Interesting story. Wasn't aware bookies have a no third party rule as well!!!
Her lawyers contend that the wording of such a ‘no third party rule’ clause effectively means that “the husband who puts a bet on the winner of X-factor for his wife, or on the winner of the Grand National, would have those winnings ‘robbed’ of him.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... g_share_tw
Teenager takes bet365 to court over £1m
I think she wins. Fairly surprised Bet365 want to open the can of worms..
Likely the judge will tell them to reword conditions etc..
Likely the judge will tell them to reword conditions etc..
I hope she wins - once a bookie takes a bet they should ALWAYS have to pay out if it wins - too late afterwards to cry foul for ANY reasons - had the bet lost they wouldn't be saying 'we think a third party is involved so here's your money back'. A bet is a binding contract and using unfair terms and conditions won't stand up in court. I hope they also get fined an equal amount!
If its found in Bet365s favour then that would surly have to open the floodgates to people asking for refunds of their losing bets on the grounds a 'friend' or 'family' member placed the bet for them - a clear breach of Bet365 T&C's therefore it should be voided!
i'm sure many of us have benefitted from *short term loans* from family and friends. i'm honestly not sure how a court would be able to establish that her funds were not loaned monies. flimsy....Dallas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:06 pmIf its found in Bet365s favour then that would surly have to open the floodgates to people asking for refunds of their losing bets on the grounds a 'friend' or 'family' member placed the bet for them - a clear breach of Bet365 T&C's therefore it should be voided!
She wasn't messing about either, £26k worth of permed each way lucky 15s!
Surely that must have arroused suspicion when it was first placed. The bet could have easily been declined or offered to a much restricted stake. If they accepted the bet, they should have to pay out.
Surely that must have arroused suspicion when it was first placed. The bet could have easily been declined or offered to a much restricted stake. If they accepted the bet, they should have to pay out.
Yes, perhaps this is the issue. £26k of bets for a 19 year-old is a staggering bet, but you also have to ask the question "where does a 19 year-old get £26k?" - perhaps on investigation, it became clear to Bet365 that she was connected to somebody else, that is either banned from Bet365, or somebody who is a known criminal
That's what I was thinking, surely that bet was referred to traders.
The only thing I can think is if there was a glitch in the system where if she put on all the bets individually that they would sneak under the radar. As it would have been £390 for each individual lucky, maybe they knew that was the amount they could get through without referral to trading.
But even then, surely there were some sort of alerts after the first few were placed, some were bad e/w too which usually means limits are even tighter.
Be interesting to see what happens.
The only thing I can think is if there was a glitch in the system where if she put on all the bets individually that they would sneak under the radar. As it would have been £390 for each individual lucky, maybe they knew that was the amount they could get through without referral to trading.
But even then, surely there were some sort of alerts after the first few were placed, some were bad e/w too which usually means limits are even tighter.
Be interesting to see what happens.
I'm not sure about the staking actually, it says in the report 960 lucky 13 e/w lucky fifteens, though I think that might means £26 total stake, not unit. So maybe that is how they slipped through as the unit state was much smaller.
Out of interest, do you have the graph for Mr.Right from the 830 Naas, 22/06/2016? That was the last leg. I see it went from 6/1 to 11/4 on course.
Out of interest, do you have the graph for Mr.Right from the 830 Naas, 22/06/2016? That was the last leg. I see it went from 6/1 to 11/4 on course.