William Hill's

[conyoviejo]

Refusing to pay out on a large bet due to technicality.. Poor do for the two guys who put it on,not like it would bankrupt William Hills..

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-le ... 0-20541244" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[arise_sir_charge]

I have heard of this happening before.

I wonder how many times over the years bookies have realised their error and paid back the stake on similar losing bets?

[ChrisG]

I'm not expert, but wouldn't a double for say, Aguero top scorer and City to win the league be considered the same? I know folk who have had these paid out before.

[slw]

If they'd have done that bet online it wouldn't have been accepted.
I've tried to do doubles online and they havent been accepted because of one bet being related to another outcome.
Shop staff should have explained the rules better before allowing it to be placed or known the rules better themselves.

[theroyaldyche]

Looks like the shop staff member is about 5 yrs old with that writing

[MACCA]

Ahh small print, our rules and human error. Great get out clauses.

Not surprising though from multi million pound establishments. Quite happy to take the bets, but not happy to pay out

How many punters will have thrown away slips if only 1 part is up thinking it's lost, when really it was 2 singles.

[slw]

Also why do bookies allow scorecast bets. ie Chris Wood to score first goal and Burnley to win 2-0. Surely these bets are related aswell as the first one has an influence on the second.

[Tall Paul]

Also why do bookies allow scorecast bets. ie Chris Wood to score first goal and Burnley to win 2-0. Surely these bets are related aswell as the first one has an influence on the second.

Because they set the odds for scorecasts differently (and significantly lower) than if you'd put the two bets on as a double.

[FactualFrank]

They accepted the bet so should be made to pay out. I wonder if anybody will take a 'no win no fee' case for them.

[slw]

Because they set the odds for scorecasts differently (and significantly lower) than if you'd put the two bets on as a double.

fair point - but dont think they'd allow it as a double. They just make up their own rules to suit them as usual.

[MarkGreen]

not like it would bankrupt William Hills

I bet you're one of them who call our number 13, Hendricks...

[dsr]

They accepted the bet so should be made to pay out. I wonder if anybody will take a 'no win no fee' case for them.

Betting winnings aren't enforceable in English law. Bookies are legally entitled to refuse to pay out every bet they take.

Surprisingly for such a dodgy business, it's based on trust. If the bookie can't be trusted, they won't get people betting with them. So for £23,000, William Hill have bought large amounts of publicity that says "don't trust William Hill, they don't pay their bets". Not sure it was worth the money.

[Tall Paul]

fair point - but dont think they'd allow it as a double. They just make up their own rules to suit them as usual.

You're right, they don't allow it as a double and they shouldn't have taken this bet as a double either.

Betting winnings aren't enforceable in English law. Bookies are legally entitled to refuse to pay out every bet they take.

Surprisingly for such a dodgy business, it's based on trust. If the bookie can't be trusted, they won't get people betting with them. So for £23,000, William Hill have bought large amounts of publicity that says "don't trust William Hill, they don't pay their bets". Not sure it was worth the money.

That hasn't been the case for over ten years. The Gambling Act 2005 made gambling debts enforceable.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Will Hill are notorious for it.

[dsr]

You're right, they don't allow it as a double and they shouldn't have taken this bet as a double either.



That hasn't been the case for over ten years. The Gambling Act 2005 made gambling debts enforceable.

Either way, they don't want to lose trust. It would sit better if they had chased them up before they tried to claim the winnings - they have had the book on the record for 9 months; when did they first offer the punters their money back? And how many similar losing bets have they pocketed without any thought of cancelling them?

If the debt is legally enforceable (thanks for that) then Hills are on very sticky terms indeed. In most financial transactions the customer is entitled to believe that the vendor knows what he is selling, and in case of doubt there are various laws that enforce the substance of the deal. It's hard for the professional to use his own ignorance of his own rules to void a contract with a customer. (Or if it's not, it ought to be.)

[conyoviejo]

I bet you're one of them who call our number 13, Hendricks...

And Woods

[Transpennine]

I bet you're one of them who call our number 13,Hendricks...[/quote]

And Woods

How much do you want to bet? Sounds like a good double...

[evensteadiereddie]

Peters for a treble ?

[Greenmile]

Either way, they don't want to lose trust. It would sit better if they had chased them up before they tried to claim the winnings - they have had the book on the record for 9 months; when did they first offer the punters their money back? And how many similar losing bets have they pocketed without any thought of cancelling them?

If the debt is legally enforceable (thanks for that) then Hills are on very sticky terms indeed. In most financial transactions the customer is entitled to believe that the vendor knows what he is selling, and in case of doubt there are various laws that enforce the substance of the deal. It's hard for the professional to use his own ignorance of his own rules to void a contract with a customer. (Or if it's not, it ought to be.)

I haven’t been in a bookies for years but I’d imagine that if the rules are prominently displayed, then WH would be ok legally.

As you say though, the bad publicity will probably end up costing them a lot more than just paying out (unless it’s true that no publicity is bad publicity).

[claretnproud]

It leaves a bad taste when these things happen but it is a related bet and not a straight double. They should have insisted on the staff ringing head office for a price. Most bookies would know how much of a reduction this would be percentage wise and as it was a staff error (palp) then maybe pay the lads say 1/2 the payout which would be much better than 2 singles.
The bookies take these bets that lose more often than not and no punters go and ask for their money back if the double fails.
perhaps try it yourself and if one of selections wins then go and get paid for the single.

[tim_noone]

Take the money....£1.700 each a bird in the hand.

[dsr]

It leaves a bad taste when these things happen but it is a related bet and not a straight double. They should have insisted on the staff ringing head office for a price. Most bookies would know how much of a reduction this would be percentage wise and as it was a staff error (palp) then maybe pay the lads say 1/2 the payout which would be much better than 2 singles.
The bookies take these bets that lose more often than not and no punters go and ask for their money back if the double fails.
perhaps try it yourself and if one of selections wins then go and get paid for the single.

Why would they? There is no other line of business where it's expected that the customer has to know more than the staff. And I wouldn't call it a palpable error, because it's not so obvious that anyone can see it is wrong - it took 9 months for Hills to see it was wrong, so to expect a customer to recognise it in 30 seconds is unrealistic.

[claretnproud]

Why would they? There is no other line of business where it's expected that the customer has to know more than the staff. And I wouldn't call it a palpable error, because it's not so obvious that anyone can see it is wrong - it took 9 months for Hills to see it was wrong, so to expect a customer to recognise it in 30 seconds is unrealistic.

its been my experience that a palp is a mistake that a bookies employee makes. So this is written into the bookies terms and conditions which puts the onus on the punter to know their bets and not the employee who could be handling any number of bets. The point is that it was a related bet and the odds should have been reduced at the till when bet was struck. A fair compromise would be to pay the double at the related odds price and not 2 singles which is quite frankly taking the p1ss. Arbitrage could sort out the related odds double price or a qualified 3rd party.

[IanMcL]

Poor form by the bookie.