- This topic has 41 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
What a truly bizarre situation. More facts needed I think because there’s clearly more to this (on both sides) than being reported there.
A really interesting case. Both sides are probably (definitely 365, 99% likely the student too) in the wrong but I think you’ve got to make the student heavy favourite to get the verdict.
The student’s profile was quite blatantly a front for a commission agent and you’re being naive if you think she had any part in the original bet placement other than creating a clean account and supplying some clean details. How does a girl like that find the money for the best niche lawyer in the business? It’s almost certainly a commission agent raging because the coup has copped and the squad are banging on his door asking for their cut.
When we’re talking about this case, we shouldn’t be saying Bet365 v Miss McCann – it is really Bet365 v A N Other.
Although this is an obvious breach of Bet365’s terms of service, they stand little chance of winning because they accepted the deposits from this account, accepted the bets and only raised their qualms when the horses came in. In their partial defence, I suppose it is a logistical nightmare for an online bookmaker as it’s almost impossible to take preventative action in the first instance. A very high percentage of new female accounts making big deposits will be ungeniune/commission accounts, but you can’t make a sweeping generalisation at that stage. Even at the time of bet placement, presumably only large staking singles with a potential takeout above a predefined limit would come to the attention of their trading team. With that in mind, I sympathise with 365 in some ways and can understand how a rogue account’s multi would slip through the net.
Even so, it’s still a failing on 365’s part. The bookmaker has the right to refuse the bet at the point of placement but poor realtime systems and inattentive trading let this one get through. Once the bet is struck, they really don’t have any recourse. After all, as many are saying, 365 probably wouldn’t have taken any action if this coup had come to nothing. 365 stand little chance of winning the case and should eat their losses, learn from their failings and improve their systems.
A really interesting case. Both sides are probably (definitely 365, 99% likely the student too) in the wrong but I think you’ve got to make the student heavy favourite to get the verdict.
The student’s profile was quite blatantly a front for a commission agent and you’re being naive if you think she had any part in the original bet placement other than creating a clean account and supplying some clean details. How does a girl like that find the money for the best niche lawyer in the business? It’s almost certainly a commission agent raging because the coup has copped and the squad are banging on his door asking for their cut.
When we’re talking about this case, we shouldn’t be saying Bet365 v Miss McCann – it is really Bet365 v A N Other.
Although this is an obvious breach of Bet365’s terms of service, they stand little chance of winning because they accepted the deposits from this account, accepted the bets and only raised their qualms when the horses came in. In their partial defence, I suppose it is a logistical nightmare for an online bookmaker as it’s almost impossible to take preventative action in the first instance. A very high percentage of new female accounts making big deposits will be ungeniune/commission accounts, but you can’t make a sweeping generalisation at that stage. Even at the time of bet placement, presumably only large staking singles with a potential takeout above a predefined limit would come to the attention of their trading team. With that in mind, I sympathise with 365 in some ways and can understand how a rogue account’s multi would slip through the net.
Even so, it’s still a failing on 365’s part. The bookmaker has the right to refuse the bet at the point of placement but poor realtime systems and inattentive trading let this one get through. Once the bet is struck, they really don’t have any recourse. After all, as many are saying, 365 probably wouldn’t have taken any action if this coup had come to nothing. 365 stand little chance of winning the case and should eat their losses, learn from their failings and improve their systems.
I think that’s likely to be a most accurate summary, LS. Pretty much exactly my thoughts.
I can’t help feeling that B365 has queered it’s pitch here by not even returning her stake money though. It sort of takes the ‘void’ element out of play.
Mike
Very damaging PR for them however it turns out. Could you imagine if 365 won the case, it would set a legal precedent for all bookies to follow.
Saying that, it could also make previous bets void for the thousands of people who have placed bets for other people that have lost. Would these be returned, doubt it ?
The bookies have shot themselves in the foot with this excessive limiting of accounts. I got limited off one of them to £1.50 with no BOG, no NRNB and no enhanced places. But i am allowed to play as much as i want on the Casino
These companies should be forced to advertise that anyone who wins are not welcome but we will gladly take the souls of losers.
Another can of worms altogether, but it makes your blood boil.
<p abp=”207″>A really interesting case. Both sides are probably (definitely 365, 99% likely the student too) in the wrong but I think you’ve got to make the student heavy favourite to get the verdict.
<p abp=”208″>The student’s profile was quite blatantly a front for a commission agent and you’re being naive if you think she had any part in the original bet placement other than creating a clean account and supplying some clean details. How does a girl like that find the money for the best niche lawyer in the business? It’s almost certainly a commission agent raging because the coup has copped and the squad are banging on his door asking for their cut.
<p abp=”209″>When we’re talking about this case, we shouldn’t be saying Bet365 v Miss McCann – it is really Bet365 v A N Other.
