1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Betfair "Happy Hour" promo - possible solution for UK players

Discussion in 'Casino Complaints - Bonus Issues' started by Casinomeister, May 31, 2013.

    May 31, 2013
  1. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    I've kept Max pretty busy this week, and one thing on his plate was doing a bit of research on Betfair's Happy Hour promotion and how some player may find a way to be compensated for any legitimate winnings that may have been confiscated.

    This is not legal advice but a road map for a possible solution for UK players:

    Please pass the word to anyone that may fall into this category. Thanks!
     
    7 people like this.
  2. May 31, 2013
  3. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Yes, the fees you quote are the maximum you could pay when a claim is below the SCC threshold of 5000 pounds.

    Here are some extra details for those who feel intimidated, and whose claim is for a lower amount:

    Taking somebody to the Small Claims Court in the UK will cost you money, there is a sliding scale of costs depending on how much you claim, for example, if you are claiming £1000 from a person or business, it will cost you £140* in Court fees. If you are claiming for £4000, the fees will be £465*.
    (*These are the total Court fees to take a Small Claims case, in England & Wales, through to a Judgment, figures correct as at Jan 2013).

    There are three separate sliding scale court fees that make up the figure(s) quoted above, each fee is payable separately. You pay one fee up-front to start your claim and the other fees are then payable as the Case progresses through the Court system, if you win the case you’ll get your fees back, e.g. if you claim £4000 and win the Case, the defendant will be ordered to pay your claim + costs, i.e. £4465.

    Small claims court fees are detailed on the justice.gov.uk website in Form EX50, they are as follows:
    A Fee to Start your Claim (sliding scale: £25-£100)
    A Fee to Allocate your Claim to a Court Track (£40) only payable if your claim is for more than £1500
    A Hearing Fee (sliding scale: £25-£325) payable if/when your case goes to a Hearing.

    HM Courts Form EX50 provides details of all small claims court costs. It's a large document and IMO a difficult one to navigate as it contains details of fees for all Courts (High Court, County Court, etc). To work out the costs applicable to your claim, search the EX50 document, for the following terms:

    Starting your claim
    Allocation to Track
    Hearing Fees

    Court costs are (only) payable by the Claimant, and are paid as the case moves through the court system; there are no equivalent court fees for the defendant to pay. Your court fees are automatically added to the amount of your Claim and will therefore be paid by the defendant, if you win the Case.

    Additional Fees - Enforcing the Judgment.
    There is a possibility that you may incur additional court costs even after the Judgment. If you win your case and the defendant refuses to pay, you can, and probably should Enforce the Judgment, which again requires a fee. As of Jan 2013, all the enforcement options (e.g. A Warrant of execution, to send in the Bailiffs) have a flat fee of £100.
    As with the other Court fees, the enforcement fee is added to your Claim, and assuming the defendant does eventually pay up, you will get the fee back.

    The Remissions System.
    There are a number of Remissions or exemptions to court fees for those people on low pay or in receipt of Income Support, Job Seekers allowance or Working tax Credit etc. There are actually quite a wide range of remissions available so it's certainly worth checking to see if you qualify. See form EX160A for an explanation of the remissions system and to check your entitlement.


    To Summarise; There are fees payable at every significant stage as your Case progresses through the Court system, the fees provide funding to the HM Courts Service, but also serve to discourage timewasting and frivolous claims. As a typical claimant, you'll probably pay around ~£300 in fees to have your day in Court, and considering that the defendant may owe you a considerable sum already, it's important to take an objective look at your Claim and make a hard-headed decision as to whether to go forward with your Court action (i.e. is it winnable?). If you are unsure, a consultation with a Legal advisor or Solicitor may be worthwhile.
     
    3 people like this.
  4. May 31, 2013
  5. Naokia980

    Naokia980 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    student :)
    Location:
    Caucaus
    Never trusted this casino, cs is not helpfull. This statements dont help them to rise their rogue status. Also i remember that, the casino wasnt agree with UK law, research at site
     
  6. Jun 1, 2013
  7. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    This is very useful information, but it also raises the moral questions around Betfair settling once they have been convinced that an aggrieved gambler really means to pursue a case to the bitter end.

    This suggests that they have probably and rather cynically calculated that by holding their bluff until a court action is clearly about to begin, they will discourage a significant percentage of Happy Hour claimants and save themselves some money.

    It that is true it does not paint a very pleasant or ethical picture of the Management imo.
     
    2 people like this.
  8. Jun 1, 2013
  9. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Spot on. If a player is able to use a legal and valid approach to illustrate that he or she is in the right, then the casino is 100% in the wrong.
     
  10. Jun 1, 2013
  11. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Just to add the limit of Small Claims has been raised in the UK from 5-10k as from April just gone. It had been at 5k since I can remember so that is good news too. The time to strike is now - I'll tell you why. They are obviously not willing to contest cases for one of 3 reasons, or a combination thereof. 1. They know legally they are in the wrong. 2. The claim costs them more to contest than it's worth defending. 3. They do not want their business being labelled with CCJ's (County Court Judgements) nor the publicity that goes with having them especially if picked up by the press.

