Are BetFred pulling a fast one and will they win?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54564536

 

It does all seem a bit iffy  on the BetFred side

The odds are with them they will have spent BIG for this.

 

It screams unfair terms though

 

 

But when they are forced to disclose what the software fault was it will become immediately clear if they are entitled to withhold the winnings.

I don't think it's unfair if there is a large win solely as a result of an IT giltch, rather than as a fair part of the game.

Are bets enforceable these days?  I seem to remember an old Act meaning they were not enforceable at law.

Presumably they are enforceable, in which case isn't this a fairly straightforward Consumer Rights Act 2015 claim?

I think the punter will win if he doesn't die first, because of the bits in bold below.

 

 

A term in a consumer contract will be unfair if it 'causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'.

Whether a term is fair takes into consideration:

  • the circumstances that existed at the time when the term was agreed;
  • the other terms of the contract or any other contract the contract in question depends on; and
  • what is being provided under the contract.

Terms should be transparent, simple to understand, not take advantage of a consumer's vulnerability and should take into account a consumer's legitimate interests.

Black-listed terms

There are a number of terms in the CRA which are automatically deemed unfair without applying a fairness test – if they are present in a contract, they will automatically be unenforceable.  These include for example:

  1. excluding liability for failure to perform with reasonable skill and care;
  2. excluding liability for goods that are not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose;
  3. excluding or limiting liability for death or personal injury caused by the trader's negligence;
  4. limiting liability to less than the contract price for failure to comply with statutory terms. 

I hope they lose. It’s up to them to get the money back from play tech or whatever they’re called. 

They include a clause that all "pays and plays" would be void in the event of a "malfunction", and Betfred argues that by ticking the box, Mr Green was agreeing.

Mr Coyle pointed out that if "all pays and plays" were void, then Betfred would have refunded other customers, but the company had produced no evidence that had happened. It only wanted to withhold Mr Green's enormous win, he said.

Betfred licences the software for its online games from another company Playtech, which has refused to confirm the nature of the software glitch.'

He has a point though doesn't he?

The thing I think is so weak about "software glitch" is that the end-user can't possibly know whether the outcome of the game they are playing is due to a "glitch" or not.

If the lines of the fruity lined up, they lined up.  If the software you provided for me to play on isn't provided with enough reasonable skill and care, that's your tough shit.

I hope he fucks them in the tight one.

Gambling debts have been enforceable for quite a long time now, guy got bested on another thread on this point a while ago. 

In which case, the fella is going to win, or they will settle bigly.

Anyone want a bet on it?  I'm offering evens.

The thing I think is so weak about "software glitch" is that the end-user can't possibly know whether the outcome of the game they are playing is due to a "glitch" or not.

If the lines of the fruity lined up, they lined up.  If the software you provided for me to play on isn't provided with enough reasonable skill and care, that's your tough shit.

I hope he fucks them in the tight one.

This.

Tbh I'm amazed they've let the claim go this far without settling.

Who in their right mind would gamble with a company that appears to welch on its payouts? Surely it will cost them a lot more than £1.7m in lost bets going forward.

What they should have done is sucked it up and got themselves on the news for paying out bigly on an online blackjack game. They would have made the money back from new accounts in a matter of weeks...

Also, the gambling commission should have made them pay up...

Paddy Power would have offered him the full shebang 

Seems odd that they have been reluctant to disclose any information of the software glitch or get the tech company joined when litigation has been blindingly obvious for ages.

Would be very interested to know whether this or any related glitch led to customers losing money but not being reimbursed by BetFred

I for one will never bet with betfred again, welchers, hope there are many like me

It may be that under the terms of the contract with the software provider, they are not allowed to disclose any details of the fault. Obviously if you are sueing in something related to this, you could try and get a disclosure request in, but, I imagine that they don't want to be putting proprietary information out into the open and will resist.

I am surprised that the betting company didn't offer him more. Bold move though, in disclosing what would have been without prejudice offers. If they were Part 36 offers, and he loses and gets nothing, then he could be made liable for a big chunk of the betting company's costs...

I do also wonder if the betting company has insurers who will no doubt be pulling the strings. I wouldn't be surprised see a last minute offer to settle of between £500,000 and £1m on the day of trial...

