Ladbrokes refuse to honour Southampton man's £7.1m winning accumulators (From Daily Echo)

surely if the bookie took the bet then they have to pay out, its their problem if it was not meant to be placed.
they would be quick enough to honour the bet if it was he has lost

How come surely all bets should be honoured if taken?

Take it to court mate!

Unfortunately all bets are accepted under ' a gentlemens agreement ' and are therefore able to be welched on without the worry of the force of law. I would like to know the identity of the bookmakers concerned .

i bet he did the bet with some horse racing results or something. he probably knew he couldn't do it. fair plays to him for placing it. plead ignorant and take them to court! make them shell out some money, because they are at a lose-lose situation!

No bets are enforceable in a court of law

Did not read the headline only the story. Can see it was ladbrokes now.

He wont get paid out. They would have offered set odds for an accumulator of that sort, its a specialised bet.

Bookies do not have to honour bets placed and that is speaking from personal experience!.

MrWoody83 wrote:
He wont get paid out. They would have offered set odds for an accumulator of that sort, its a specialised bet. Bookies do not have to honour bets placed and that is speaking from personal experience!.

I get your drift!

Nice thorough report from The Dily Echo! Name and shame - which Branch?

if you look at the rules, snow bets for xmas day are for the following citys only, london, edinburgh, cardiff, belfast and you may add dublin. and can be betted on has a multi singles bets or accumulative of 2's, 3's, 4 and 5 if you added, or a dublin, combination of all those types of bets, and only 3 of those citys had snow on xmas day. the snow must fall on top of that city weather centre. all other locations can only be taken has a local bet and can not be in a betting form of accumulative bet, singles only and again it must fall on top of the local weather centre.
this is where he slip up.

southy wrote:
if you look at the rules, snow bets for xmas day are for the following citys only, london, edinburgh, cardiff, belfast and you may add dublin. and can be betted on has a multi singles bets or accumulative of 2's, 3's, 4 and 5 if you added, or a dublin, combination of all those types of bets, and only 3 of those citys had snow on xmas day. the snow must fall on top of that city weather centre. all other locations can only be taken has a local bet and can not be in a betting form of accumulative bet, singles only and again it must fall on top of the local weather centre.
this is where he slip up.

I take it that you know the complete details of the bet then Southy ?...... I cant see anywhere where it mentions the details of the complete bet....

Reality-man wrote:
Nice thorough report from The Dily Echo! Name and shame - which Branch?

This is quite obviously only part of the article - hence the big red letters saying "For more see today's Daily Echo."

It's a fairly big clue you have to buy the paper to see the full story...

Poor old Cliff... I bet he must be gutted..

Cyber-Fug wrote:

southy wrote:
if you look at the rules, snow bets for xmas day are for the following citys only, london, edinburgh, cardiff, belfast and you may add dublin. and can be betted on has a multi singles bets or accumulative of 2's, 3's, 4 and 5 if you added, or a dublin, combination of all those types of bets, and only 3 of those citys had snow on xmas day. the snow must fall on top of that city weather centre. all other locations can only be taken has a local bet and can not be in a betting form of accumulative bet, singles only and again it must fall on top of the local weather centre.
this is where he slip up.

I take it that you know the complete details of the bet then Southy ?...... I cant see anywhere where it mentions the details of the complete bet....

its a standard weather bet that all major bookie work by. check the bookies rule book. or ask over the counter, i have done this bet before, but stop doing this when i ask over the counter what the rules are.
and if you do this bet take fix odds, because the odds will drop if it gets really cold just before xmas, like it did with this xmas just gone.
and if you do the post code weather bet make sure that post code has a weather centre, it only takes a single snow flake to fall on the weather station, the bookie rely on report coming back from the weather centre. and if that weather centre is unmanned on xmas day they cant prove that a single snow flake has fallen on top of the weather centre.
the complete rules are very long winded, like there is a max a bookie can pay out on a single day bet.

arthur boutfaith wrote:
No bets are enforceable in a court of law

does this mean I can get a refund on my lost bets in future? bunch of crooks

southy wrote:

Cyber-Fug wrote:

southy wrote:
if you look at the rules, snow bets for xmas day are for the following citys only, london, edinburgh, cardiff, belfast and you may add dublin. and can be betted on has a multi singles bets or accumulative of 2's, 3's, 4 and 5 if you added, or a dublin, combination of all those types of bets, and only 3 of those citys had snow on xmas day. the snow must fall on top of that city weather centre. all other locations can only be taken has a local bet and can not be in a betting form of accumulative bet, singles only and again it must fall on top of the local weather centre.
this is where he slip up.

