[slayer14]

Punter finally gets £1k winnings after William Hill refuses to honour 2,000-1 odds on Roger Federer match

A punter has finally been paid £1,000 winnings after a 17 month fight with bookies who refused to honour his bet.
Julius Ndlovu was stunned when they withheld his cash, claiming the 2,000-1 odds on tennis ace Roger Federer to win a set 6-3 against Tomas Berdych were a mistake.
Instead they offered him two free £50 bets as a goodwill gesture.
Julius, 35, refused and instead took William Hill to the civil courts over the bet he placed in May 2015.
The firm contested his claim but after three separate hearings he has finally been sent a cheque for £1,826 - made up of his £1,000 winninings, plus interest and the costs he ran up.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...nnings-9072294

[jtoler]

If it was before the set started then obviously it was a mistake, but if it was a live play bet and the set had already started then odds can look like that if say Roger was down like 3-0 in the set.

[slayer14]

for federer to be 2000-1 the score had to be berdych 5-0 up and 40-0 up

[luctens]

Punter finally gets £1k winnings after William Hill refuses to honour 2,000-1 odds on Roger Federer match


A punter has finally been paid £1,000 winnings after a 17 month fight with bookies who refused to honour his bet.
Julius Ndlovu was stunned when they withheld his cash, claiming the 2,000-1 odds on tennis ace Roger Federer to win a set 6-3 against Tomas Berdych were a mistake.
Instead they offered him two free £50 bets as a goodwill gesture.
Julius, 35, refused and instead took William Hill to the civil courts over the bet he placed in May 2015.
The firm contested his claim but after three separate hearings he has finally been sent a cheque for £1,826 - made up of his £1,000 winninings, plus interest and the costs he ran up.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...nnings-9072294

I read about this a while back and for whatever reason William Hill didn't turn up to the initial court case, which would most probably be the "procedural oversight" William Hill is talking about in that report, and I expect that them not turning up to the initial court case was the reason, and absolutely the only reason that the bloke won the case. If William Hill had turned up in court, the guy would have been laughed out the room. Whoever at William Hill forgot to turn up or whatever will I'm sure have got a rollocking, if not the sack.

With the full details of the case that were on previous reports, it's absolutely clear that it was definitely a palpable error, and it was only William Hill not turning up to the court case which meant the bloke won, not that his case had one ounce of merit or anything like that. Even with that, he still seems to think he won because he had a watertight legal case and he's going around like he's the punters' hero and saying that he got justice by going toe-to-toe with a gambling goliath and that this doesn't stop here as he's now taking his crusade to the UK Gambling Commission. He really is that deluded into thinking he was in the right in this case. If he's got any brain cells, he'd keep shtum about it for good, count himself unbelievably lucky with his ill-gotten gains and wouldn't say a word to anyone about this farce of a case ever again in case somebody comes to their senses and changes their mind about this stupid decision.

The guy simply bet on an extremely clear palpable error and only won the case due to a pure technicality. Other than that the bloke seems like a complete idiot.

[qwaszx123]

Obvious palpable error. Federer won the set 6-3. Even if Berdych led 3-0 and was 40-0 on his own serve, no bookmaker would offer anything like 2000/1.

[Pareto]

Interesting case. It was obviously an error, however if Federer was up 5-0 and 40-0 in his own serve, the fair odds of the set ending 6-3 would be close to 2000/1.

[ThePunter]

I read about this a while back and for whatever reason William Hill didn't turn up to the initial court case, which would most probably be the "procedural oversight" William Hill is talking about in that report, and I expect that them not turning up to the initial court case was the reason, and absolutely the only reason that the bloke won the case. If William Hill had turned up in court, the guy would have been laughed out the room. Whoever at William Hill forgot to turn up or whatever will I'm sure have got a rollocking, if not the sack.

With the full details of the case that were on previous reports, it's absolutely clear that it was definitely a palpable error, and it was only William Hill not turning up to the court case which meant the bloke won, not that his case had one ounce of merit or anything like that. Even with that, he still seems to think he won because he had a watertight legal case and he's going around like he's the punters' hero and saying that he got justice by going toe-to-toe with a gambling goliath and that this doesn't stop here as he's now taking his crusade to the UK Gambling Commission. He really is that deluded into thinking he was in the right in this case. If he's got any brain cells, he'd keep shtum about it for good, count himself unbelievably lucky with his ill-gotten gains and wouldn't say a word to anyone about this farce of a case ever again in case somebody comes to their senses and changes their mind about this stupid decision.

The guy simply bet on an extremely clear palpable error and only won the case due to a pure technicality. Other than that the bloke seems like a complete idiot.

