Ladbrokes Betting Blunder/Refusing to Pay

[AussieGambler21]

Hey guys the following is a link to the Sydney Morning Herald Website where this article has just been updated about a Ladbrokes betting blunder. I think it is quite interesting so here it is:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Moderators: I couldn't find the rules for posting articles and links to articles so please feel free to completely edit this post so it complies with the rules. I just wanted to get the link up as it is a very interesting article involving Ladbrokes

 

[Pocketdiggers77]

I saw this and it is the books fault and they should pay for it. They booked the bet they should honor it and pay out. Of course they won't but any good book should. Of course the account is closed afterwards but IMO the book should still pay simply because they booked the bet and AFTER it won they tried to get out of it.

PD

 

[AussieGambler21]

I saw this and it is the books fault and they should pay for it. They booked the bet they should honor it and pay out. Of course they won't but any good book should. Of course the account is closed afterwards but IMO the book should still pay simply because they booked the bet and AFTER it won they tried to get out of it.

PD

I couldn't agree more, if he had lost they would have just said thankyou and taken his money, they probably even would have said they would have paid it out if it won but we now know that wouldn't have happened as is evident here.

I play a fair bit on Ladbrokes online poker and live dealer casino and never go near the sports book but i dont think this will hurt them too much because of their reputation and quick payouts. I think this case is an exception not the rule.

 

[same_old]

Yep it is totally crap, I feel this person has a strong case,

Firslty, lets just say these bets had lost- the client would be none the wiser and would think it was a losing bet. Ladbrokes of course wouldnt check it as it is a losing bet so in the end again the client would have lost out.

The only time it came to there attention was when they saw they needed to pay out millions an then back track and say this shouldnt have been on offer but we have taken the bet and it has stood for months until we noticed, im sorry but that just doesnt wash.

These massive companies pour so much money into there system to make them better to generate the money coming in, how about putting some of that money towards a better full proof system where this shit doesnt happen??

Of course it wotn becasue it is not viable and doesnt generate revenue for the company but we at the end of the day get the raw end of the deal.

If I were this client I would not let this go at all.

 

[jetset]

Ladbrokes have referred the guy to IBAS where he can seek arbitration, but practically speaking I don't see them paying him GBP 7.1 million - that would be too big a hit for even Ladbrokes.

My feeling is that there will be a settlement here for considerably more than the GBP 30-odd that is actually due on single rather than accumulator bets.

Ladbrokes are actually on public record as apologising and accepting responsibility for the screw-up, which is an excellent position for the punter to be in.

I agree that this guy should persevere, as I think a significant settlement will be achieved if he does.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know the extent of such a deal - it'll be wrapped in a non-disclosure agreement.

 

[same_old]

What would you feel is an acceptable amount, at least one million i would think.

 

[Wildfire7]

If this were an accumulator bet why not deduct the Christmas bet from the accumulator and pay as if the Christmas bet were a non runner.

I can see where Ladbrokes are coming from, its a bit like on other specials they do. These specials ought to be on a seperate betting coupon so the cashier could spot it when they feed the slip it into the system.

Its unfortunate such a large amount was involved, I have a feeling if this was a small bet they may have paid out.

Mike

 

[KasinoKing]

Here's the story (if inappropriate to post, can a mod delete it please)

British bookmaker Ladbrokes is refusing to pay out more than 7 million ($12 million) to a man who gambled on a white Christmas across Britain, as the bet was accepted by mistake.

Cliff Bryant, 52, had placed two 5 accumulator bets that snow would fall on 24 towns and cities across the north of England on Christmas Day.

"We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet when our own rules state that only single bets are available on a market of this nature," a Ladbrokes spokesman said.

"We are happy to void the bets and to pay the customer his winnings on the relevant singles."

However, they amount to just 31.78 ($55), rather than the 7.1 million Mr Bryant was expecting.

I can't see him getting a very big settlement out of this - the rules were broken, either on purpose, or accidentally - but rules is rules!

KK

 

[jetset]

What would you feel is an acceptable amount, at least one million i would think.

I think a million might be a little too ambitious

 

[Webzcas]

I bet the trader that took the bet is in hot water. Or should I say orbis as they provide the telephone betting and sportsbook software.

This is 'rick' of monumental proportions.

 

[maphesto]

Can anyone see in the T&C or other rules where it say that the bet isn`t allowed?

If it`s there, it`s the same as playing roulette not allowed games with a slots bonus.

 

[sparkz]

weather or not the bet was part of their "rules" the bet was still taken by them, if there was any problems with it they should of checked before the "results" happened,

even as a gesture of goodwill they should still payout.. even a small bit of it, offering $55 is simply outrageous... at least $200,000 should be paid out

the guy must be gutted, it must be like checking your numbers for the lottery, seeing youve won, being all excited, then after having a message saying the draw was invalid...

