Commission is legally allowed to void a bet. Terms and conditions that try to avoid the requirements of the Act are null and void in law. You paid the money and got a receipt - they accepted the bet. They are the professional party to the contract and should run their business accordingly. It is quite common for some independents to make up all sorts of rules and excuses when they face a large payout. Many of their customers are gullible and fall for it. They often have no rules on display which is also illegal. If they are on display then only the rules on display can be considered as possibly valid or relevant to dispute. As the sum in question is less than £5000 you can take case to a Small Claims court. You will certainly win but will almost certainly be paid in full before the case starts.

The gambling Act only sets out that a gambling debt is recoverable by law. Presumably to stop people racking up huge debts to companies and then doing a runner. The gambling Act doesn't however say whether there is a case to answer here. It's like most laws. They're open to interpretation, and you can often argue a strong case for or against. It would be up to a judge to decide whether this situation formulated an agreement that was legally binding. That's why I make the point above that it would be up to the bookmaker in question to demonstrate that their maximum liability was xxx amount prior to the bet placement, or that their own rules should have prohibited the placing of the wager before it had been fed through the system. As why would any sane company agree to a contract that went against their own rules? I know it's hard, but forget the fact that some young kid ran the bet through the system in the first place, and just concentrate on the facts.

[robert99]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

They didnt void the bet Robert, they said it was taken by error as it exceeded their limits on such races. All bookies have limits and can change the bet if taken in error or restrict it. I'm guessing it didnt exceed the limits in this case (would be more than £3k) but was taken without notifying the bet and its kicked the bookie in the nuts and is trying to limit the damage with the offer they made. Even Hills would have to notify a bet like that so am amazed he even thought he would get it on in the first place?

OP stated they will offer to "honour" only a £20 bet so £80 would be voided. Bookies do have such rules but they have to stick to them as well as display them. I suspect the "rule" here has been made up on the spot If it goes to Court, the Judge weighs up who is the professional that should know and apply his own rules - that is the bookmaker. The Judge only applies the law and the law does not allow for limits, pricing errors or restrictions. Such Terms and conditions would likely be classed as unfair and unlawful but they will not go to Court for it to rule on them. If bets are recoverable you cannot let one side (let alone both sides) pick and choose how much they will pay out. Once the bet is made - the bet is made. That is why in every case they pay up before going to Court.

[MPLouis]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

Legally you are covered by the UK Gambling Act. This for the first time made bets recoverable by law.

I checked on this and it appears that you are right. Gambling Act 2005 Part 17, section 335 Enforceability of gambling contracts (1)The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/part/17 I am sure that a lot of people don't realise it, and still believe (as I did) that bets are legally unenforceable.

[anth699]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand? surely if the cashier inputted the bet as a £1 stake,it would show on the bottom as a £1 stake not £100? if it shows as £100 on the bottom it has been put through the proper procedure,its up to the betting shop system to flag it up as a refferal bet,no middle ground here if it says £1 on the bet receipt you will struggle and i would take his offer,if it says £100 he has to pay!

[Jase82]

Once the bet is made - the bet is made. That is why in every case they pay up before going to Court.

Not necessarily. Companies will often settle up out of court to avoid a lengthy court case that could potentially also be damaging to them as a business. Just look at the case with the bank charges as an example. Settling out of court isn't an admission of guilt.

[MPLouis]

Re: Independent bookmaker - where do I stand?

Not necessarily. Companies will often settle up out of court to avoid a lengthy court case that could potentially also be damaging to them as a business. Just look at the case with the bank charges as an example. Settling out of court isn't an admission of guilt.

In the case of bank charges, the banks were clearly legally liable for unfair charges and I think that was one reason they did settle out of court. By settling out of court, they could put a cap on their costs. If the cases went to court (as I think some did), it could end up costing them a lot more - as well as the 'cost' of bad publicity.

[Jase82]

In the case of bank charges' date=' the banks were clearly legally liable for unfair charges and I think that was one reason they did settle out of court. By settling out of court, they could put a cap on their costs. If the cases went to court (as I think some did), it could end up costing them a lot more - as well as the 'cost' of bad publicity.[/quote'] But the banks went to court and won the judgement. That's the point I was making. Had they lost it would have ended up like the current PPI reclaiming.