    You have 6 years from the date they reversed your winning (Limitations Act 1981) or 5 in Scotland. This is the date of the dispute beginning from their default on due winnings. The reason I say strike NOW is because should an avalanche of summonses occur, it would then be worth their while to go to appeal and try and get a higher legal ruling - this would effectively put any claims on ice potentially for years as they stretch it out. We have seen this in the unfair bank charges scandal; banks paid out all proper claims started on an individual basis BEFORE they got near a court, i.e. they settled out of court. When the press/TV started advising everybody to do it if affected, an avalanche began and the banks then decided to pay lawyers to apply for a high court ruling and therefore a class judgement - these wrangles continue to this day and any claimants haven't been paid for over 2 years now as a result.

    Now I'm not saying the Betfair disputes are worth anything like the massive scale of bank charge scandals, BUT there will come a point further down the line when they put the brakes on and decide it's worthwhile to contest such claims if they snowball.

    So, I'd advise don't dawdle, act now.
     
  12. Jun 2, 2013
  13. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Not to be Mr. Poopy-Pants or anything but my years in corporate life taught me that what civilians and corporate executives define as "ethical" are usually very different things.

    Ethical for civilians generally means something like "fair and/or for the public good"; ethical for corporate executives tends to mean "anything that makes the company a good profit -- or minimizes losses -- and (probably) won't land us in prison".

    The problem is that civilians always assume that since corporate executives have a civilian side to their lives too that they must be working with the same ethical definition. That is a hope not a fact, conflating the two leads to no end of shock and dissappointmet, not to mention being made poorer or impoverished.

    I believe it's fair to say that recent events in the financial sector pretty much confirm this.
     
    2 people like this.
  14. Jun 2, 2013
  15. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    This also means that when dealing with big business, we should apply the same ethics, which is that we should go for what gets US the best deal, or nets US the best return on our investment, rather than worrying about whether the company is able to make a fair profit from us.


    This is perhaps why we have "bonus seekers" and other types of "advantage players". They are merely approaching their gambling from the same ethical standpoint as those who run the casinos. I don't see why we should have sympathy for a company like Betfair that screws up to the extent that the profits flow the wrong way in significant quantity.

    What they are likely to fear is a ruling in the FIRST ever case to be heard in court going against them. Such a case would then set a legal precedent, and make it much more likely that an avalanche of cases with very similar factors will be fast tracked to an adverse result. So called "out of court settlements" are common, and companies often use them as a means of keeping a case away from the court system. It is common for the payment to be classed as "goodwill", and the company will often state that the offer of payment is not an admission of liability. However, if the player gets paid in full, this wordplay should not be a worry.

    As it turned out for the banks, they WON their day in court, even though most considered it would result in a victory for customers. Had the bank decided to defend cases from the outset, they would have saved a fortune, money they could have used to compensate customers for all the scandals that followed.

    If UK players have success, then EU players may also stand a chance because EU rules would help them bring a case. Ideally, EU players would want to force out of court settlements, as taking court action across national boundaries, even within the EU, is more complex and expensive than taking action in a domestic court. EU players who had their money taken from the sportsbook could threaten to sue in the UK alongside UK players. Players who had the money confiscated from the casino have the hardest struggle, as they would have to first bring their case to where the casino was licensed, and then apply under EU rules to have it heard in a local court because they are a consumer, and it would be an unfair burden for a consumer to have to use a distant court. It is certain that you would need a decent lawyer to tackle the process, whereas in the UK player vs sportsbook situation the cases can be brought without the need for expensive lawyers as it is a small claims court procedure.
     
  16. Jun 9, 2013
  17. thewolfman

    thewolfman Banned, see wolfywolf PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    Gambler
    Location:
    Propping up the BJ table
    I can confirm this approach works. They deny they are in the wrong at every stage until the week before the hearing. Then they offer partial payment, but eventually they offer it all plus 8% interest.

    Better than what I would have got in the bank!
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Jun 10, 2013
  19. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom

    It seems clear. Their legal team had advised that they would most likely lose in court, and this would open the floodgates, but that by holding out till the end they can at least stand a chance of mitigating the financial impact.


    It just means that no matter what Betfair or their lawyers throw at you, don't cave in and accept anything less than full payment plus the 8% interest.

    There will also be a growing record at the courts that every one of these cases is getting settled in full at the last minute, and this is something that can be used as leverage in later claims. It may even act as leverage in the more complicated situations where the money was confiscated before it found it's way to the sportsbook, and where the customer is within the EU, but not the UK. Non UK customers where the money was taken from the sportsbook would just have to take action in the UK courts, and be prepared to hold out right till the end, even booking a flight to the UK if that's what it takes to make Betfair believe it isn't a bluff.
     
  20. Jun 10, 2013
  21. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Yes, yes, it's all brinkmanship but the plaintiff has the big stick up his sleeve; he's in the right.:D
     

Share This Page