Well at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?
For the record, WH did not turn up to original hearing, and No I did not win simply because they did not turn up. Anyone that has any understanding of the law and judicial system knows that's far fetched. After original hearing which I won, WH then appealed twice, case was heard by two different appeal judges, second being at high court judge, in total, 3 judges heard the case. Are you telling me you understand the law better that they do? Furthermore, winning bet was placed on 15/05/15 with 3 other losing bets at the same odds of 2000/1, but again on 26/05/16 I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1. Bear in mind at this point WH had declare a palpable error 11 days earlier, yet refused to provide documentary evidence of such when I requested. Ibas wouldn't provide evidence either, despite stating that WH had submitted evidence that showed that "odds were incorrect". Btw, all bets were placed via bet in play. As it stands, WH declare a palpable error after taking punters' money from high odds advertised, resettle winning bets to what they decide without any obligation to prove said error, pocket all losing stakes from said error. How is that fair in any civilised society?
Explain that, since you are such a sage. At the very least, you should bother to acquaint yourself fully with a case before mouthing We at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?

I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.
The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.


I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.
The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.

[Optional]

Well at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?
For the record, WH did not turn up to original hearing, and No I did not win simply because they did not turn up. Anyone that has any understanding of the law and judicial system knows that's far fetched. After original hearing which I won, WH then appealed twice, case was heard by two different appeal judges, second being at high court judge, in total, 3 judges heard the case. Are you telling me you understand the law better that they do? Furthermore, winning bet was placed on 15/05/15 with 3 other losing bets at the same odds of 2000/1, but again on 26/05/16 I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1. Bear in mind at this point WH had declare a palpable error 11 days earlier, yet refused to provide documentary evidence of such when I requested. Ibas wouldn't provide evidence either, despite stating that WH had submitted evidence that showed that "odds were incorrect". Btw, all bets were placed via bet in play. As it stands, WH declare a palpable error after taking punters' money from high odds advertised, resettle winning bets to what they decide without any obligation to prove said error, pocket all losing stakes from said error. How is that fair in any civilised society?
Explain that, since you are such a sage. At the very least, you should bother to acquaint yourself fully with a case before mouthing We at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?

I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.

The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.

I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.

The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.

Welcome Punter. And congrats on your win.

I read in the linked article that WH say the court upheld their terms but made a procedural finding.

What was the reasoning if the terms were still considered valid?



Also, think it's funny that no one has mentioned the bet size. Were all these bets you speak about at 50p as well?

Must say I am surprised to hear about them offering similar odds on other bets. At first glance I assumed it was an obvious error too.

[Hareeba!]

So much for Wm Hill being such an honest bookie.
The only palpable error one was the one which won!
And here's another story about their tactics:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...P=share_btn_tw

[luctens]

Well at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?
For the record, WH did not turn up to original hearing, and No I did not win simply because they did not turn up. Anyone that has any understanding of the law and judicial system knows that's far fetched. After original hearing which I won, WH then appealed twice, case was heard by two different appeal judges, second being at high court judge, in total, 3 judges heard the case. Are you telling me you understand the law better that they do? Furthermore, winning bet was placed on 15/05/15 with 3 other losing bets at the same odds of 2000/1, but again on 26/05/16 I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1. Bear in mind at this point WH had declare a palpable error 11 days earlier, yet refused to provide documentary evidence of such when I requested. Ibas wouldn't provide evidence either, despite stating that WH had submitted evidence that showed that "odds were incorrect". Btw, all bets were placed via bet in play. As it stands, WH declare a palpable error after taking punters' money from high odds advertised, resettle winning bets to what they decide without any obligation to prove said error, pocket all losing stakes from said error. How is that fair in any civilised society?
Explain that, since you are such a sage. At the very least, you should bother to acquaint yourself fully with a case before mouthing We at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?

I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.
The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.


I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.
The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.

I've never had to go to court as I've always played it straight with every company and individual I've ever done business with, and that has always been reciprocated. I do know that not turning up to the initial court hearing would have a very adverse effect on the ultimate ruling on a case for the one not turning up and ultimately that can cause a case that would otherwise be obviously decided in your favour to be decided against you. In the report, William Hill state that the judge confirmed that the palpable error clause they used was fair, and William Hill say they lost the case because of a procedural oversight. So if this procedural oversight that caused William Hill to lose the case wasn't them not turning up to the initial hearing, what was it then, as it seems very coincidental that the judge ruled that what William Hill did was fair, but still ruled against William Hill due to a procedural oversight, but the most obvious procedural oversight being that William Hill not turning up to the initial hearing not being the procedural oversight in question. What is extremely clear is that you most certainly didn't win the case because of the nuts and bolts of the case and you being in the right, you won it on a pure technicality.

