[Mane]

I've been registered at Paddy Power for many years.

One week ago, I've placed following bets:

Eurovision Song Contest

Ireland v UK : UK @ 1.50
and
Ireland v Spain : Spain @ 1.44

"Bets void should both countries not make the final or finish with the same amount of points in the Final"

I was little bit confused knowing that Spain and UK are already in the Final (automatically qualified), so, I was asking myself what will happen if Ireland doesnt qualify

I joined Paddy Power Live Chat and asked about that, here is the screenshot:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...23/chat1-1.jpg


They confirmed, If Ireland doesn't qualify, bet would be winning one.

Ireland did not manage to qualify and bets are settled as voided.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3/fotosi123/void.jpg

I joined Live Chat again, after they have settled the bets, and asked them about that, here is screenshot:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...23/chat2-1.jpg

They told me I should wait until the next day, but I already knew they won't do anything to correct their mistake.

Then I've contacted them via e-mail and I've got following answer:

Incident ID: 219494


Dear Mr -----,

Thank you for contacting Paddy Power Customer Support.

Both countries needed to qualify in the bet to receive the winnings. Ireland in both bets didn't qualify so that is why the bet was refunded.



If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind Regards,

Alan Tarpey

Paddy Power Customer Service

It is obvious those bets should be settled as the winning ones, I tried to "explain" them, but I always get the same answer.. "I checked bets once more with the supervisor and.. blabla.."



What should I do now.. ? I will contact also IBAS tomorrow, haven't got time untill now.

Please share your opinions

Thanks

Best Regards

[Santo]

The bets were correctly settled as a void. The mistake is a CS one in the initial reply. They probably should be accountable for that; but it is the CS angle you need to pursue rather than the market settlement. "Bets void should both countries not make the final" is quite explicit.

[headgames]

As Santo says, they settled correctly and in line with the rules but the initial customer service agent just got it wrong. IBAS look at the rules and they followed the rules so no point complaining. To be fair to you though, I would personally offer some sort of free bet to apologise for the customer service error although there's no requirement to do anything but void.

[betpartners]

Agree with the last two posters, the bet were correctly voided to think otherwise is just silly.

I also agree that their customer service person needs a kick up the butt and that they could do worse than offer you a free bet of some sort as compensation.

But dont hold your breath

[shantystar]

paddy power are liars company!
they stiffed me 800 euros two years back!!!stay away from those scoundrels!

[DIF]

One of the worst companies I ever tried. They also voided a wger for me, without any reason. STAY FAR AWAY.

[shantystar]

right say worst ever seen company!

[moonbeam]

They are not that bad in my opinion, but it´s a book for the 5 Euro punters just like bet365.

The only difference is paddy dont treat their customers in this unfair way bet365 do.

I guess to void these bets was correct.

[shantystar]

paddy power reporting stopping payments for a month long period!!!

[squallsquall]

"Bets void should both countries not make the final" is quite explicit.

Imo it's not explicit at all. "Both countries" NOT "make the final" hasn't happened as I see it. I think the description has an error in wording, what they mean't to write was probably: "Bets void should not both countries make the final". Which means something completely different.

[Santo]

The wording is perfectly fine for English speakers.

Your second version is not a logical English construct.

[squallsquall]

The wording is perfectly fine for English speakers.

Your second version is not a logical English construct.

I realize there's a great risk I'm off here, as I'm not a native English speaker as you correctly point out. However, I still find it a fuzzy wording (and I'm obviously not alone, since OP, the CS-person and the other employee confirmed with all interpreted it incorrectly). Is:

"Bets void should both countries not make the final"

really the equivalent of:

"Bets void should either country not make the final" ?

Because the second sentence surely has the meaning they're after.



Also, if "should both countries not make the final" is true if just one of them fails to make the final, how would one write a similarly worded sentence that was true only if both failed to do so?

[headgames]

I can see what you're saying and they could have said "bets void unless both countries make the final" which would be more clear. What's not helped is the mistake by customer services in this matter, hence I think a free bet apology would be the way to go.

By making "bets void should both countries not make the final" a positive statement, it becomes apparent that "bets stand should both countries make the final".

It's semantics in the end and one person will read something one way and another person a different way. Personally, I would be looking for a "bets stand, run or not" term if I was going to understand the rules the way you're understanding them as that is a widely used term in such scenarios.

[squallsquall]

Since I was unsure about the English linguistics here, I took the liberty of posting the wording to an English-forum:

http://www.englishforums.com/English...wqhcl/post.htm

As we can see by the replies there, the wording wasn't just fuzzy but plain wrong. That's why OP and both their customer service personnel misunderstood the intended meaning (though to be fair, it was hinted in other ways).

Free bet is the way to go here, imo.

EDIT:

The confusion is clearly caused by the combination of BOTH and NOT in the same sentence. To clarify, we can replace the "not make it to the final" with a completely equivalent active action, like "lose the semi final" or something similar. This would make the wording:

"Bets void should both countries lose the semi final ..."

This condition has clearly not been met. Therefore, the bet should not have been voided (according to Paddy Power's wording).

[GoodOldTed]

Imo it's not explicit at all. "Both countries" NOT "make the final" hasn't happened as I see it. I think the description has an error in wording, what they mean't to write was probably: "Bets void should not both countries make the final". Which means something completely different.

you're not a native English speaker, yet you are debating what makes a proper sentence with people who speak it and write it everyday for a living. Are you George W Bush??

[squallsquall]

you're not a native English speaker, yet you are debating what makes a proper sentence with people who speak it and write it everyday for a living. Are you George W Bush??

That's why I posted the question to a forum that specifically deals with the English language. What exactly do you not comprehend? Please let me know, and I'll try to explain it to you in a way that's more easily understood.

[noyb]

you're not a native English speaker, yet you are debating what makes a proper sentence with people who speak it and write it everyday for a living. Are you George W Bush??

a large number of people who do have english as their first language and write and read it every day on this forum, have worse skills in english than the person starting this topic, so i do not think that's a relevant point.

anyway, i agree the clause Paddy Power added can be interpreted both ways. it's clear what their intention was, but it is also clear it was bad wording. either way, even if Paddy Power agrees the bet should have been valid based on that misworded clause, they can in the same sentence claim palpable error and still not pay as the odds for such a bet would have been ridiculous (ireland not qualifying was no surprise), so in the end i don't see how it all matters, since you won't get paid on the bet one way or the other.

[andywend]

you're not a native English speaker, yet you are debating what makes a proper sentence with people who speak it and write it everyday for a living. Are you George W Bush??

Hey GoodOldTed, need a ride? Your boy Teddy is doing the driving.

Buckle up, LOL.

[GoodOldTed]

a large number of people who do have english as their first language and write and read it every day on this forum, have worse skills in english than the person starting this topic, so i do not think that's a relevant point.

Yeah, but I was referring to the people who don't live in the US

[MMM]

you're not a native English speaker, yet you are debating what makes a proper sentence with people who speak it and write it everyday for a living.

English is my third language, yet I treat the English grammar and orthography with considerably more care than most native speakers.

Paddy Power used a poorly constructed criteria in this case, any other claim is nonsense. Even their customer services did not understand the criteria.