I take it that you know the complete details of the bet then Southy ?...... I cant see anywhere where it mentions the details of the complete bet....

its a standard weather bet that all major bookie work by. check the bookies rule book. or ask over the counter, i have done this bet before, but stop doing this when i ask over the counter what the rules are.
and if you do this bet take fix odds, because the odds will drop if it gets really cold just before xmas, like it did with this xmas just gone.
and if you do the post code weather bet make sure that post code has a weather centre, it only takes a single snow flake to fall on the weather station, the bookie rely on report coming back from the weather centre. and if that weather centre is unmanned on xmas day they cant prove that a single snow flake has fallen on top of the weather centre.
the complete rules are very long winded, like there is a max a bookie can pay out on a single day bet.

Did you even read what Cyber-Fug wrote? He asked if you knew the details of the bet, not the rules of betting, you mug.

jimbobbo wrote:

southy wrote:

Cyber-Fug wrote:

southy wrote:
if you look at the rules, snow bets for xmas day are for the following citys only, london, edinburgh, cardiff, belfast and you may add dublin. and can be betted on has a multi singles bets or accumulative of 2's, 3's, 4 and 5 if you added, or a dublin, combination of all those types of bets, and only 3 of those citys had snow on xmas day. the snow must fall on top of that city weather centre. all other locations can only be taken has a local bet and can not be in a betting form of accumulative bet, singles only and again it must fall on top of the local weather centre.
this is where he slip up.

I take it that you know the complete details of the bet then Southy ?...... I cant see anywhere where it mentions the details of the complete bet....

its a standard weather bet that all major bookie work by. check the bookies rule book. or ask over the counter, i have done this bet before, but stop doing this when i ask over the counter what the rules are.
and if you do this bet take fix odds, because the odds will drop if it gets really cold just before xmas, like it did with this xmas just gone.
and if you do the post code weather bet make sure that post code has a weather centre, it only takes a single snow flake to fall on the weather station, the bookie rely on report coming back from the weather centre. and if that weather centre is unmanned on xmas day they cant prove that a single snow flake has fallen on top of the weather centre.
the complete rules are very long winded, like there is a max a bookie can pay out on a single day bet.

Did you even read what Cyber-Fug wrote? He asked if you knew the details of the bet, not the rules of betting, you mug.

Back in the 70s when the roads were resurfaced every three days and those fun loving scamps in the Unions used to stop the country every week, this sort of bet was paid out in the height of summer but Mrs Thatcher changed all that when she came to power in an attempt to persecute the working class but the rich don't pay their fair share of the Council Tax.....blah, blah, blah, blah...

I know absolutely nothing about bookmakers or betting but, surely, if money has changed hands on a transaction, a contract is deemed to have taken place. It is not Cliff's fault, it's the fault of the badly trained Ladbrokes employee. Therefore, Ladbrokes have taken and broken the contract and Ladbrokes are liable. I'm sure that's how it works in every other line of business.

If you want to avoid massive payouts Ladbrokes, stop taking bets and SHUT UP SHOP or train your staff properly so you don't have disgruntled customers ever again. It's your own fault, you scheming bunch of wassanames.
PAY THE MAN WHAT YOU OWE HIM!

Reality-man wrote:
Nice thorough report from The Dily Echo! Name and shame - which Branch?

Local branch would be irrelevant as major pay-outs would be handled by Ladbrokes head office. Also, they have a maximum win/pay-out rule (which used to about £500,000), so the chances of a £7m+ pay-out are sadly zero!