In regards to however fair you think the palpable error rule is, it's in the rules of all bookmakers that if you place a bet on a wrong price and the bet wins, the bookmaker can void the bet or resettle it at the correct odds, and it's a well known rule across the industry. It's like you hear every now and again a retailer has an IT glitch or whatever on their website and put TVs for sale on their site at £1 each, and everybody flocks to order one and when the retailer notices the error, they will simply say that they've made an error, everybody will get refunded and nobody will get a TV for £1. Everybody that is chancing it ordering a TV for £1 accepts that the retailer will almost certainly notice the error and that they won't get a TV for £1, and that is the same case with a bet in that if a customer takes a shot at a bookmaker by taking an obviously wrong price, they most definitely shouldn't expect to be paid out at that wrong price by the bookmaker, exactly in the same way as the customer wouldn't expect the retailer to give them a TV for £1. I am most definitely one of the people that has a very common sense view in that if the bookmaker has made a palpable error with the price, then of course they shouldn't have to payout, and as for you are saying that the bets were placed in-play like that makes a difference, well it doesn't make any difference, an obvious pricing error is an obvious pricing error, whether that's pre-match or in-play, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. And the bookmaker does have to prove their case, but they just don't have to show you the evidence. They have to show IBAS and the courts the evidence as they are the ones deciding on the case, but they have no obligation to show that evidence to you. And it's already been confirmed that IBAS said that William Hill had provided evidence to them to show that the odds were incorrect, and the court judge confirmed that the palpable error clause William Hill used was fair, so obviously IBAS and the court were satisfied that William Hill did prove it was fair, so on the actual case itself, William Hill proved their case to both IBAS and the court, but you won the case on a pure technicality.

If you've placed further bets at wrong odds that lost and the bookmaker didn't refund you those stakes, then they should refund these stakes, but that doesn't make it right that the bookmaker should be paying out at wrong odds on the one bet that happened to win at those odds. It is very simply that if bets are placed at wrong odds, all stakes on losing bets should be refunded and any bet on wrong odds that wins should be refunded or be settled at the correct price, but you have called for your winning bet at wrong odds to be paid out in full but your losing bets at wrong odds to be refunded as well. Very much double standards you are demanding there.

And your talk about going to the UK Gambling Commission is a complete fairy story. The UKGC refuse to speak to people with absolute proper and genuine concerns with the state of the industry, so they most definitely won't give the time of day to a chancer who's got away with a grand on a technicality trying to tell them what's what in this industry.

You are asking if what has happened is "fair in any civilised society?" The only fair outcome in this case would be you to have simply got all of your stakes refunded on all of the bets that you placed at wrong odds, the winning bet and the losing bets all the same, or to have got all of your losing bet stakes refunded and the winning bet resettled at the correct odds, and if that justice had been done then you'd be sitting with only a few pounds in your pocket having got your stakes back and possibly a resettlement at correct odds for the winning bet. However, you have got away with having £1,000 in your pocket, so if you want to talk about what is "fair", if you really cared what was fair then you'd give the £1,000 back and call it quits with the bookmaker, but you're obviously not that worried about the case being "fair" with the circumstances being as they are in that you've got away with getting £1,000 on an obviously wrong price.

[relaaxx]

Well at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?
For the record, WH did not turn up to original hearing, and No I did not win simply because they did not turn up. Anyone that has any understanding of the law and judicial system knows that's far fetched. After original hearing which I won, WH then appealed twice, case was heard by two different appeal judges, second being at high court judge, in total, 3 judges heard the case. Are you telling me you understand the law better that they do? Furthermore, winning bet was placed on 15/05/15 with 3 other losing bets at the same odds of 2000/1, but again on 26/05/16 I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1. Bear in mind at this point WH had declare a palpable error 11 days earlier, yet refused to provide documentary evidence of such when I requested. Ibas wouldn't provide evidence either, despite stating that WH had submitted evidence that showed that "odds were incorrect". Btw, all bets were placed via bet in play. As it stands, WH declare a palpable error after taking punters' money from high odds advertised, resettle winning bets to what they decide without any obligation to prove said error, pocket all losing stakes from said error. How is that fair in any civilised society?
Explain that, since you are such a sage. At the very least, you should bother to acquaint yourself fully with a case before mouthing We at least I'm an idiot that knows how to prepare a legal case without any legal training, put it before 3 different learned judges and win, arguing against 2 barrister representing WH!! What have you won in court?

I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.
The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.


I am the punter who won, so let's set the record straight, particularly as quite a few arm chair sages appear to be providing assertions that are not quite accurate.
The disputed 50p bet was placed on 15th May 2015, among 3 other bets which lost incidentally. Then on 26th May, after WH had had engaged the palpable error clause, I placed 2 more bets on a Djokovic v Nieminen match, again at odds of 2000/1, odds that had been declared an error 11 days earlier. I was obviously not willing to accept the explanations, therefore requested evidence of the error from WH, who continuously refused to provide it. I did the same with IBAS, who again refused to provide any such evidence, despite making reference to "an evidence log" submitted by WH. WH DID NOT attend the first Small Claims hearing, but later attended 3 appeal hearings. In total, 3 different judges heard the case at different times and agreed WH should pay. For those that blindly state that bookies should not pay for genuine errors, all bets were placed via bet in play. In all 7 bets placed in total, just one bet won, the famous £1000 bet. However, WH would not repay any of those stakes, yet pocketed money from errors.

absolutely fantastic.

[JayZ]

The Competition and Markets Authority today has launched an investigation into remote gambling, and includes the following:

Companies having a wide discretion to cancel bets or alter odds after bets have been accepted, because they made a mistake when the odds were first set. The CMA is investigating whether the terms operators rely on in cases such as this are fair.