 

[4 of a kind]

If this bet was taken in Vegas, do you think he gets paid regardless?

 

[maphesto]

weather or not the bet was part of their "rules" the bet was still taken by them, if there was any problems with it they should of checked before the "results" happened

Online casinos often take bets on roulette with a slots bonus. I even comes bonuses automatically. I f the player lose the casino doesn`t give the money back. Same shit.

But I really want to see those rules at Ladbrokes, I didn`t find them.

 

[LOOKAWAY]

They should pay out 2x24 single bets. As accumulator bets are not allowed.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The agent who took the bet is considered to be the professional, and the punter a consumer. The professional is expected to reject the bet at the time if it breaches the rules. It has been the same with other business contracts, in particular where the government has entered into expensive contracts because they failed to check the clauses properly, and this has cost the taxpayer BILLIONS of pounds more that it should have. The government have said they are unable to unwind the agreements just because they turned sour, they are stuck with them because they entered into them.

It should be no different whatever the business, why should a betting business get special treatment, and be allowed to breach a contract properly entered into with a customer just because it turned sour on them, even if it was entered into by an incompetent member of staff who should have known differently.

In this particular case, it should have been BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS to the agent, even WITHOUT reading through the rules, because weather is an event that takes place over an area, so snow in 24 different towns and cities are NOT independent events, they are all connected together by the weather situation on the day. This kind of event does NOT lend itself to accumulator betting.

In any event, there is usually an overall maximum payout per punter per day or accumulator bet, and this is probably far less than the 7 million claimed.

Even if he fails, there is still the question of whether similar kinds of bets have been taken in the past, where they would be void under the rules, but were never refunded because the punter thought they had lost.

The publicity and analysis will be a considerable embarrassment, because punters will think they cannot trust the agents taking their bets to get it right.

 

[Wildfire7]

As a regular customer of Ladbrokes land based operations, I am very familiar with the myriad of coupons they have on offer from week to week.

A punter who is capable of formulating an accumulator wager should really be asking the question if special bets can be added to doubles upwards.

For instance anybody who has ever placed a football bet will be aware that some matches are not allowed as singles, minimum trebles upwards accepted. It is clearly marked on the coupon. However problems only begin to surface when the punter starts using regular betting slips, as he may not be aware of the rules. It is entirely the customers responsibility to educate himself upon the rules.

Weather bets are deemed special bets, the same as political bets and entertainment bets such as who will win the Xfactor. These are unique bets which cannot even be cross doubled with another special bet.

By the sounds of things this customer made a genuine error, which has cost him dearly. The customer by adding the weather bet to an accumulator did not obtain an odds advantage, the odds were not long odds on, they were odds against, the event happened, BUT he broke the rules. A very basic rule at that. Punters who are gambling in betting shops should really learn the basics, before they start tackling complex wagers.

I have seen many people in betting shops who try to play the system to their advantage, like marking Xs in the middle of a football coupon or scrawny writing that could be one of 2 horses running that day and piling loads of bets onto 1 slip so it can be disputed either way.

Ideally in this particular case the bet should be split into 2 separate bets. 1 single for the weather bet, and 1 fully permed accumulator for the bets that are left. This is how the original bet should have been made.
This is the solution I envisage Ladbrokes will offer the customer as a gesture of good will and to be seen to be fair.

Mike

 

[vinylweatherman]

As a regular customer of Ladbrokes land based operations, I am very familiar with the myriad of coupons they have on offer from week to week.

A punter who is capable of formulating an accumulator wager should really be asking the question if special bets can be added to doubles upwards.

For instance anybody who has ever placed a football bet will be aware that some matches are not allowed as singles, minimum trebles upwards accepted. It is clearly marked on the coupon. However problems only begin to surface when the punter starts using regular betting slips, as he may not be aware of the rules. It is entirely the customers responsibility to educate himself upon the rules.

Weather bets are deemed special bets, the same as political bets and entertainment bets such as who will win the Xfactor. These are unique bets which cannot even be cross doubled with another special bet.

By the sounds of things this customer made a genuine error, which has cost him dearly. The customer by adding the weather bet to an accumulator did not obtain an odds advantage, the odds were not long odds on, they were odds against, the event happened, BUT he broke the rules. A very basic rule at that. Punters who are gambling in betting shops should really learn the basics, before they start tackling complex wagers.

I have seen many people in betting shops who try to play the system to their advantage, like marking Xs in the middle of a football coupon or scrawny writing that could be one of 2 horses running that day and piling loads of bets onto 1 slip so it can be disputed either way.