The bet is unenforceable , logic would say that if it snows in Newcastle it will snow in Durham. I suspect the he was just trying to beat the system and knew it was a bet that could possibly hold up. If he wants to take it it court he has no chance of winning. But a good try!!

jimbobbo wrote:

southy wrote:

Cyber-Fug wrote:

southy wrote:
if you look at the rules, snow bets for xmas day are for the following citys only, london, edinburgh, cardiff, belfast and you may add dublin. and can be betted on has a multi singles bets or accumulative of 2's, 3's, 4 and 5 if you added, or a dublin, combination of all those types of bets, and only 3 of those citys had snow on xmas day. the snow must fall on top of that city weather centre. all other locations can only be taken has a local bet and can not be in a betting form of accumulative bet, singles only and again it must fall on top of the local weather centre.
this is where he slip up.

I take it that you know the complete details of the bet then Southy ?...... I cant see anywhere where it mentions the details of the complete bet....

its a standard weather bet that all major bookie work by. check the bookies rule book. or ask over the counter, i have done this bet before, but stop doing this when i ask over the counter what the rules are.
and if you do this bet take fix odds, because the odds will drop if it gets really cold just before xmas, like it did with this xmas just gone.
and if you do the post code weather bet make sure that post code has a weather centre, it only takes a single snow flake to fall on the weather station, the bookie rely on report coming back from the weather centre. and if that weather centre is unmanned on xmas day they cant prove that a single snow flake has fallen on top of the weather centre.
the complete rules are very long winded, like there is a max a bookie can pay out on a single day bet.

Did you even read what Cyber-Fug wrote? He asked if you knew the details of the bet, not the rules of betting, you mug.

jimbobbo are you has well lets say a none thinker like derek is,
i did read what cyber posted and if you took the time to go and check you will find there is a list of rules on the web, and if you make a bet you also agree to betting that rules that are set down, so the details of the bet will be what the rules are, and if you make a bet that falls out side the rules, then your bet is forfeited and you will lose the bet and the money that you put down on the bet. there are very few refunds in a betting shop.
i make it easy for you and derek seeing he not very bright.
if bet on 3 horses, say the day before the race.
the bet i do is 3 singles bets + 3 doubles + 1 treble total of 7 bets, but at the day of the race 1 horse is a none runner then i have forfeited on 1 single bet 1 double bet and the treble the money can not be returned for those bets its a chance that i took, but i still have the rest of the bet to go on the 4 bets that are left,
and this is what happen in this case its a multi bets where he made an error and forfeited most off his bets, and they have paid out on the bet or bets that followed the rules

jimbobbo theres been an up date, now you can check, for your self, its two bets that he made that he should not have done, postal codes weather betting on there web site clearly states its a local bet only and thats what labrokes have paid out on. he did not read the rules or he was trying to beat the system

do you think I should place a bet on the outcome of the court case?? Can anyone recomend a bookmaker??

Pay up Ladbrokes,you took the bet & as long as there proof of a Receipt with proof of the accumulator on I would of though that was it !,Im sure there’s a solicitor out there willing to take this case on !

SomersetSaint wrote:

Reality-man wrote:
Nice thorough report from The Dily Echo! Name and shame - which Branch?

Local branch would be irrelevant as major pay-outs would be handled by Ladbrokes head office. Also, they have a maximum win/pay-out rule (which used to about £500,000), so the chances of a £7m+ pay-out are sadly zero!

i said the same somersetsaint

bigronthestaff wrote:
I know absolutely nothing about bookmakers or betting but, surely, if money has changed hands on a transaction, a contract is deemed to have taken place. It is not Cliff's fault, it's the fault of the badly trained Ladbrokes employee. Therefore, Ladbrokes have taken and broken the contract and Ladbrokes are liable. I'm sure that's how it works in every other line of business.

If you want to avoid massive payouts Ladbrokes, stop taking bets and SHUT UP SHOP or train your staff properly so you don't have disgruntled customers ever again. It's your own fault, you scheming bunch of wassanames.
PAY THE MAN WHAT YOU OWE HIM!