The other parts are into overcomplicated and sometimes incomprehensible terms on promotional offers,and attempts to restrict players’ ability to challenge a company’s decision. This is at the request of the Gambling Commission, so it may no longer be quite the disinterested body it has appeared to be in the past over these types of concerns.

[luctens]

The Competition and Markets Authority today has launched an investigation into remote gambling, and includes the following:


The other parts are into overcomplicated and sometimes incomprehensible terms on promotional offers,and attempts to restrict [/FONT][/COLOR]players’ ability to challenge a company’s decision. This is at the request of the Gambling Commission, so it may no longer be quite the disinterested body it has appeared to be in the past over these types of concerns.

All the CMA and The Gambling Commission seem to be interested in though is terms and conditions, and the fairness of them, from what's been said recently they don't seem at all interested in putting any sort of minimum bet rule in place which is what the Justice For Punters campaign and others have been campaigning for as by far the most important action that needs to be taken.

The investigation will cover withdrawal, complaint and ID verification procedures, promotional terms and conditions and general terms and conditions. So as a result of this investigation, there'll probably be some positives in the way of a set in stone registration, ID verification and withdrawal procedure for all bookmakers to follow so they don't mess you around with silly document requests and delayed withdrawals, promotional and general terms and conditions will be more clearer and have less dodgy clauses in them and bookmakers will have to in general up their game with customer service standards.

But in terms of the single most important issue of all of this, that obviously being bet restrictions and closed accounts for smart bettors, I expect all that will come out of this is something along the lines of the bookmakers having to put a tickbox that you have to tick on the registration page which clearly states that the bookmaker has to restrict or close accounts at it's discretion so the customer has to explicitly agree to this before signing up, that's all I expect will come of this in terms of bet restrictions, as The Gambling Commission seem to have no problem with bookmakers closing accounts of smart bettors, just so as long as that possibility is made clear to the customer in their terms or whatever, which is frankly a load of rubbish. It's common knowledge now among bettors that they know their accounts will be closed if they are too smart anyway so any tickbox procedure stating that won't be telling anybody anything they don't already know, and any such tickbox thing would be put in place by every single bookmaker that closes accounts anyway, so it won't be that the customer has the choice not to accept that their account may be closed and go elsewhere that it doesn't happen, as they're all at it so it'll just be that you are forced into accepting this tickbox stating that your account may be closed otherwise you can't get a betting account, so except from ticking a box formalising the procedure, nothing would have changed from the way that it is now with these bookmakers which is that they can close your account at any time, and if you don't like it, you can't bet with any of them, it would result in no change whatsoever from the current awful situation. Just the bookmakers putting in a tickbox formalising the notification that they could close your account at any stage isn't any good whatsoever, as it's an unethical and immoral practice in the first place, and just putting something in a tickbox or in bold writing doesn't make such unethical and immoral behaviour right at all, it is simply procedural crap and it's the underlying unethical and immoral practice that the bookmakers are undertaking in closing accounts in the first place that needs to be stamped out for good.

This investigation can recommend and enforce all it likes about procedures and terms and conditions, but if they don't enforce a minimum bet rule, it'll be a complete waste of time, as you can have the clearest terms and conditions, the best customer service, and be treated like complete royalty, but if you can't actually get a bet on in the first place, then all of the other stuff is completely and utterly pointless.

[Hareeba!]

I would expect that the terms of fair trading legislation in the UK are not too different to those in Australia?

I am somewhat encouraged on reading the Australian law on this subject that there is a more than reasonable argument that simply refusing to accept bets or limiting them to absurd amounts is contrary to the provisions.

It appears to fit the description of "unconscionable conduct".

I'm awaiting further advice on that before commencing an action against an operator who has outright rejected every bet I've requested in the past 18+ months but steadfastly refuses to justify or explain their action.

Sure, they have a condition which appears to entitle them to do that but my point is that such action can't be taken without just cause.

[luctens]

I would expect that the terms of fair trading legislation in the UK are not too different to those in Australia?

I am somewhat encouraged on reading the Australian law on this subject that there is a more than reasonable argument that simply refusing to accept bets or limiting them to absurd amounts is contrary to the provisions.

It appears to fit the description of "unconscionable conduct".

I'm awaiting further advice on that before commencing an action against an operator who has outright rejected every bet I've requested in the past 18+ months but steadfastly refuses to justify or explain their action.

Sure, they have a condition which appears to entitle them to do that but my point is that such action can't be taken without just cause.

Yeah we're both civilised countries so I'd expect by and large the fair trading legislation to be the same.

There is a court case going on at the moment in Spain against Bet365 by a load of punters taking Bet365 to court over closed accounts (http://calvinayre.com/2016/09/15/bus...layer-lawsuit/), but it sounds more to me like a shot in the dark and whilst I obviously hope it is successful, I just can't see anything coming of it, as I think the Bet365 argument which will be that they have the right to close an account if the customer is unprofitable, I expect that would be sufficient enough for the courts to rule in Bet365' favour.