<p abp=”210″>Although this is an obvious breach of Bet365’s terms of service, they stand little chance of winning because they accepted the deposits from this account, accepted the bets and only raised their qualms when the horses came in. In their <em abp=”211″>partial defence, I suppose it is a logistical nightmare for an online bookmaker as it’s almost impossible to take preventative action in the first instance. A very high percentage of new female accounts making big deposits will be ungeniune/commission accounts, but you can’t make a sweeping generalisation at that stage. Even at the time of bet placement, presumably only large staking singles with a potential takeout above a predefined limit would come to the attention of their trading team. With that in mind, I sympathise with 365 in some ways and can understand how a rogue account’s multi would slip through the net.
<p abp=”212″>Even so, it’s still a failing on 365’s part. The bookmaker has the right to refuse the bet at the point of placement but poor realtime systems and inattentive trading let this one get through. Once the bet is struck, they really don’t have any recourse. After all, as many are saying, 365 probably wouldn’t have taken any action if this coup had come to nothing. 365 stand little chance of winning the case and should eat their losses, learn from their failings and improve their systems.
<p abp=”213″>I think that’s likely to be a most accurate summary, LS. Pretty much exactly my thoughts.
<p abp=”214″>I can’t help feeling that B365 has queered it’s pitch here by not even returning her stake money though. It sort of takes the ‘void’ element out of play.
<p abp=”215″>Mike
Bet365’s argument is that their conditions state bets place on behalf of others is against the rules, the lady’s contention is that the rule is buried away in a mass of conditions and not that obvious; I know what she means and like many online agreements are both overly long and frequently complicated to the extent if we all read every word of agreements, we’d never do anything else.
She also has the benefit of precedent (Barney Curly) and, as you claim, no apparent attempt by Bet365 to pull out of the bet at any time.
Some years ago I lived in France where bookmakers are illegal. I had an online account with a British bookmaker and I only bet on British races, unaware that this was illegal. Like all punters, I lost some and won some until one evening I only won, in fact within an hour or two I’d wone close on £700. I place my next bet and had a message flashed up telling me I had an email. I opened the email which told me that had closed my account due to the fact I lived in France swhere I was betting illegally, despite the fact that my registration with them was from my French address and I’d been betting with them for some time. Not quite in the same class as the Bet365 case but the principle is not much different.
Anyone recall the Dagenham dog case from 50 or more years ago, similar in that bookies squeal like stuck pigs when the punters do exactly the same thing bookmqakers do.
I can’t help feeling that B365 has queered it’s pitch here by not even returning her stake money though. It sort of takes the ‘void’ element out of play.
Exactly, it is surely either void or paid in full (their max payout for UK + Ire racing is £1 million so no issues there). And had the stake been returned and she, for whatever reason, had withdrawn it, they could have perhaps argued that it constituted acceptance of the outcome.
It’ll be interesting to see where the funds came from. This will presumably have to be established regardless of whether or not that part of the conditions is eventually deemed valid. Would also be interesting to know if there was ever any other activity on this account.
Speaking of the conditions, the lawyer’s argument about them not being clear to the ‘average punter’ doesn’t really wash as clearly she is not an ‘average punter’. I’d argue anyone punting £25k should probably make themselves aware of the Ts and Cs beforehand.
I doubt the girl in question placed the bets and to be honest she probably never went anywhere near this account!!
When I used to what for T and K we regularly placed these kind of bets for a certain Colin Webster!
And what we used to do was split them up and place six individual doubles with separate bookies and so on!!
But to that on this occasion would have taken days!! It is a perm lucky fifteen for gods sake!! Do we think a young female student would even know what one of them is??Lost Soldier has this bang on!! And to be honest if you have worked in the industry then you are more likely to know the ins and outs of this case.
One other point: What sort of bookmaker wouldn’t want to lay permed Lucky 15s from here to eternity anyway?
Mike
I can’t help feeling that B365 has queered it’s pitch here by not even returning her stake money though. It sort of takes the ‘void’ element out of play.
Exactly, it is surely either void or paid in full (their max payout for UK + Ire racing is £1 million so no issues there). And had the stake been returned and she, for whatever reason, had withdrawn it, they could have perhaps argued that it constituted acceptance of the outcome.
If Bet365 are claiming fraudulent activity then I don’t think they can return the stake. POCA probably says it should be paid to the relevant authority until the case is decided.
One other point: What sort of bookmaker wouldn’t want to lay permed Lucky 15s from here to eternity anyway?
Mike
It was a bad e/w lucky 15 apparently. Involved unraced maidens and a Johnny Levins handicap project.
Quite incredible this got laid for this account profile, these horses and such huge stakes.
I wouldn’t be so sure that Bet365 will lose this. Arguably, if there are lots of rules, any particular one could be said to be ‘buried’ depending on how it suits your case. In this one the rule is pretty prominent in being among those under 4 (I reached it within 3 minutes of reading). Relevant para appears to be C:
4. Suspension and Closure
4.1 If you want to close your account, please Contact Us. Any negative balance on your account will fall immediately due and payable to bet365, and your account will not be closed until the relevant amount owed to bet365 is paid in full.