Forget insurers any sensible betting company would have paid up to protect their reputation 

If they ever want any customers again they need to pay out in full now jamie!

It is hard to think of worse publicity than this for a betting company

It may be that under the terms of the contract with the software provider, they are not allowed to disclose any details of the fault.

I don't see why that should be the customer's problem.

It's completely unclear from the article whether he actually won the money from a bet (in which case he should keep it) or it was erroneously credited (in which case he should not).  Til that's sorted I don't know the answer.

Casinos do this a lot.

EG My cousin was once in an American casino playing slot machines with his best mate, who was a year younger and technically underage.

My cousin won the jackpot, but because his best mate was standing beside him, and he looked quite young, they ID'd both of them, and denied my cousin his winnings by accusing the best mate of being at the controls and threatening to shop them both in to the police (for being underage in a casino, and for helping someone underage enter into and play in a casino)

Sorry he was playing  virtual slot machines - the screen showed jackpot win and his account was credited - they then refused to transfer money out as they say the win was actually a software error.

If he didn't win the jackpot as part of the game but it was credited to his account over and above what he legitimatley won then he may be on dodgy ground.

Remember that card counting case against a casino that wouldn't pay out millions and they won when they could show there had been card counting which voided the win?

Tbf it's not clear that £1.7m is a jackpot available in the game.  If they just credited his account with that money when the highest available was £100k then they have more of a case.

Oh if he was just wrongly credited that is something different, I read it as the software  having showed jackpot 1.7m win

When I was 18 I went to see my first Boro away game, against Manchester United.  My wife had a dream that it would be 3-2 to Boro and when I asked her who scored first she said Hamilton Ricard.  Before getting the tram to Old Trafford, I put a £10 bet on at Fred Dones in Piccadilly (a lot of money for a skint student) at 225-1.

Boro went 3-0 up at half-time (Fergie was at a funeral).  Andy Cole scored 2 early in the second half and they battered us.  In the last 10 minutes I couldn't watch any more and spent the remainder in the toilets hearing the crowd cheer near misses.  Then the final whistle went.  I'd won £2,250 (more than a student loan for the year back then).

I thought they'd be angry when I went back, but they were really happy for me and gave me hearty congratulations when handing over the £2,260 in £50 notes (I had never seen one of these before).  I always used Fred Done after that because of how nice they were and the reminder of winning.  FFS the whole system is rigged in their favour so the least they can do is pay up with good grace when a punter wins against that rigged system.  

This is a huge own-goal for BetFred.  Not that I'm a big gambler, but I'll avoid them from now on.  Wankers.

Guy Crouchback16 Oct 20 13:13

Reply | 

Report

I for one will never bet with betfred again, welchers, hope there are many like me

Guy, you should probably know that the derivation for "Welsher" is the alleged dishonesty of Welsh people in not paying their debts.  So using the terms these days is definitely racist.

That’s a great story Sam 👍 any others got one about gambling success?  

Fred Done of BetFred has a questionable approach to charity - the charitable foundation set up by Bedfred has been used to loan significant amounts of money to his financial companies, as well as to do improvement works to some land next to his mansion. Very little of the money appears to have actually gone to (non arms length) charitable purposes...

https://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=5153

Was at Arsenal v Bolton years ago at the emirates, sitting in the away fans (friend is a Bolton fan)

I can’t remember the exact score, I think 2-2 and senderos popped up with a last minute winner for arsenal. Some guy anong the Bolton fans went absolutely nuts, cheering and screaming. 

bolton fans were ready to lynch him before the stewards grabbed him and chucked him out. Turns out he had won his bet, 3-2 with senderos to score. Several grand apparently. Fair play to him.

 

still, shouldn’t be betting against your team like 

He must have had 3-2 arsenal. Can’t remember the specifics other than he won a lot of money and nearly got killed

This case should have been settled either way as part of the disclosure process , which would among other things revealed the extent to which the IT glitch that day resulted in other winners not being credited.

not a good look for Bet Fred , it is pennies for them , why do they do it ?

That’s a great story Sam 👍 any others got one about gambling success? 

