- This topic has 41 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Trouble is, if they don’t include all this stuff in the Ts and Cs then they have no defence whatsoever do they?
I note that they only ‘reserve the right’ to close accounts for people betting on behalf of their mum/friend/dog/Barney Curley so my plan to call them up after this is over and ask them for all of my faithful pal Rex’s money back that he’s done in through me over the years is dead in the water.
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.
The T&Cs may be well written, and in plain English, but are they Right or Wrong, Fair or Unfair?. Para 4.2(e) allows bet365 to close or suspend an account if they just think something bad might happen in the future. Para 4.3 gives them the right to retain any money in the account when it is suspended or closed for the reason stated in 4.2(e). So, if bet365 accept a deposit of £25,000 from you, and before you have a bet, they think you might in the future collude with other people to share a bet and any winnings from it, they can close your account and retain any money in it. Now, I am sure that you are as straight as a die, and you have received a legacy of £500,000 from a long-lost relative, and decided to have a bit of fun with a small portion of it. But if bet365 accept your deposit and later suspect that you might be a wrong ‘un, they can close your account and keep your money. It’s there in plain English.
I think it is highly likely to be a syndicate job, but I would like to know what evidence bet365 have that the owner of the account is not genuine. Would they have to provide proof anyway? If their rules are deemed acceptable by the Gambling Commission, then they might win the case, but then it puts punters in an extremely poor position.
<p abp=”516″>It’s about time someone crunched a few numbers.
<p abp=”517″>Notwithstanding Joe’s success in reaching the appropriate paragraph in 3 minutes, if you were to read the <em abp=”518″>entire Terms & Conditions for bet365 you will be looking at circa 12,000 words.
<p abp=”519″><em abp=”520″>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.
<p abp=”521″>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 <em abp=”522″>Hamlet.
Like most terms and conditions they are overly long and often couched in terms that many would be unable to grapple with; remeber these are devised by lawyers who can spend all the time in the world on them and charge all the money in the world. It would be interesting to know whether this teenager had previously made large bets which either lost or didn’t give any substantial return; under those circumstances, she would have a considerable defence.
About five years ago Spreadex attempted to recover, via the High Court, £50,000 from a player that refused to pay his losses.
While the punter’s reason for not paying up was clearly risible, the judge found against Spreadex, ruling that the player was not responsible for the losses as the acceptance of the terms of service was not legally binding. His Lordship opined that the T’s & C’s were unfair in placing no obligations on Spreadex, rather that they made the player liable without limitation.
More specifically, Spreadex could refuse to accept bets without giving reasons and could withdraw access rights whenever it wanted. Hence Spreadex did not assume any obligations, while the customer assumed considerable risks without gaining any rights.
For these reasons the terms didn’t commit Spreadex to anything. And because there was no commitment by Spreadex, trades should have been agreed each time.
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), terms in a contract that cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer and that have not been individually negotiated are “unfair”.
Under the UTCCR, unfair terms are prohibited and not legally binding.
Of course, the above is an example of a bookmaker taking legal proceedings against a punter and having the case backfire on them. I’d really like to see a plaintiff pursue a bookmaker through the courts, merely to have the layer’s terms & conditions tested in law.
couple of points:
a) the news report is from 8 July. the first line of bet365 T&Cs today says “These Terms and Conditions are effective from 11/07/2017. All previous terms and conditions are cancelled.” wonder what has changed ?
b) the news report says the Belfast student “has lodged a writ in the High Court in Northern Ireland against Hillside (UK Sports) LP”.
The bet365 T&Cs say that bet365 in relation to “Sportsbook products – refers to Hillside (UK Sports) LP, a Limited Partnership incorporated in Gibraltar (Registration number 117), and with its principal place of business at Unit 1.1, First Floor, Waterport Place, 2 Europort Avenue, Gibraltar. All bets on Sportsbook products are considered to be placed and received in Gibraltar. Hillside (UK Sports) LP is licensed and regulated by the British Gambling Commission (Licence number 39563).
then, a bit later in section I:
” 4. Subject to paragraph B.3.1 above [Data Protection legislation in GB and Gib], these Terms and Conditions and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with it or its subject matter, whether of a contractual or non-contractual nature, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales.
5. By accepting these Terms and Conditions and/or placing bets or wagers and/or making use (whether authorised or not) of the facilities offered by bet365 (whether through the Website or otherwise), you irrevocably agree that the courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms and Conditions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, bet365 shall be entitled to bring a claim against a customer in the court of the customer’s country of domicile.”
so interesting to see how long the case stays in Northern Ireland – where incidentally (according to its website) the writ does not run of the British [ie not UK] Gambling Commission.
the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice of the British Gambling Commission are here:
In my day (God I sound old!!) three of these races would have been each way filth!! I still can’t believe that anyone thinks this girl has anything to do with this bet/bets and someone at bet365 needs a serious bollocking for taking these bets or someone in the IT department needs same for letting the bets get through!!
But having said that if they can prove that they are third party bets then surely they are covered by their own rules.
