-
Posts
-
No £7.1m payout after bet ‘error’
Bookmaker Ladbrokes has refused to pay out an accumulator bet worth £7.1 million to a man who wagered snow would fall on Christmas Day because it was accepted by mistake.
Bookmaker Ladbrokes has refused to pay out an accumulator bet worth £7.1 million to a man who wagered snow would fall on Christmas Day because it was accepted by mistake.
Cliff Bryant, 52, from Southampton, placed two £5 accumulators on snow falling across 24 towns and cities in the North and Midlands on December 25.
But staff at the bookmakers accepted the gamble by mistake as the company rules state such a wager can only be a single bet.
At The End Of The Day, The Bet Was Accepted, The Cash Was Taken – What Do You Think?
It was their mistake, not his, so they should pay up, or at least compensate him, but bet they don`t. Probably offer him a years worth of free bets :lol:
I can’t see them paying up, but yes, I agree, they should at least compensate him..
I’m guessing that IF he doesn’t get the full amount, then he’ll receive One Million, to Two Point Five. Do you think I should put a bet on that?.. :lol:
bets such as this are supposed to go to the top man to give odds etc , ive made simular type bets , random things , and they fone the top man , so surley he would know the policies, sounds like a kop out,surley the bloke is gettin solicitors involved ??
@tictax wrote:
bets such as this are supposed to go to the top man to give odds etc , ive made simular type bets , random things , and they fone the top man , so surley he would know the policies, sounds like a kop out,surley the bloke is gettin solicitors involved ??
I don’t know much about betting, so if bets as such are supposed to go to the Top Man, then maybe, just maybe, the person who took the bet, is in some way related to the punter, cousin/friend,.. and they’ve organised it between them!!.. Do You Think?
dunno coz the bookie would have to work the odds out for a bet like that and not just the cashiers
I dont know if it’s still the case but bookmakers didnt have to pay out anything simply give you your stake back. Of course they’d soon be out of business if they did that
Strictly speaking, a gambling debt is unenforceable in law i.e. you cannot sue in the Courts for your ‘winnings’ if the bookie refuses to pay you.
It would be interesting if, as most ‘professional’ gamblers do, this punter paid the betting tax on his bet when he placed it – rather than in any possible winnings he might have received. If he did this, then the bookie would have to have accepted the bet aa they would have to account to HMRC for the betting tax element.
This would make it somewhat difficult for the bookie to deny that a valid bet had been placed and accepted.
My guess is that they will come to an ‘arrangement’ with the punter so as to avoid bad publicity.
u dnt pay tax on bets anymore
@tictax wrote:
u dnt pay tax on bets anymore
Oh well …. another good theory bites the dust!!!
Mind you, from my (above) stupid comment, you can probably figure out that I haven’t bet on stuff for decades.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!