No, I've fed Mrs Double D cheese every Friday to stimulate further dreams but what have I got?  Nada, and a fat wife.

That said, I bet £100 on Trump to win and got 8-1, and also bet the same at the same odds on the Tory 2015 majority.  Both tidy wins which I did charitable stuff with which made me feel all warm and fuzzy.  I'm not a massive gambler but I am under no illusions that overall I am down.  Every gambler is.

There’s a guy in my office who claims he got on trump at 50/1 after he won the nomination. An utter Moran 

"This case should have been settled either way as part of the disclosure process , which would among other things revealed the extent to which the IT glitch that day resulted in other winners not being credited."

I thought this was a summary judgment application on the basis that whatever the reasons, software fault or not,  the T^Cs don't entitle them to welch?

You're doubling down on the racism rather than apologising, Guy?  That's very disappointing

Every gambler is down because the bookies are allowed to ban people who win too much, which remains outrageous. 

yes,   I have never understood why they can get away with not paying out for card counting either, if somebody can use skill to beat them at a game in which they have fixed the odds in their own favour that should just be tough.

Agreed, but a business doesn’t have to serve anyone do they (unless it falls into one of the discrimination categoreis)

Remember that card counting case against a casino that wouldn't pay out millions and they won when they could show there had been card counting which voided the win?

That wasn't about card counting, that's a legitimate way to beat the house.

The case was about a baccarat player getting the croupier to put aside some cards for later use, on the basis that they felt like lucky cards.  In fact he had spotted from the pattern on the back that they were high-value cards that would pay out a jackpot, so when he was ready to win, he got the croupier to play with those cards.

He lost because he was dishonest.  He had misled the casino as to why he wanted the cards put aside.

I put a grand on Remain winning the Brexit referendum

 

Luckily the collapse in the £ the following day made me about £100k on my equity portfolio, so my bovvered bag wasn't so full...

Years ago, we went to a casino in Perth WA, about 10 of us, we all chipped in 50 AUD each and my mate Dave went off to get us some chips...

He was gone fucking ages, at which point we were quite annoyed.

Eventually he appeared, with a massive bottle of fizz and fucking loads of chips, he had taken a punt at the roulette table. We then had an absolute top night out

Heh!  Nope but admitted by saying equity portfolio I am including my SIPP so a lot of that gain wasn't realisable in cold hard cash.

At that time I had everything in US equities and pretty much still do now.

yes, scept tick , that's right, it was edge sorting rather than card counting although it was Punto Banco, not Baccarat.

I think it took the casino a week to work out what he'd done. V smart guy but the court found it was essentially cheating.

Judgment reserved. Presumably he won’t get a summary judgment against the firm.  It was the Ivey Supreme Court case that basically said you could be an honest cheat wasn’t it?

Punto banco IS baccarat.  It's also James Bond's game in the books.  They used Texas hold'em in Casino Royale because there's skill involved in that, about the only skill in baccarat is card-counting.

 

There was an interesting docu a few years ago about a memory man, Dominic O'Brien, doubling his money playing blackjack in American casinos thanks to his card-counting capabilities.  The casinos cottoned onto him and blacklisted him.

’Strong heh, Sam‘

I suspect he’s being serious actually m7. 

If it is a software glitch, BetFred will definitely win hth

Yeah unfortunately for the guy the way it was described wasn’t encouraging fro him. However as others have commented it will have cost them a lot in custom

Eh? not bringing in the software co into litigation kinda indicates that it wasn’t really a software problem that caused the jackpot, no?

I bet the software glitch is that the code didn't perform as they thought it would.  It's meant to pay out x% of bets in on average, but they'll have coded something incorrectly to pay more. I have a pal in the gaming business (not with Fred) so will ask. 

Certai cards were reward cards. There were only meant to be a limited number per game. The software error meant they were all turning to reward cards. The firm said that if he kept playing he worked have won a gazillion poinds

"If there's a jackpot pool and this exceeds it, he's screwed. If there was an odds calculation error (a win which should return 20/1 returns 2000/1) he's screwed. Otherwise, he looks to be a rich man."

 

Was the read out. 

Yeah would be relevant if it was anything to do with the actual issue