player hits it big at Betfred and then told he didn't qualify for the free play

**eachwayplease** · 02-02-09, 09:14 PM

Betfred are out of order here. The £1,000 win should stand. If the bonus was incorrect then Fred is reasonably entitled to deduct £50 from the balance.

**tomcowley** · 02-02-09, 09:19 PM

What a joke. Have fun with the regulators. With crap like this and totesport, is it reasonable to reexamine every english book? It's C- to play games and then do the right thing, it's D- to just steal and refuse to talk.

**eachwayplease** · 02-02-09, 09:22 PM

Fred is something like a B+ book on balance. The player will get his money eventually even if he has to take it the courts.

At least the UK industry is regulated. Offshore books are a law unto themselves, even the so-called A+ versions.

**tomwakefield** · 02-03-09, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by eachwayplease

Fred is something like a B+ book on balance. The player will get his money eventually even if he has to take it the courts.

Would they though?

From what it seems, Betfred are just applying the rules, albeit unreasonably strictly.

The player didn't qualify for a bonus, as he didn't fulfil the criteria. He was accidentally awarded one in error anyway. Betfred noticed and voided the bet. There is no question of which bet was placed with the bonus because it is kept in a seperate balance.

The key thing that Betfred has against them is that it was voided after the result was known - something that I'm always extremely cynical of - and I'm confident that, had it lost, Betfred wouldn't have returned the freebet to him stating their error. Had it been voided before the match, I would have no problem with the situation, other than a bit unfortunate and Fred needs to sort out his software.

Refusing to speak to SBR is just a bad move.

In balance, I agree that the winnings should be paid out, I'm just not convinced it's as black and white as others seem to think it is.

**jayc88** · 02-03-09, 07:55 AM

books treating their players like shit should be downgraded immediatly ,
i'm sick of these b graded books which are consistently cheating on their customers

**Brummie** · 02-03-09, 08:48 AM

Betfred have a bad reputation here in the UK. They have betting shops but don't show 50% of the racing on the TV so the shops are deserted most of the time. Unfortunately although the are regulated in the UK by the Gambling Commission dispute arbitration is done by a body called IBAS, which is funded by the bookmakers themselves. You virtually never hear of any punter winning at IBAS. I have a dispute with Betfred at the moment which has gone to IBAS. If I don't win there, I am going to take the matter to court, which we can do in the UK now, under the new Gambing Act.

**Brummie** · 02-03-09, 08:52 AM

Actually I've just remembered that Betfred has moved to Gibraltar so is no longer regukated in the UK.

**eachwayplease** · 02-03-09, 08:57 AM

Ah yes that's a spanner in the works. Another approach that is almost certain to work is a letter to the "Racing Post." Fred cheated me on a golf bet a while back. The sports betting editor personally intervened and I was paid out without further ado.

**katstale** · 02-03-09, 11:33 AM

Even back in the casino ho heyday, this place was considered rogue by players in the know. Just check threads here any week and see numerous complaints all the time. Not a place to waste your time. Plenty of places better.

**Karla** · 02-03-09, 12:18 PM

That was unreasonable.. why is it when members are getting lucky, books will find way to stop from getting it?? Isn't that unfair?

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 02-03-09, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Karla

That was unreasonable.. why is it when members are getting lucky, books will find way to stop from getting it??

Because they figure nobody will hear about it, thus they can steal whenever the excuse presents itself with no real cost to their reputation.

**Ortho** · 02-03-09, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by tomwakefield

Would they though?

From what it seems, Betfred are just applying the rules, albeit unreasonably strictly.

No. If they refused to grant the freeplay in the first place because one of the wagers didn't qualify or whatever, that would be just applying the rules, albeit unreasonably strictly.

This is awarding a promotion for £50 in error, waiting to see if it wins or not, then looking for a reason not to pay after it does. If the play loses, they never check to see if the qualifying bets were properly made. I am certain that they dont have rules allowing them to do this. Once they granted action on the massive £50 freeplay, even in error, they are stuck with the consequences. This is shot-taking.

On another note, I wonder if this is someone who scalped the other side and is now out of pocket?