Sorry Ron but you don't know about the law of contract either and a bet is not a contract as others here have pointed out. I had to smile at Paddy Power, only too willing to rub his rivals noses in it by "helpfully" computing the theoretical value of the accumulator. He knows full well he would not have paid out either under these circumstances.

Totton Ric wrote:
Pay up Ladbrokes,you took the bet & as long as there proof of a Receipt with proof of the accumulator on I would of though that was it !,Im sure there’s a solicitor out there willing to take this case on !

Not a chance many have tried to beat the bookies all lose, no solicitor will take it on as no win no fee case. But if he wants to pay someone and Ladbrokes costs when he loses then I'm sure a solicitor will jump at the easy money. The maximum payout is 1 million pounds as stated in the betting shop rules.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

bigronthestaff wrote: I know absolutely nothing about bookmakers or betting but, surely, if money has changed hands on a transaction, a contract is deemed to have taken place. It is not Cliff's fault, it's the fault of the badly trained Ladbrokes employee. Therefore, Ladbrokes have taken and broken the contract and Ladbrokes are liable. I'm sure that's how it works in every other line of business. If you want to avoid massive payouts Ladbrokes, stop taking bets and SHUT UP SHOP or train your staff properly so you don't have disgruntled customers ever again. It's your own fault, you scheming bunch of wassanames. PAY THE MAN WHAT YOU OWE HIM!

Sorry Ron but you don't know about the law of contract either and a bet is not a contract as others here have pointed out. I had to smile at Paddy Power, only too willing to rub his rivals noses in it by "helpfully" computing the theoretical value of the accumulator. He knows full well he would not have paid out either under these circumstances.

Andy,
I said I didn't know about the law relating to bookmakers at the begining of my post. I was hoping to be educated on it to be honest!!! =)

My point is, they took his money and, as far as other businesses are concerned, a 'contract' has been entered into. What I don't understand is why it doesn't apply to bookies. I obviously get the fact that they'd rather pay out £30 than £7m but the representative (employee) accepted the bet on Ladbrokes behalf.
Just read your post again and "a bet is not a contract". I'm not being funny but, can this be explained please? I honestly don't understand why not. Please be gentle!!! I'm thick when it comes to betting!! =)

Maybe I should just keep my head down when I don't know what I'm on about!!!!!!!!!!!! =)

Cliff..... if they do pay out I am sure you owe me for a game of pool and a pint from the Golden Lions days ;o)

bigronthestaff wrote:
Maybe I should just keep my head down when I don't know what I'm on about!!!!!!!!!!!! =)

dont keep your head, ask and keep asking it a way of learning

colinpickford1 wrote:
do you think I should place a bet on the outcome of the court case?? Can anyone recomend a bookmaker??

Hey col my old mucker not seen you in a long while, Sorry to hear of your lost while I was living in the west country for awhile.
You could try top of the hill but that,s a ladbrokes

Betting is a mugs game anyway.
The rules are always stacked in the bookies favour as are the odds, and if you do happen to come up with a "big win" there are some hidden rules somewhere that limit their maximum payout anyway.
As is noted throughout the story and the comments, betting is not enforceable in a court of law, and all bets are in fact a "gentlemen's agreement", there's only ever a possibility of one gentleman being involved, and iy's certainly not the bookie. So you're doubly screwed!

You'll never see a poor bookie, but the streets are full of poor punters. Spend your money down the pub, at least you'll have something to show for it, even if it's only a headache!

The bet is not valid end of story, If you were to go in any betting shop and request for example Saints to win, saints to win 1-0, saints to win half time and full time, Lambert to score first and saints to score first in an accumulator and saints win 1-0 with and early Lambert goal, you couldn’t possibly expect to get paid out the full odds, the bet is a related contingency. If its snowing in Leeds it’s not beyond the realms of absolute fantasy that Bradford might see snow too is it or in any of the other West Yorks locations.