Surely there will be some sort of paper trail from the betting account backwards and in modern banking terms the bank account the money came from could be investigated for money laundering which would allow a further investigation and maybe an explanation of wher the money has come from which would probably prove there was a or some third parties involved.And also IMO this would not set a precedent because most punters do not try such subterfuge to get on but we do try one or two tricks!
both contractually and as regards moneylaundering regs, it appears the crux of this case will be who in substance rather than form was the counterparty to the contract with bet365.
ID is so important these days that i cannot see a Court rewarding anyone who the Court might ultimately decide has managed to circumvent the anti-moneylaundering policies and procedures of a particular bookie.
if indeed policies and procedures have been circumvented: who is to say that it is not an acceptable policy/procedure for the bookie to focus at point of outflow rather inflow ? after all, moneylaundering regs have a strong element of expecting “gateways” to play along to gain maximum info before they call a halt.
agree with homersimpson that it would be interesting to know whether here the stake is still with the bookie or whether it has been lodged with an appropriate authority (or else paid into Court, which could put interesting costs pressure on the claimant).
I still can’t believe that anyone thinks this girl has anything to do with this bet/bets
Does anyone? At least here. Nobody in their right mind would believe that a 19 year old girl would casually log on to Bet365 one evening, deposit 25k and place that bet. The majority of people that age couldn’t even properly explain an each way single. However it’s her name on it so surely from a legal point of view you have to assume she did until proven otherwise, which as you say must be possible. In fact they should ask her to explain the bet.
Also could those behind this (who are presumably funding the specialist lawyer etc) just turn round and tell the girl it’s her problem if they lose and there are costs etc awarded to 365? I know sod all about law but I assume that outcome is possible.
It would be interesting to know whether Bet365 laid off any of their mounting liability and whether this may have affected SPs of the selections as the bet progressed or that they won money as a result.
It would be interesting to know whether Bet365 laid off any of their mounting liability and whether this may have affected SPs of the selections as the bet progressed or that they won money as a result.
I suspect 365 didn’t even have the liability on their radar until the penultimate leg had been run. SP of the final leg suggests no significant hedge money was flying around either.
365’s whole business plan with racing is hard to fathom. When you include their extra place offers, BOG, free bet offers and enhanced ew terms (often all combined on bad ew races!) and note that they have a very punchy amount of black type on any given race (especially at disadvantageous times like ante post and overnight) they are often betting overbroke. It’s as if they’re treating racing as a loss leader – no bookmaker could seriously decide to bet to an effective 97% on a bad ew race and expect to make money. Surely the cross-sell between each-way thieves and football betting isn’t making up the shortfall for them,
If you have a clean bet365 account, look after it like a treasured possession. I hear they have employed The Grim Reaper in their customer profiling team within the last few months.
It would be interesting to know whether Bet365 laid off any of their mounting liability and whether this may have affected SPs of the selections as the bet progressed or that they won money as a result.
…….. each-way thieves ………
Here we go off on one again, you just can’t help your bitter self. If you don’t want to play in those type of races don’t price them up, not that Coral want to play anyway !!
<p abp=”448″>Here we go off on one again, you just can’t help your bitter self. If you don’t want to play in those type of races don’t price them up, not that Coral want to play anyway !!
Sorry but I’m not getting your drift.
Yikes, getting a bit personal there Timbo.
I think you’ve got a fair point in between all the vitriol though. Why don’t the big firms offer place-only instead of each-way on races with that kind of shape? How would you feel about that solution?
<p abp=”498″>Yikes, getting a bit personal there Timbo.
<p abp=”499″>I think you’ve got a fair point in between all the vitriol though. Why don’t the big firms offer place-only instead of each-way on races with that kind of shape? How would you feel about that solution?
I know many high street bookmakers will take Tote bets but will they take place doubles and trebles etc. The reason I questioned Tim’s post was because I couldn’t see how it applied to either what I or Lost Soldier wrote. I rarely if ever bet each way, nowadays and I think it’s generally a less popular bet than in years past.
<p abp=”498″>Yikes, getting a bit personal there Timbo.
<p abp=”499″>I think you’ve got a fair point in between all the vitriol though. Why don’t the big firms offer place-only instead of each-way on races with that kind of shape? How would you feel about that solution?
I know many high street bookmakers will take Tote bets but will they take place doubles and trebles etc. The reason I questioned Tim’s post was because I couldn’t see how it applied to either what I or Lost Soldier wrote. I rarely if ever bet each way, nowadays and I think it’s generally a less popular bet than in years past.
My reply was to the Lost Soldier’s post and had nothing to do with anything you’d written KB. The Soldier doesn’t like the odds on certain races being heavily stacked in the punter’s favour and has, on more than a few ocasions, referred to them as ‘thieves’.
Have bet365 not returned Vtc’s stake yet..?
Oooops think I let the cat out the bag
silly me….
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Yikes, getting a bit personal there Timbo.
I think you’ve got a fair point in between all the vitriol though. Why don’t the big firms offer place-only instead of each-way on races with that kind of shape? How would you feel about that solution?
I’d much prefer it remains as is. If wishing to bet place only there’s always the machines.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.