Ideally in this particular case the bet should be split into 2 separate bets. 1 single for the weather bet, and 1 fully permed accumulator for the bets that are left. This is how the original bet should have been made.
This is the solution I envisage Ladbrokes will offer the customer as a gesture of good will and to be seen to be fair.

Mike

This assumes the punter is a regular customer. The "white Christmas" bet is something of a tradition here in the UK, and attracts bets from people who do NOT bet regularly. The Grand National is another of these traditions. These punters may only make these two bets every year, and otherwise only play the national lottery games.

You CANNOT expect a customer to be better educated about the rules than the agent accepting the bet. The agent should have refused the bet, telling the customer he could only make single bets. Since this is such a big tradition here (betting on a white Christmas), there is NO excuse for the agent getting it so spectacularly wrong, as he should have known instinctively without even checking the rules that this bet could not be accepted.

It rather looks as though Ladbrokes policy is to accept invalid bets, and ONLY check thoroughly if a punter claims winnings. This allows them to pocket stake money from LOSING bets that should never have been accepted, and only pay back the stake if the customer realises.

This story may well produce a number of customers claiming back their stake for a losing bet because it should not have been accepted, because Ladbrokes have now shown these mistakes are being made. This will include many "chancers" trying to get their losing stakes refunded on minor technicalities, even where Ladbrokes WOULD have paid out had they won.

 

[Wildfire7]

This assumes the punter is a regular customer. The "white Christmas" bet is something of a tradition here in the UK, and attracts bets from people who do NOT bet regularly. The Grand National is another of these traditions. These punters may only make these two bets every year, and otherwise only play the national lottery games.

IMO this particular customer probably does not fit into this MO of customer as his wager was an accumulator. Punters capable of understanding accumulator wagers, will more than likely be aware of the rules governing special bets.

You CANNOT expect a customer to be better educated about the rules than the agent accepting the bet. The agent should have refused the bet, telling the customer he could only make single bets. Since this is such a big tradition here (betting on a white Christmas), there is NO excuse for the agent getting it so spectacularly wrong, as he should have known instinctively without even checking the rules that this bet could not be accepted.

Many cashiers who work in bookmakers are part time cashiers, agents they may well be, but they cannot be expected to know all the nuances of the industry. It simply is not in their job description. If you look at the situations vacant pages and look for cashier jobs, they will often advertise that they are looking for people who can work well under pressure, with good communication and people skills. They do not advertise for highly educated candidates with a degree, most are not on much more than the national minimum wage. Cashiers are accepting the bets the punters write out then feed it into their system. Which is their primary task for the job they are performing.

If I were to go into a betting shop and write a bet out for a tenner that Mickey mouse will be the next Prime Minister of the UK, the cashier would accept my bet. The machine will reprint my copy of the bet, and the cashier will take my money. The cashier or the machine do not physically read my bet, it will simply give the cashier the total to pay. So it comes back to the punter to ensure that what he writes on a betting slip is correct at the time of going to the counter.

It rather looks as though Ladbrokes policy is to accept invalid bets, and ONLY check thoroughly if a punter claims winnings. This allows them to pocket stake money from LOSING bets that should never have been accepted, and only pay back the stake if the customer realises.

Ladbrokes handles millions of bets correctly on a daily basis, yet now and again some bets that should not have been accepted slip through the net. So a handful of bets out of several million is hardly company policy.

This story may well produce a number of customers claiming back their stake for a losing bet because it should not have been accepted, because Ladbrokes have now shown these mistakes are being made. This will include many "chancers" trying to get their losing stakes refunded on minor technicalities, even where Ladbrokes WOULD have paid out had they won.

This story may well produce a number of customers realising that when they write out their betting slips, they need to be more careful. Those "chancers" will always be around no matter how well Ladbrokes handles their bets. Punters can always ask for help from the management or even from other punters in the shop.

You know the type VWM, housewives and grannys coming into betting shops on Grand National day asking regulars what does each way mean etc. It just shows you that even the occassional players who find betting shops daunting to even enter, will ask the question before they place their bet. So why couldn't our friend with the accumulator?

Mike

 

[Simmo!]

I'm with Wildfire on this one. And I suspect the punter knew full well that what he was doing was an unrealistic bet involving events that were not mutually exclusive. A sttlement is in order though and I suspect he'll get one.

Like your Mickey Mouse bet Wildfire. You must have made a fortune when Brown got in

 

[Thrap]

Weather bet

I dont know the ins and outs of betting and gambling, or what the actual bet in question was, but I do live in the UK and I dont remember it snowing anywhere on Christmas day. Maybe I'm wrong but its a big deal to the majority of Brits to have a few flakes on the 25th. It would have been headline news!