Miss McCann staked almost £25,000 on 12 different horses in four relatively obscure races, winning £985,000 from the betting giant. But the betting company, whose chief executive is Ms Coates, has declined to honour the wager. Full article
When quizzed in detail about the "third party" clause in Bet365s terms and conditions, here was the response from a representative of the online bookmaker:
No doubt if the bet had lost they would have refunded the stake. Surely, if there is a rule that says the stake must come from you alone, there should be a question on the betting screen requesting this confirmation, particularly if the stake (or potential return) is beyond a specified limit. The fact that the question was not asked, the bet was accepted and confirmed twice that the pay-out would be made makes this whole thing ludicrous. As the lawyers say, the client placed a bet, the bet was accepted, pay out. Can't think why they are refusing to pay out. Yes, it may seem odd for a 19 year old student to have so much money available for betting but the rule is ludicrous and too vague to be of any legal standing. Suspected money laundering/inside information/third party involvement should be covered by a clear rule and the bet should be questioned/referred at time of stake. They can't be allowed to only query the bet if it comes in. If the winnings are paid out and a large sum disappears from her account maybe it should be investigated but short of that I can't see how they can refuse the payout
As far as I'm concerned if the bet is accepted, or struck as id call it then you have to honour that bet. That rule that they have in their terms and conditions is a ridiculous one. So no one ever puts on a bet for someone else? Bet 365, or as I call them Bet £3.65 are without doubt the worst online bookmaker. Only customers who can regularly bet with them are your general mug punters. Anyone who's abit shrewd and knows what they are doing gets their accounts heavily restricted. Glad to hear that they have been taken to the cleaners here, and I hope they are forced to pay her all the money she is owed.
Bookmakers are absolute vermin at the present time, it's increasingly hard to get a decent wager on with any of them and the situation seems to be worsening. You try to avoid online restrictions and go old school, i.e. into the shop and they even pick up the phone for any bet of size to turn round and offer you £20 at their price and the rest at SP. Not sure where it's going to end, seems bookmakers nowadays only want those who do their brains on those machines or people that bet 10p lucky picks etc
Totally agree mate. I've noticed that my usual on line bookie Skybet are now mostly 1/5 the odds on most races not 1/4. They are virtually robbing us. What next? 1/5 first 3 in the Grand National??????
All e/w odds are standard with all bookies, the only time they can go 1/5 when standard is 1/4 is when they pay an extra place so no, it won't be 1/5 on the national.
They cannot pay 1/5 the odds on any race that should be 1/4, regardless of wether they offer an extra place. They are breaking the rules of their license if they do.
Erm yes they can and do regularly, Skybet tomorrow for example https://www.oddschecker.com/horse-racing/2017-07-10-ripon/19:15/winner
Does it make me an outcast that apparently it seems I'm the only person on here who can get a bet on with B365?
That's news to me. it must be some sort of special market that, that you'd have to specify that you wanted. As betting rules say that race should be 1/4. For example if I just walked into a sky bet shop and had an EW bet, and my horse was 2nd, I doubt they'd pay me out at 1/5, as by the rules they aren't allowed to.
If you want proof of the rules here they are http://www.tattersallscommittee.co....tersalls Committee Rules on Betting FINAL.pdf
Shops are different (do skybet even have any?) , these are online offers only, 6.05 Windsor is also 4 places 1/5 instead of 3 places 1/4. Have a look on oddschecker on a Saturday, there is usually a big 16 runner + handicap where Lads Coral Hills etc go 5 places 1/5
I think they have a few shops, not many though. They can probably get away with it aslong as its clearly stated on the market and on the reciept then.
Yes if you look you can always see the place terms are different for these extra place races. Up until recently most books would go 5 places 1/4 on the big Saturday handicaps, now most do 5 places 1/5 if they are offering an extra place, Paddy and Sky often pay 6 places, this is the reason http://www.lock-in-a-profit.org/extra-place-promotions/
Only just noticed the number of comments made about Tattersalls Committee Rules Of Betting, where it does appear that a few people may have got the wrong idea about the Rules. These Rules pre-date betting shops by a long way and were originally intended for on-course bookmakers as there were no laws covering wagering as it was considered a gentleman’s agreement. The rules are periodically reviewed. In Rule 3, they do lay out the standard place terms for races according to the size of the field and the type of race. At most racecourses these place terms are often stipulated in the bookmakers’ licence to stand a pitch. I have noticed at some racecourses that these standard place terms have been varied when they are quoted in the official race card; however, as I rarely bet each-way it is not an issue to me. Although there are standard place terms, bookmakers are perfectly within their rights to offer alternative place terms provided that their alternative terms are clearly displayed. So if they wanted to bet 1/5 odds 1-2-3 on the Grand National, they could do so. I do note that often when I see bookmakers on Oddschecker offering 5 or 6 places on a race with 1/5 odds rather than 1/4, they are also offering shorter odds on quite a few of the longer priced horses to compensate for the fact that they have more of them to pay out on. With regard to Ms McCann’s legal action against Bet365, I think that the bookmaker probably has reasonable grounds for expecting that the case will fall. In the first instance Ms McCann needs to prove that the £25,000 staked was her own money, which does not seem very probable given that she is a 19 year old student. Whilst Bet365’s terms and conditions may be long and convoluted – and most punters will not have read them – if they do stipulate that stakes must be the bettor’s own money then the onus is on the bettor to comply and their failure to actually read the rules and understand them is not the bookmaker’s fault. On a virtually automated web site that deals with thousands of transactions daily, it would be virtually impossible for the bookmaker to check and verify every wager. I note that nobody has indicated whether this bet is part of a regular betting pattern by Ms McCann. Does she do 960 £13 Lucky 15s on poor quality evening meetings every day of the week? Clearly it is some sort of perm system that is going to come good infrequently when four outsiders win. It seems pretty clear that the rules about wagering money for other people is not intended to catch out Fred putting ten pounds on the National for his wife Freda. It is intended to stop people money laundering for criminal gangs. Clearly the plaintiff’s lawyers will be playing the doe-eyed young innocent being victimised by the large rich corporation – she should get Jezza in as her star witness! Given that the defendant claims the wager infringes their rules, they should at least be returning her stakes; unless the authorities have reason to believe that they are the proceeds of some illegality in which case they should confiscate them.
So what would have happened if the bet had been a losing bet? Why should she have to prove the money was hers? If they are refusing to pay out they should have to prove the money wasn't hers I can't believe you said that QM. With a fully automated system, it would be the easiest thing in the world to refer bets outside defined parameters to their Security/Fraud dept (that's what Mastecard do). If they can't design their system to validate bets they shouldn't be in business. Obviously they could but they choose not to until a bet wins. They should make their rules more specific and appropriate for what they are trying to achieve and design their systems accordingly. ****ers .