The snow at Christmas bet is a bit of fun, now more no less and I think in this case has been taken advantage of by an opportunist. If Cliff Bryant expected to get 7m from this bet he has either half a brain or is trying it on. Don’t get me wrong I would love to see Ladbrokes done up, but if they paid their staff more errors accepting bets like this would be few and far between.

bigronthestaff wrote:
I know absolutely nothing about bookmakers or betting but, surely, if money has changed hands on a transaction, a contract is deemed to have taken place. It is not Cliff's fault, it's the fault of the badly trained Ladbrokes employee. Therefore, Ladbrokes have taken and broken the contract and Ladbrokes are liable. I'm sure that's how it works in every other line of business.

If you want to avoid massive payouts Ladbrokes, stop taking bets and SHUT UP SHOP or train your staff properly so you don't have disgruntled customers ever again. It's your own fault, you scheming bunch of wassanames.
PAY THE MAN WHAT YOU OWE HIM!

If a pay clerk in your employer's pay section made a mistake that resulted in them paying you £1m your employer would be perfectly entitled to ask for the money back because it was a palpable error. The law would back him. However, as others have said, bets are not enforceable in law but all bookmakers will stand by the decision of an independent arbiter and the first thing that the arbiter will do is look at the bookmaker's rules. The bet should not have been accepted. It was a palpable error. People do make mistakes and £7m would have been a very expensive one. He would never have been paid £7m anyway since all bookies have maximum daily payouts.

A lot of you need to get with the times - under the Gambling Act 2005 a bet is now an enforceable contract.

But as has been correctly pointed out above, each of the events are not mutually exclusive, and so an accumulator-type bet should never have been accepted.

Ladbrokes have only got themselves to blame for this bad publicity, by paying such low wages that they end up with staff who lack the knowledge to do the job properly.

Hi Ron, the law of contract is one of the oldest and most comprehensive areas of civil law because it is the basis of all commerce. One of the most fundamental aspects of any contract is that there has to be clear and mutually understood "consideration" ie you give me something (usually money) and I give you something in return (goods or services). The problem with a bet is that it is conditional on an uncertain future outcome which means that it needs its own set of laws and rules, plus money on its own is not a "good" and that is all that transacts between the parties.
The law has been tightened to stop welching and a good thing too, but gambling law and contract law should be two separate things. TBH in legal terms this is more to do with the law of negligence, not contract. (Is the employer liable for the negligence of an employee). In this case the employer can argue that he had taken "reasonable precautions" which the assistant failed to read. It would not be worth taking to court - bookies have very good lawyers!

Anyone in the betting industry would tell you this is a no-brainer and would never be paid.
You couldn't put an accumulator of Rickie Lambert scoring first goal before half-time, Saints winning at half-time, Rickie being last goal scorer, Saints winning at full-time etc as all linked and if one happens likelihood is the other will just like snowfall across regions. Pains me to agree with Ladbrokes but even Cliff couldn't have thought £7.1m was that easy to come by and don't waste any money on litigation

Bassett Boy wrote:
Betting is a mugs game anyway.
The rules are always stacked in the bookies favour as are the odds, and if you do happen to come up with a "big win" there are some hidden rules somewhere that limit their maximum payout anyway.
As is noted throughout the story and the comments, betting is not enforceable in a court of law, and all bets are in fact a "gentlemen's agreement", there's only ever a possibility of one gentleman being involved, and iy's certainly not the bookie. So you're doubly screwed!

You'll never see a poor bookie, but the streets are full of poor punters. Spend your money down the pub, at least you'll have something to show for it, even if it's only a headache!

Apologies Pablo - you had basically already written my comment although i obviously hadn't read at time of posting. Funny we both used the same Lambert/Saints example as well!

The quote attributed to me in incorrect.For hundreds of years bets were unenforceable in law. In the event that the losing party failed to pay the winner could not enforce that debt through the courts as a matter of public policy. This changed with the Gambling Act 2005 introduced in 2007 so gambling debts are now enforceable like any other contract although gaming contracts may still be void like any other contract where for example there is mistake, lack of intention to enter legal relations or illegality.

Whether Mr Bryant has a claim will depend upon the terms of the contract which I have not yet seen and the circumstances of the alleged mistake. The devil is in the detail. I can certainly understand Mr Bryant's frustration and disappointment.