That's the thing here, that the bookmakers all have massive legal teams that pour over all of the bookmakers' terms and conditions and make sure they all pass and are covered under all of the relevant laws, and I expect if they thought that the law wasn't in their favour, the bookmakers would have done something about it, and I don't think the bookmakers would have the policies of closing accounts if they thought it was illegal in the courts' eyes in any way.

The fact that the bookmakers have been closing accounts more so for the last 10 years and apart from that current shot in the dark Spanish court case, as far as I know not one punter has taken the bookmaker to court about closed accounts and not one legal person has ever come forward to say that this practice is illegal by the bookmakers, that probably tells you that although this practice is discrimination in all but the legal terms, and that it is unethical and immoral, the lack of legal action up to now probably tells you that the action the bookmakers are taking is legal in the courts' eyes.

Although it is clear discrimination in the true meaning, the legal meaning for discrimination is only if you're banned by a business based on the colour of your skin, your gender, your age etc, banning somebody because they are unprofitable for the business isn't defined as discrimination in a legal sense, and that's the problem.

In your case, you say that the bookmaker refuses to give a reason or just cause for rejecting your bets, but we all know the real reason that they're rejecting your bets, it's because they think you're a smart bettor, so them not giving a reason for rejecting your bets won't hold any weight, as if pushed with any legal action, the bookmaker will probably have to be honest and disclose that they've closed your account because they think you'll be unprofitable to them, it's just that if they can at all help it they don't want to disclose that they ban long term winners but they will most probably disclose the reason if forced to by legal action. So any threat of legal action will most likely flush out in public the reason they're rejecting your bets, so that'll be that issue resolved. Then it would be onto if the reason for closing your accounts that you're unprofitable for the bookmaker, if that contravenes any laws in Australia, but I expect you'd be hitting your head against a brick wall like in the UK with the current laws in that to really bring about any successful legal action for this against a bookmaker, what they are doing would have to be defined as discrimination, and banning people because they're unprofitable to the business isn't legally classed as discrimination, so I'd expect you'd be bashing your head against a brick wall for that reason.

I think in pretty much every country in the world, legal action against this issue would hit a halt because of that, so the current laws don't seem to be enough to do anything, so failing any of the big bookmakers going out on a limb and accepting bets from everybody either to try and gain market share and good PR or if their hand is forced by continuing bad press, unless that happens, it would seem that new laws or new rules would have to be brought into place by the relevant authorities to force the bookmakers to accept bets from everybody, as it doesn't seem that the existing laws and rules in any country are good enough to force the bookmakers by law to bet everybody at the moment, so new laws, rules and legislation would have to be brought in on top of the existing laws and rules in order to be effective in forcing the bookmakers to bet everybody.

I certainly hope that this investigation results in The Gambling Commission putting in such minimum bet rules, but with what's been coming out of them recently on this issue, I just can't see any real action resulting from this investigation, and let's face it the only real action would be a minimum bet rule, anything less would be pointless, but I just can't see The Gambling Commission actually having the wherewithal, the impetus, the appetite and the bottle to do what's actually required and bring in a minimum bet rule which would be the only properly worthwhile thing that could come out of this investigation, it'll probably just end in a fudge with a tickbox load of crap that makes absolutely no difference to the underlying problem whatsoever.

[JayZ]

The CMA investigation does not include the issue of limiting / closure of accounts, although there is no reason why individuals submitting their own experience cannot attempt to raise it. Certainly not stretching too much of a point to covers T&Cs of offers that appear to be open to all but an ill-defined group of people may be excluded.

Bookies never used to want cases to come to court as their T&Cs are far from watertight in a number of areas - 'palps' being one example. In many respects they still haven't come fully to terms with bets being legally enforceable contracts. No doubt they dream of being back in the days when they weren't and people had only the likes of the Sporting Life Green Seal Service to get any kind of redress.

[Hareeba!]

Yeah we're both civilised countries so I'd expect by and large the fair trading legislation to be the same.

There is a court case going on at the moment in Spain against Bet365 by a load of punters taking Bet365 to court over closed accounts (http://calvinayre.com/2016/09/15/bus...layer-lawsuit/), but it sounds more to me like a shot in the dark and whilst I obviously hope it is successful, I just can't see anything coming of it, as I think the Bet365 argument which will be that they have the right to close an account if the customer is unprofitable, I expect that would be sufficient enough for the courts to rule in Bet365' favour.

I would argue that they would need to put up a far more compelling case than simply that the "customer is unprofitable".

Some of the accounts I've had closed or severely limited have actually been in loss!

And going back to the commencement of the account I was referring to I'd be pretty sure it was also in loss. Over the past 10 years it is in profit less than 1% on sports turnover!

[luctens]

The CMA investigation does not include the issue of limiting / closure of accounts, although there is no reason why individuals submitting their own experience cannot attempt to raise it. Certainly not stretching too much of a point to covers T&Cs of offers that appear to be open to all but an ill-defined group of people may be excluded.