4.2 bet365 reserves the right to close or suspend your account at any time and for any reason. Without limiting the preceding sentence, bet365 shall be entitled to close or suspend your account if:
(a) you become bankrupt;
(b) bet365 considers that you have used the Website in a fraudulent manner or for illegal and/or unlawful or improper purposes;
(c) bet365 considers that you have used the Website in an unfair manner, have deliberately cheated or taken unfair advantage of bet365 or any of its customers or if your account is being used for the benefit of a third party;
(d) bet365 is requested to do so by the police, any regulatory authority or court;
(e) bet365 considers that any of the events referred to in (a) to (c) above may have occurred or are likely to occur; or
(f) your account is deemed to be dormant and its balance is, or reaches zero in accordance with paragraph B.5.1 below.
4.3 If bet365 closes or suspends your account for any of the reasons referred to in (a) to (e) above, you shall be liable for any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses incurred or suffered by bet365 (together “Claims”) arising therefrom and shall indemnify and hold bet365 harmless on demand for such Claims. In the circumstances referred to in (a) to (e) above, bet365 shall also be entitled to withhold and/or retain any and all amounts which would otherwise have been paid or payable to you (including any winnings or bonus payments).
As well as abiding by its own rules, bet365 have to work within the laws of the land. Just a few minutes searching a couple of public domain documents adds a bit of weight to the other side of the scales of justice.
The two documents are:
1. Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 incorporating amendments of 1 October 1914. The Regulations implement the European Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC).
2. The Gambling Commission’s Code of Practice
There are many ways in which the bet365 Terms & Conditions might, or might not, be in breach of Trading Regulations, but one way might be: “If a trader has signed up to a code of practice, then if it fails to follow this code, it could be a breach of the Regulations. “ By default, bet365 is signed up to the Gambling Commission’s Code of Practice because that comes with the betting licence it has been granted. Under the Section: Fair Terms 4.1.1 “Licensees must be able to provide evidence to the Commission, if required, showing how they satisfied themselves that their terms are not unfair.” It could be argued that bet365 T&Cs sections 4.2 and 4.3 are unfair because one party to the “contract “ claims for itself the role of arbiter and that this party to the contract, bet365, only has to show that it considers that wrongdoing by the other party might happen. They do not have to prove or even show, or even suspect, but “bet365 considers … may have occurred or are likely to occur.” In effect, this means that bet365 can strike down any winning bet it chooses to, without reference to anyone else. They could, in theory, strike down all winning bets. This just might be considered unfair.
I am sure that smarter minds than mine, well versed in the interconnectedness of Terms, Conditions, Regulations, and Acts of Parliament would have been looking over every nook and cranny to find several of these little wrinkles to upset bet365’s applecart. I just love these courtroom dramas.
It’s about time someone crunched a few numbers.
Notwithstanding Joe’s success in reaching the appropriate paragraph in 3 minutes, if you were to read the entire Terms & Conditions for bet365 you will be looking at circa 12,000 words.
Comedy of Errors, admittedly Shakespeare’s shortest play, comes in at 14,701 words (according to someone who counted them once). The play is in two acts – one of 50 minutes and another of 40 minutes. Therefore if you were to listen to Sir Ian Mckellan reciting bet365’s T’s & C’s on stage, the performance would last about 72 minutes. Obviously, reading these T’s & C’s would be quicker than listening to them but it would still take an unacceptably long time.
This is not to argue that bet365 is the worst offender. Paypal’s T’s & C’s run to 50,000 words which, for those who are interested in this kind of thing, is about 60% longer than the script for Hamlet.
At the risk of coming across as a 365 apologist here, their Ts & Cs are well written, all in all. Neatly laid out so they’re easily readable and, most importantly, are in plain English.
A fair size chunk at the end are your standard betting rules – limits etc., rather than Ts and Cs.
Like most others, if the punter wins this a part of me would cheer loudly. But there’s another part that says it’s hard enough for straight, everyday punters to get a decent bet without some Curley-type syndicate making life more bloody difficult for us by having the bookies tighten up another notch.
Yep. Bookies spend a lot on Lawyers and the advice is bury the “enemy” in paper…
It’s about time someone crunched a few numbers.
Notwithstanding Joe’s success in reaching the appropriate paragraph in 3 minutes, if you were to read the entire Terms & Conditions for bet365 you will be looking at circa 12,000 words.
Comedy of Errors, admittedly Shakespeare’s shortest play, comes in at 14,701 words (according to someone who counted them once). The play is in two acts – one of 50 minutes and another of 40 minutes. Therefore if you were to listen to Sir Ian Mckellan reciting bet365’s T’s & C’s on stage, the performance would last about 72 minutes. Obviously, reading these T’s & C’s would be quicker than listening to them but it would still take an unacceptably long time.
This is not to argue that bet365 is the worst offender. Paypal’s T’s & C’s run to 50,000 words which, for those who are interested in this kind of thing, is about 60% longer than the script for Hamlet.
Best Wishes
Silk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.