Bookies never used to want cases to come to court as their T&Cs are far from watertight in a number of areas - 'palps' being one example. In many respects they still haven't come fully to terms with bets being legally enforceable contracts. No doubt they dream of being back in the days when they weren't and people had only the likes of the Sporting Life Green Seal Service to get any kind of redress.

The investigation will cover the terms and conditions surrounding things like the closing of accounts, but the only difference I can see is that rather than the current situation of the clause where it says they can close your account for any reason being buried in a load of terms and conditions, it might now clearly be in a tickbox in bold writing on the registration page that you have to explicitly accept by ticking the box in order to create the account. It might cause some minor uproar that the fact that punters will clearly see in black and white that bookmakers can close your account if you're winning or whatever as that would be now front and centre on the registration page, but it won't actually change anything in real terms, as however miffed recreational players might be about ticking a box accepting that their account could be closed, they're only playing for fun anyway and not necessarily with the realistic hope that they will win any money anyway, so they'll probably just begrudgingly tick the box because it doesn't really affect them as they probably won't win in the long term anyway, and for the smart bettors such a tickbox procedure will only be formalising the procedure of accepting that the account may be closed. But in real terms, nothing will have changed in that situation, as it will simply be a case of that you must accept that bookmakers may close your account for being too smart, or you can't have an account, which is exactly the same situation as it is today, it will only mean a meaningless tickbox would have to be ticked to formalise that process.

The Gambling Commission basically seem to be saying that such an unethical and immoral practice of closing accounts is fine with them as long as the customer is explicitly made aware of the possibility that it may happen. But that's not the point, it's pretty common knowledge now that if you're too smart you'll get your account closed, so the uproar from punters isn't about the bookmakers not making it clear enough that your account may be closed, as most people know that anyway, the point is that the uproar from the punters is about the underlying practices of closing accounts and it's those practices that the punters are demanding to be stopped.

If The Gambling Commission come up with any changes along the lines of just the kind of procedural crap I've outlined, then it would be a complete fudge and make no real change to the main issue that has brought about these campaigns and protests, which is the bookmakers closing accounts and not taking bets from everybody.

[luctens]

I would argue that they would need to put up a far more compelling case than simply that the "customer is unprofitable".

Some of the accounts I've had closed or severely limited have actually been in loss!

And going back to the commencement of the account I was referring to I'd be pretty sure it was also in loss. Over the past 10 years it is in profit less than 1% on sports turnover!

I don't think the bookmaker would have to come up with anything that is any better than the "customer is unprofitable", as they wouldn't be banning you because of your race, age, gender or disability, and it's only if a company were to ban you for one of those reasons that it would be classed as discrimination in the legal sense and I think it would only really be if a bookmaker was banning for you for a reason that was defined as discrimination in the legal sense that you would then be able to successfully take them to court, but of course the bookmakers aren't stupid enough to flout the law in that way and ban you for one of those illegal reasons. The bookmakers are dodgy in a lot of their business practices, but they generally make sure they just about stay the right side of the law, as with closing accounts is obviously to anybody with common sense is a form of discrimination, but in the courts' eyes, it is most probably just about on the right side of the law from the bookmakers' point of view when it comes to any legal case. In reality, pretty much every single business in every single industry in the world has the right to ban you from them serving you for any reason, as the long as the reason isn't for one of the reasons that would be classed as illegal discrimination. But the reality is, if you go online or down the high street to make any financial transaction, purchase or whatever, it's pretty much only bookmakers that will actually turn your business away. So although the bookmakers are the pretty much the only ones that do ban customers, actually pretty much every business has the right to ban you for any reason as long as it's not for a reason for illegal discrimination, it's just that these other businesses pretty much never enforce this right.

When I was saying that the bookmaker would say that the "customer is unprofitable", of course I meant that being in the long term, in that the bookmaker would argue that although you were losing with them at the time, due to your betting patterns they forecasted that you would have a good chance of actually beating them in the long term, so I don't think the fact that any closed accounts were actually in loss would hold any weight, as bookmakers would just use that argument to say that in the long term they thought you had a good chance of beating them, hence they banned you.

Regarding the account you say you've had for 10 years that is in loss but that has been closed, the bookmakers would probably try to argue something like that in recent times over the last 2-3 years or something that they've seen signs of your betting improving and therefore they now feel you have a much better chance of beating them that you did do in the early years of your account or they would give some other argument of that sort of nature. I think the bookmakers would only have to come up with some crap reason like that as to why they banned your account to justify in the courts eyes as to why they closed your account, and as long as that reason isn't classed as one of the reasons that applies to the legal definition of discrimination, then the bookmaker would most likely get away with it.

[Hareeba!]

Regarding the account you say you've had for 10 years that is in loss but that has been closed, the bookmakers would probably try to argue something like that in recent times over the last 2-3 years or something that they've seen signs of your betting improving and therefore they now feel you have a much better chance of beating them that you did do in the early years of your account or they would give some other argument of that sort of nature. I think the bookmakers would only have to come up with some crap reason like that as to why they banned your account to justify in the courts eyes as to why they closed your account, and as long as that reason isn't classed as one of the reasons that applies to the legal definition of discrimination, then the bookmaker would most likely get away with it.

That account isn't closed. They permit me to bet on racing but reject every sports bet I ask for.

I haven't been able to bet on sports there since early last year. I did win $2800 in 2015. But lost over $10k in 2014! Smaller wins in 2012 and 2013 and another large losing year 2011. Have to go back to 2009 to find a decent winning year. So they kept taking my bets for over 4 years after that before adopting their current attitude only last year.

I think bookmakers operating under a government issued licence should have a greater obligation to serve the public than any run of the mill business you say is free to turn customers away at whim.

[luctens]

That account isn't closed. They permit me to bet on racing but reject every sports bet I ask for.

I haven't been able to bet on sports there since early last year. I did win $2800 in 2015. But lost over $10k in 2014! Smaller wins in 2012 and 2013 and another large losing year 2011. Have to go back to 2009 to find a decent winning year. So they kept taking my bets for over 4 years after that before adopting their current attitude only last year.

Well it's closed in the sports betting sense anyway, as you can't bet sports there, but whether the account is closed or restricted or whatever doesn't really make a difference, if you can't get a bet on what you want to bet on then that's the issue, rather than whether the account is formally closed or just restricted.

Simply the $2800 profit in 2015 would probably have been enough for the bookmakers' algorithms to flag up your account for restricting as these awful algorithm contraptions seem to only look at your recent betting activity, and don't seem to take into account your previous longer term betting activity. If the bookmaker simply argued that regardless of your previous 10 years activity that as you had made $2800 profit in 2015 they therefore deemed that you were likely to win off them more and more if they let you continue betting with them, they would probably get away with that kind of argument. I think that you would be hitting your head against a brick wall by the bookmakers' simply arguing that as the reason for them restricting your account isn't because of your race, age, gender or disability, then it's not discrimination in the legal sense, and therefore they're legally entitled to refuse your business.

These practices of closing and restricting people's accounts simply because the bookmakers believe that customer may win off them is obviously completely and utterly unethical and immoral, but the most important thing is that it isn't illegal, and that's the problem.

[Optional]

That account isn't closed. They permit me to bet on racing but reject every sports bet I ask for.

I haven't been able to bet on sports there since early last year. I did win $2800 in 2015. But lost over $10k in 2014! Smaller wins in 2012 and 2013 and another large losing year 2011. Have to go back to 2009 to find a decent winning year. So they kept taking my bets for over 4 years after that before adopting their current attitude only last year.

Sometimes this can happen for hitting bad lines, or simply the one bad line that happened to be a big deal to them. Just a thought.

[Hareeba!]

Well it's closed in the sports betting sense anyway, as you can't bet sports there, but whether the account is closed or restricted or whatever doesn't really make a difference, if you can't get a bet on what you want to bet on then that's the issue, rather than whether the account is formally closed or just restricted.

Simply the $2800 profit in 2015 would probably have been enough for the bookmakers' algorithms to flag up your account for restricting as these awful algorithm contraptions seem to only look at your recent betting activity, and don't seem to take into account your previous longer term betting activity. If the bookmaker simply argued that regardless of your previous 10 years activity that as you had made $2800 profit in 2015 they therefore deemed that you were likely to win off them more and more if they let you continue betting with them, they would probably get away with that kind of argument. I think that you would be hitting your head against a brick wall by the bookmakers' simply arguing that as the reason for them restricting your account isn't because of your race, age, gender or disability, then it's not discrimination in the legal sense, and therefore they're legally entitled to refuse your business. It's completely and utterly unethical and immoral, but the most important thing is that it isn't illegal, and that's the problem.

The test in the fair trading legislation is "unconscionable conduct".
You appear to agree that they are guilty of that yet say I don't stand a chance.
I'm prepared to bang my head against the wall to get a court to agree.

[luctens]

The test in the fair trading legislation is "unconscionable conduct".
You appear to agree that they are guilty of that yet say I don't stand a chance.
I'm prepared to bang my head against the wall to get a court to agree.

All I'm agreeing to is that these bookmaker practices are completely unethical and immoral, I wouldn't know for sure if it applied in the legal sense to "unconscionable conduct". All I would say is that over the last 10 years, where bookmakers have severely ramped up these closures and restrictions, not one person that I have heard of has ever even taken a bookmaker to court on this issue, let alone won on a case on it, and no legal person has ever come forward to say that these practices are illegal under "unconscionable conduct" or any other legal term for that matter. And with the backlash that has occurred in the last 10 years, I think it is very unlikely that if these practices were in fact illegal in the legal sense that this fact wouldn't have been flushed out by somebody previously.

You only have to look at all of these campaigners in the UK and Australia and elsewhere and they are campaigning for either force the bookmakers' hands into accepting bets from everybody because of the continuing bad PR, or to get the authorities to bring in new laws and rules to force bookmakers to take bets from everybody. I would have thought these people would have sought legal advice prior to their campaigns and got confirmation of if the practices are illegal or not in the first place, as if they were illegal, they would simply take the bookmaker to court rather than all of this tireless campaigning.

For example, Richard Irvine who's getting some of these Australian racing bodies on board, I'm sure if he thought the practices were illegal or had been told so on legal advice, he would have taken the bookmakers to court years ago, got a ruling that these practices are illegal and then get a full minimum bet rule in all in one go to cover all sports and states. But what he is actually doing is going around state by state for horse racing trying to get each one to sign up and then go onto the sporting authorities to try and get these minimum bet rules in sport by sport as well. So given that I would have thought Richard Irvine would have already taken legal advice on the matter, I'm sure he would simply have taken the bookmakers to court over this matter and got it solved in one fell swoop rather than having to go through each individual racing and sports authority, so the fact that Richard Irvine isn't campaigning on the basis that what the bookmakers are doing is illegal and hasn't taken the bookmakers to court, that tells me that Richard Irvine must have taken legal advice and doesn't think that a court case would be successful.

So before wasting your time on a court case that might not even have a chance in the first place, you are probably best to consult Richard Irvine (https://twitter.com/riracing) and Jimmy Justice (https://twitter.com/gondorffhenry) to see if they have already taken legal advice on the matter to see if a court case has any chance, especially relating to the "unconscionable conduct" term.

For the reasons I've outlined, I don't think there is a chance with the current laws and rules that are in place that a court case would be successful, and what I'm saying is that although you're obviously completely cheesed off like tens of thousands of people are over these bookmaker practices, there's no point just because you're cheesed off in taking the bookmakers to court for the sake of it, but if after speaking to the relevant people such as Irvine and Justice and any other legal people, if you think you have a chance of success in taking these grubby bookmakers to court, by all means go for it, the punting community would be right behind you.

[Hareeba!]

All I'm agreeing to is that these bookmaker practices are completely unethical and immoral, I wouldn't know for sure if it applied in the legal sense to "unconscionable conduct". All I would say is that over the last 10 years, where bookmakers have severely ramped up these closures and restrictions, not one person that I have heard of has ever even taken a bookmaker to court on this issue, let alone won on a case on it, and no legal person has ever come forward to say that these practices are illegal under "unconscionable conduct" or any other legal term for that matter. And with the backlash that has occurred in the last 10 years, I think it is very unlikely that if these practices were in fact illegal in the legal sense that this fact wouldn't have been flushed out by somebody previously.

You only have to look at all of these campaigners in the UK and Australia and elsewhere and they are campaigning for either force the bookmakers' hands into accepting bets from everybody because of the continuing bad PR, or to get the authorities to bring in new laws and rules to force bookmakers to take bets from everybody. I would have thought these people would have sought legal advice prior to their campaigns and got confirmation of if the practices are illegal or not in the first place, as if they were illegal, they would simply take the bookmaker to court rather than all of this tireless campaigning.

For example, Richard Irvine who's getting some of these Australian racing bodies on board, I'm sure if he thought the practices were illegal or had been told so on legal advice, he would have taken the bookmakers to court years ago, got a ruling that these practices are illegal and then get a full minimum bet rule in all in one go to cover all sports and states. But what he is actually doing is going around state by state for horse racing trying to get each one to sign up and then go onto the sporting authorities to try and get these minimum bet rules in sport by sport as well. So given that I would have thought Richard Irvine would have already taken legal advice on the matter, I'm sure he would simply have taken the bookmakers to court over this matter and got it solved in one fell swoop rather than having to go through each individual racing and sports authority, so the fact that Richard Irvine isn't campaigning on the basis that what the bookmakers are doing is illegal and hasn't taken the bookmakers to court, that tells me that Richard Irvine must have taken legal advice and doesn't think that a court case would be successful.

So before wasting your time on a court case that might not even have a chance in the first place, you are probably best to consult Richard Irvine (https://twitter.com/riracing) and Jimmy Justice (https://twitter.com/gondorffhenry) to see if they have already taken legal advice on the matter to see if a court case has any chance, especially relating to the "unconscionable conduct" term.

For the reasons I've outlined, I don't think there is a chance with the current laws and rules that are in place that a court case would be successful, and what I'm saying is that although you're obviously completely cheesed off like tens of thousands of people are over these bookmaker practices, there's no point just because you're cheesed off in taking the bookmakers to court for the sake of it, but if after speaking to the relevant people such as Irvine and Justice and any other legal people, if you think you have a chance of success in taking these grubby bookmakers to court, by all means go for it, the punting community would be right behind you.

Yeah, I hear you but note that nobody has tried it yet (other than the current case you referred me to earlier).
I've sounded out Jimmy Justice but he knew of no useful precedents.
I'll give Richard Irvine another try.
Meanwhile waiting on feedback from a couple of others.